ACA Plan with 0 Premium

[coppertop]

I am retiring next week.  We were able to secure an ACA plan with 0 premium. Husband was telling a relative about this and the relative hit the roof.  How dare we have 0 premium when he has to pay through the nose yada yada yada???  I told husband to stop talking about it to people.  We won't apologize for having saved up enough money to retire ahead of most of the people we know.  This relative is a guy who says he will never be able to retire because of all the debt he has incurred. 

[VoteCthulu]

Congrats!

Hopefully your financial stability doesn’t hinge on getting subsidized healthcare, since who knows how long it might be available. Some people get very upset at freeloaders, so I'd probably do as you suggest and simply not talk about it.

[sol]

at freeloaders, so I'd probably do as you suggest and simply not talk about it.

Let's reign in the side eye a little bit.  No family in the country is getting anywhere near as much free healthcare from the government as the wealthiest families get in tax deductions for their private yachts and airplanes.

The GOP tax plan is going to give an average of $380,000 per year in tax breaks to the families in the top 0.1% income bracket, and you're casting moral aspersions on families of prudent savers who get $12k in subsidized insurance premiums?  I wouldn't be able to get out of bed each morning if I had to carry around that much hypocrisy.

[BTDretire]

Sol, On the other hand, you do realize that getting money from the government, is not the same as the government taking less of your hard earned money away from you.

[sol]

Sol, On the other hand, you do realize that getting money from the government, is not the same as the government taking less of your hard earned money away from you.

The obvious counterargument here is that you do realize you don't actually have any hard earned money of your own that wasn't made available to you by your government's investment in infrastructure, resource development, public education, market regulation, and security and enforcement? 

If you've made a fortune, it is only because your government has spent money to help you make it, and keep it.  Your wealth comes with an inherent debt to the systems you utilized to earn that wealth, which would not exist and will not exist without taxation and government investment.  If you then use tax breaks to reduce our eliminate your tax burden, you have found a way to avoid repaying the debt you owe, and you are a freeloader.

[BTDretire]

BTDretire here. aka freeloader.
 I have avoided the ACA, because I didn't think it would last and I was happy
with my Grandfathered in Health Insurance plan. It went from $4,300 to $11,232 since the ACA regulations started.
  Now That I'm paying $11,232 for my family of 4, I'm not so happy.
I could probably save $7k a year if I took advantage of the subsidy.
Since you've convinced me I'm a freeloader, I'll get more serious about the ACA.
                         Thanks

[NeonPegasus]

I am retiring next week.  We were able to secure an ACA plan with 0 premium. Husband was telling a relative about this and the relative hit the roof.  How dare we have 0 premium when he has to pay through the nose yada yada yada???  I told husband to stop talking about it to people.  We won't apologize for having saved up enough money to retire ahead of most of the people we know.  This relative is a guy who says he will never be able to retire because of all the debt he has incurred.

I am of two minds about this. On one hand, good on you for being able to retire early and have so few costs that the income you pull for retirement is low enough that you get subsidies. On the other hand, you are using your financial largess to allow you to qualify for benefits designed to help those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum. I mean, if you could qualify for food stamps, would taking those benefits be cool?

So, yeah, at the very least, don't brag about it. And it'll probably be a moot point after 2018 anyway.

[VoteCthulu]

at freeloaders, so I'd probably do as you suggest and simply not talk about it.

Let's reign in the side eye a little bit. 

My turn of phrase was meant to be descriptive rather than judgmental. If there's a better term to describe benefitting from government subsidies that were not meant to help people in your situation I'll certainly use it.

My moral philosophy is that the government sets up the rules, and if you follow those rules you should get the benefits. If they choose the rules poorly, then that's the government's fault. Others think differently, and that's fine with me.

[Miss Prim]

Waiting for the ACA to evolve into means testing for the subsidy.  My SIL can live on very little money coming in and she is heavily subsidized by the government for her health insurance, yet she has well over 2 mil in investments plus a house and 1/2 of a cottage she owns with us.  I, on the other hand can not live the way she does and because we have sold some assets (rental house) have not qualified for a subsidy for 2 years now. 

SIL is a great saver, but she is having trouble spending.  I really think with the limited resources for health care subsidies, they should do means testing, but that is my personal opinion for what it is worth.

