The OP is trying to save for retirement, when I think he's assuming he will have zero income. Slashing expenses and living frugally is always a good idea. But if you're trying to save up a nest egg, you can't cut your way to savings.
I think the idea is to save the money that you cut? If your income stays the same but your monthly expenses drop $x per month, that would be the same savingswise as earning x dollars more per month and keeping your expenses the same.
Ain't no law that says you have to spend everything you earn.
I'm with you on that. But if your goal is to have savings set aside so that one day you can afford to live on those savings (in "retirement"), then savings alone won't get you there. you need to have actual savings.
Ok, yes I get what you're saying now. Trim expenses and pocket the incremental short-term savings into longer-term savings. Sure that can work every bit as much as finding additional income assuming expenses don't change. My tautology referred to different usages of the word "savings". In one case it referred to saving money on something, vs. storing money in a long-term savings account. The problem with English is that savings is used in different contexts here. But yes you're right!