                                                                           Miss Prim

[Mustache ride]

at freeloaders, so I'd probably do as you suggest and simply not talk about it.

Let's reign in the side eye a little bit.  No family in the country is getting anywhere near as much free healthcare from the government as the wealthiest families get in tax deductions for their private yachts and airplanes.

The GOP tax plan is going to give an average of $380,000 per year in tax breaks to the families in the top 0.1% income bracket, and you're casting moral aspersions on families of prudent savers who get $12k in subsidized insurance premiums?  I wouldn't be able to get out of bed each morning if I had to carry around that much hypocrisy.

Just because someone else gets more or does more of something doesn't mean what you're doing is okay. If you steal $20 dollars you are just as guilty as someone who steals $200,000. I'm not here to judge, and I would take the subsidy too because it's available to me, but don't act like it's not taking advantage of a system that's suppose to benefit the less fortunate. If you're going to do it though, at least have the balls to freely admit you are taking advantage of it and not blame other people.

[jim555]

If you look at it like they are taking my money (taxation is theft), then why not look at it like you are recovering the property they stole from you.  I will never come close to what they took from me over the decades.

[lemonlyman]

Having a low enough income to qualify is still having a low income. For example, families who live under $30,000 per year are living a "poor" lifestyle in the general public's mind no matter how much money they have invested. The difference between having to work and not having to work for $30,000 is irrelevant. It qualifies as "less fortunate" to pretty much everyone else. "No fancy car? No huge house? What do you mean you prefer Aldi to Whole Foods? No way I'd live like that." So no, I don't consider it taking advantage of the system. If someone balloons up their lifestyle and needs more income to pay for it, then their health care bill with increase too. In my mind, it's working as intended.

[frugalnacho]

I don't understand why some people think you are a "free loader" or are mis using the system by using it exactly to the letter of the law that was written.  If they didn't intend for someone in coppertop's position to utilize the subsidies, then why did they write the law exactly that way for him to qualify?

[GuitarStv]

at freeloaders, so I'd probably do as you suggest and simply not talk about it.

Let's reign in the side eye a little bit.  No family in the country is getting anywhere near as much free healthcare from the government as the wealthiest families get in tax deductions for their private yachts and airplanes.

The GOP tax plan is going to give an average of $380,000 per year in tax breaks to the families in the top 0.1% income bracket, and you're casting moral aspersions on families of prudent savers who get $12k in subsidized insurance premiums?  I wouldn't be able to get out of bed each morning if I had to carry around that much hypocrisy.

Just because someone else gets more or does more of something doesn't mean what you're doing is okay. If you steal $20 dollars you are just as guilty as someone who steals $200,000. I'm not here to judge, and I would take the subsidy too because it's available to me, but don't act like it's not taking advantage of a system that's suppose to benefit the less fortunate. If you're going to do it though, at least have the balls to freely admit you are taking advantage of it and not blame other people.

Comparing an illegal activity (theft) to taking advantage of a government program legally available to you is nonsense.  One is explicitly breaking the laws of the land, and one is explicitly following them.  A more reasonable comparison would be the one sol talked about . . . where people are taking advantage of every loophole and deduction they can to maximize wealth.

The system isn't supposed to benefit the less fortunate.  It's supposed to benefit exactly the people that the wording of the law said it's supposed to benefit.  If that turns out to be unpalatable to most people it will be voted on and changed in the future.

[VoteCthulu]

I don't understand why some people think you are a "free loader" or are mis using the system by using it exactly to the letter of the law that was written.  If they didn't intend for someone in coppertop's position to utilize the subsidies, then why did they write the law exactly that way for him to qualify?

Because the people who write the tax laws aren't perfect, and even if they were there are often enforcement problems with additional restrictions.

This is the same situation as rich people and corporations taking advantage of tax loopholes. Does that make them evil? I don't think so. Should the government try to fix the law so that those who weren't meant to receive those benefits no longer qualify? I think so, but sometimes that's difficult or impossible, and there may well be more important problems to fix.

[TexasRunner]

This is a very interesting thread / concept / reality of AC that I had never noticed.
Posting to follow.

As far as the OP is concerned, no I wouldn't talk about it (or FIRE status, or finances) publicly.  Too many side-effects of becoming transparent with the.... "unenlightened".

I try to help steer people the right direction (IMO), but I don't generally reveal details about savings/FIRE, and I would consider ACA subsidies to be included in that.

Interesting situation, however.

[jpdx]

OP, congrats on your retirement!

No sense in worrying about the moral ambiguity, because the rules are quite clear. ACA subsidies are determined each year by your modified adjusted gross income. End of story.

[Bicycle_B]

No guilt about using ACA subsidies.  Following the tax laws to most advantageous effect is the right of every American.  Even the Supreme Court said so.  It's a basic principle of tax planning.  Google tax avoidance vs tax evasion.

[kpd905]

If they were called an ACA tax credit, I don't think there would be as much guilt/animosity about taking them.  The term subsidy conjures up negative connotations around here.

If you are itemizing your taxes with mortgage interest/property tax, you have subsidized housing.  Will you reject that deduction and pay the extra tax in order to avoid being a freeloader?

[sherr]

I don't understand why some people think you are a "free loader" or are mis using the system by using it exactly to the letter of the law that was written.  If they didn't intend for someone in coppertop's position to utilize the subsidies, then why did they write the law exactly that way for him to qualify?

Because the people who write the tax laws aren't perfect, and even if they were there are often enforcement problems with additional restrictions.

This is the same situation as rich people and corporations taking advantage of tax loopholes. Does that make them evil? I don't think so. Should the government try to fix the law so that those who weren't meant to receive those benefits no longer qualify? I think so, but sometimes that's difficult or impossible, and there may well be more important problems to fix.

In this case it's not that its an accident or difficult to "fix", it's that "fixing" it would require an entirely different tax paradigm. When it comes to taxes / subsidies / credits / whatever, the government only cares about income, not wealth. It's entirely possible to change the system so that things are based on wealth instead, but that would make a lot of rich people very very unhappy so it's never going to happen.

I agree with everyone else saying it is not immoral to take advantage of the tax system as written. It is in fact prudent. It may be possible to go too far in some extreme cases, but I think this is not one of them. If "fixing" the "loophole" is being blocked by the ultra-rich, then "taking advantage" of the "loophole" as a non-ultra-rich person is perfectly moral.

Edit: I do think it is wise to not advertise it though. People can be very sensitive about money issues in general, especially if they think you're getting a better deal or an unfair advantage or something.

[sol]

People can be very sensitive about money issues in general, especially if they think you're getting a better deal or an unfair advantage or something.

My employer pays for 75% of my health insurance premiums.  I am TOTALLY taking that unfair advantage.

Of course they also pay me less than market rate salary to compensate for this benefit, so it kind of works out.  That's how all of these things work.  In the case of ACA subsidies, remember that your premiums are being covered, in part, because you have found a place in the economy that does not pay you very much.  If our economy rewarded you with more money, you'd get less subsidy.  The whole thing is designed this way on purpose, to prevent children and the elderly of dying in the streets while still encouraging healthy people to work and earn more.

[jim555]

Lots of states have studied income and asset testing for their programs and have come to the conclusion that the added administrative requirements, complexity, and negative social effects of an asset test are not worth it.  There may be a few edge cases that get through but it is minuscule in the big picture.

Also remember that people are expected to save for retirement and if you were to put some asset test in place it would need to rise up by age.  You don't want to bankrupt people before they can retire.  It is not like elderly Medicaid where all assets are drawn down before it kicks in.

[brooklynguy]

My employer pays for 75% of my health insurance premiums.  I am TOTALLY taking fair of that unfair advantage.

Plus, that portion of your compensation is not taxed.  Government subsidization of employer-sponsored health insurance plans in that manner eclipses total government expenditures on ACA premium tax credits and cost sharing subsidies by a tremendous margin.

[BTDretire]

If they were called an ACA tax credit, I don't think there would be as much guilt/animosity about taking them.  The term subsidy conjures up negative connotations around here.

If you are itemizing your taxes with mortgage interest/property tax, you have subsidized housing.  Will you reject that deduction and pay the extra tax in order to avoid being a freeloader?

  Again,  it's not the same,  keeping your own money (deducting mortgage interest), vs recieving other people's money to pay your healthcare bill.
 That said, I could live with myself if I found myself in that position. If I wasn't afraid of losing access to my grandfathered policy, I probably would have already collected $40k of hard earned taxpayer money.

[MaaS]

While you shouldn't feel guilty about taking the subsidy, but like you told your husband, it's probably not a great idea to talk about.

There's a lot of middle class people in this country who are seeing their premiums skyrocket for awful plans. In some markets, there's only one provider left.  "Blowing up" is a little much, but I don't blame your relative for being irritated by that story.

[NaturallyHappier]

I have the same situation as the original poster.  I use money from my after tax savings (money I initially paid a very high 25 to 30% federal tax on) to effectively keep my income below 400% of poverty or $64,000.  The choice is to pay $1,300 a month ($15,600/year) for ACA insurance by going over the 64K and living a little less frugally, or live a little more frugally and save $15,600 a year.  I choose to save.  These are the rules the government set up.  I am just living within them. 

I also pay $0 federal income tax because the majority of my income is capital gains and dividends on my after tax savings I withdraw.  The tax law says that there is no tax as long as I stay below the $72,000 AGI to stay in the 15% tax bracket. 

I feel no guilt.  I am just being smart managing my money and taking advantage of the opportunities that are available to save.

The ACA does limit my roth conversions that I need to reduce future RMDs, but the healthcare savings are just to valuable.

[sol]

The ACA does limit my roth conversions that I need to reduce future RMDs, but the healthcare savings are just to valuable.

This is the exact same reason I'm still considering paying off my mortgage after retirement, against all of the forum's collective advice.  If I can get my income low enough, I'll qualify for an extra $12k/year in subsidies for our health insurance.  I don't think I can get it low enough after Roth conversions if I still have to pay my mortgage every month, and it's not like the mortgage interest is going to be deductible next year anyway.

[Monkey Uncle]

If they were called an ACA tax credit, I don't think there would be as much guilt/animosity about taking them.  The term subsidy conjures up negative connotations around here.

If you are itemizing your taxes with mortgage interest/property tax, you have subsidized housing.  Will you reject that deduction and pay the extra tax in order to avoid being a freeloader?

  Again,  it's not the same,  keeping your own money (deducting mortgage interest), vs recieving other people's money to pay your healthcare bill.
 That said, I could live with myself if I found myself in that position. If I wasn't afraid of losing access to my grandfathered policy, I probably would have already collected $40k of hard earned taxpayer money.

How is that any different from the child tax credit?  If you take that, you're receiving other people's money to help raise your children.  Or the EITC?  You're getting other people's money to augment your income (regardless of how big your assets might be).  Same as any other tax credit or deduction (including the mortgage deduction) - you're getting help from other taxpayers to encourage something that the government decided is desirable.  I don't see anyone declaring that it is morally deplorable to claim these other credits or deductions for which you may be eligible.

[coppertop]

OP here.  I would like to add that I am 62 years old and will be living partially from Social Security.  I started working when I was 15 years old, as did my husband, who is 58 and no longer working.  We have paid in plenty of taxes over the years and I feel no guilt for now being able to reap a bit of what we have sown.  I paid into unemployment tax for years and never collected on that at all.  My mom paid into Social Security for many years and then died at age 50; my father got whatever the meager "lump sum" payment was in 1980 and my youngest sister collected benefits for two months before turning 18.  The rest of her SS tax and Medicare tax stayed in the government coffers.  The government has gotten plenty of money from my family over the years that did not directly benefit any of us.  So if we are able to get a bit of help now, it's all good as far as I am concerned. 

[jlcnuke]

If they were called an ACA tax credit, I don't think there would be as much guilt/animosity about taking them.  The term subsidy conjures up negative connotations around here.

If you are itemizing your taxes with mortgage interest/property tax, you have subsidized housing.  Will you reject that deduction and pay the extra tax in order to avoid being a freeloader?

  Again,  it's not the same,  keeping your own money (deducting mortgage interest), vs recieving other people's money to pay your healthcare bill.
 That said, I could live with myself if I found myself in that position. If I wasn't afraid of losing access to my grandfathered policy, I probably would have already collected $40k of hard earned taxpayer money.

How is that any different from the child tax credit?  If you take that, you're receiving other people's money to help raise your children.  Or the EITC?  You're getting other people's money to augment your income (regardless of how big your assets might be).  Same as any other tax credit or deduction (including the mortgage deduction) - you're getting help from other taxpayers to encourage something that the government decided is desirable.  I don't see anyone declaring that it is morally deplorable to claim these other credits or deductions for which you may be eligible.

Any tax credit or subsidy that results in a net financial gain (above what they pay) to a taxpayer is "taking other people's money". When people use such financial gains to make their lifestyle possible, some people find that morally wrong.  When some people say things like "I can afford to retire and never work again thanks to saving enough money to support my lifestyle, as long as I get [the thousands of dollars in] ACA subsidies"; what some people hear is "thanks to all you people actually paying taxes, I don't have to work anymore."

[sol]

Any tax credit or subsidy that results in a net financial gain (above what they pay) to a taxpayer is "taking other people's money".

I think the whole notion of net financial gain is ludicrous.  Every tax break costs the government the same amount of money, no matter how much the recipient earns or pays in taxes.

For example, most middle class Americans pay less in federal taxes than they receive in subsidized health care from their employer, which is subsidized by taxes.  About half of homeowners receive a deduction for property taxes and mortgage interest that independently exceeds the amount they pay.  Are you suggesting that by this arrangement, all of middle America are freeloaders?

The new child tax credit, at least for the next few years, will pay families $2k per kid.  If you have three kids you'll get a $6k refundable credit.  The government eats that $6k loss on the ledger regardless of whether the family owes $5k or $50k of taxes.  A loss is a loss.

And don't even get me started on the idea of poor people being freeloaders in this system.  Poor people are the ones who actually work for a living, and make our economy run.  Rich people who live off off dividends don't do shit.  They are the real freeloaders.

[jlcnuke]

Any tax credit or subsidy that results in a net financial gain (above what they pay) to a taxpayer is "taking other people's money".

I think the whole notion of net financial gain is ludicrous.  Every tax break costs the government the same amount of money, no matter how much the recipient earns or pays in taxes.

For example, most middle class Americans pay less in federal taxes than they receive in subsidized health care from their employer, which is subsidized by taxes.  About half of homeowners receive a deduction for property taxes and mortgage interest that independently exceeds the amount they pay.  Are you suggesting that by this arrangement, all of middle America are freeloaders?

The new child tax credit, at least for the next few years, will pay families $2k per kid.  If you have three kids you'll get a $6k refundable credit.  The government eats that $6k loss on the ledger regardless of whether the family owes $5k or $50k of taxes.  A loss is a loss.

And don't even get me started on the idea of poor people being freeloaders in this system.  Poor people are the ones who actually work for a living, and make our economy run.  Rich people who live off off dividends don't do shit.  They are the real freeloaders.

Getting all your government services for free (i.e. not paying any taxes) AND getting money from the government on top of that is a LOT different than giving the government 20 or 30% of the money you earned...  That the government spends a lot of money elsewhere doesn't change the fact that those two situations are significantly different. Your dislike of people who are well-off is irrelevant to those facts.

[sol]

Your dislike of people who are well-off is irrelevant to those facts.

I don't dislike people who are well off.  I am well off.

In this case, you seem to be arguing that only well off people deserve tax breaks, and poor people do not.  The current tax bill certainly suggests that our ruling majority agrees with you.

My take is that if the government wants to institute tax cuts, out should either be by equivalent dollars to every wage earner, or by equivalent percentages to every wage earner.  The new tax bill selectively gives disproportionate breaks to the very wealthy.  How do you help the economy by taking spending money away from the very people most likely to spend it?

[jlcnuke]

Your dislike of people who are well-off is irrelevant to those facts.

I don't dislike people who are well off.  I am well off.

In this case, you seem to be arguing that only well off people deserve tax breaks, and poor people do not.  The current tax bill certainly suggests that our ruling majority agrees with you.

My take is that if the government wants to institute tax cuts, out should either be by equivalent dollars to every wage earner, or by equivalent percentages to every wage earner.  The new tax bill selectively gives disproportionate breaks to the very wealthy.  How do you help the economy by taking spending money away from the very people most likely to spend it?

The government giving you money is not a tax break, taking less money than previously from you is a tax break. If you pay 6% of your income in taxes, and we change the rules so you only pay 5%, you've been given a tax break. If you pay 0% in taxes, and we give you $10,000 on top of that, you've haven't been taxed at all, you've been given a handout by the government (paid for by the taxes other people actually paid).

Those are not both "apples", one scenario is an apple and the other is an orange...

[sol]

You are a bad listener. 

You have totally failed to even attempt to understand the point I've been trying to make.  You are blind to any views different from your own.  This conversation is useless.

[jlcnuke]

You are a bad listener. 

You have totally failed to even attempt to understand the point I've been trying to make.  You are blind to any views different from your own.  This conversation is useless.

Or perhaps you are bad at conveying what you mean because it isn't making any sense to me.... which also produces a useless conversation though. Have a great day :)

[teen persuasion]

Your dislike of people who are well-off is irrelevant to those facts.

I don't dislike people who are well off.  I am well off.

In this case, you seem to be arguing that only well off people deserve tax breaks, and poor people do not.  The current tax bill certainly suggests that our ruling majority agrees with you.

My take is that if the government wants to institute tax cuts, out should either be by equivalent dollars to every wage earner, or by equivalent percentages to every wage earner.  The new tax bill selectively gives disproportionate breaks to the very wealthy.  How do you help the economy by taking spending money away from the very people most likely to spend it?

The government giving you money is not a tax break, taking less money than previously from you is a tax break. If you pay 6% of your income in taxes, and we change the rules so you only pay 5%, you've been given a tax break. If you pay 0% in taxes, and we give you $10,000 on top of that, you've haven't been taxed at all, you've been given a handout by the government (paid for by the taxes other people actually paid).

Those are not both "apples", one scenario is an apple and the other is an orange...

How about an example: in the past I looked into solar credits.  Most people view these credits as a discount to make solar installations more affordable.  I found that at least for my state's income taxes, the credits were non refundable.  As we owed no state income taxes, we could never get that credit, or "discount" to make solar more affordable.  Yet a wealthier family that earned more than us (paid more taxes) COULD receive solar credits.  By making that credit nonrefundable, the state made the decision that lower income families must pay more for solar installations, vs wealthier families, because they could not collect on a credit.

The question is why is an entity offering a credit?  Do they want to encourage a certain behavior (solar installation), or are they looking for another mechanism to reward only favored groups with discounts on taxes?

[jlcnuke]

Your dislike of people who are well-off is irrelevant to those facts.

I don't dislike people who are well off.  I am well off.

In this case, you seem to be arguing that only well off people deserve tax breaks, and poor people do not.  The current tax bill certainly suggests that our ruling majority agrees with you.

My take is that if the government wants to institute tax cuts, out should either be by equivalent dollars to every wage earner, or by equivalent percentages to every wage earner.  The new tax bill selectively gives disproportionate breaks to the very wealthy.  How do you help the economy by taking spending money away from the very people most likely to spend it?

The government giving you money is not a tax break, taking less money than previously from you is a tax break. If you pay 6% of your income in taxes, and we change the rules so you only pay 5%, you've been given a tax break. If you pay 0% in taxes, and we give you $10,000 on top of that, you've haven't been taxed at all, you've been given a handout by the government (paid for by the taxes other people actually paid).

Those are not both "apples", one scenario is an apple and the other is an orange...

How about an example: in the past I looked into solar credits.  Most people view these credits as a discount to make solar installations more affordable.  I found that at least for my state's income taxes, the credits were non refundable.  As we owed no state income taxes, we could never get that credit, or "discount" to make solar more affordable.  Yet a wealthier family that earned more than us (paid more taxes) COULD receive solar credits.  By making that credit nonrefundable, the state made the decision that lower income families must pay more for solar installations, vs wealthier families, because they could not collect on a credit.

The question is why is an entity offering a credit?  Do they want to encourage a certain behavior (solar installation), or are they looking for another mechanism to reward only favored groups with discounts on taxes?

It's likely they want to encourage a certain behavior and set up the tax code such that it would be a direct benefit to those they found "most likely to be consider" taking such action. The vast majority of people with $0 in tax liability don't consider spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on solar. Those most likely to consider spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on an "optional expense" in a given year are those with fairly large tax liabilities (relatively) and so they set the tax credits to benefit them, but then to limit overall tax liability they made sure it would never result in a "net negative" tax liability to encourage that behavior by making it nonrefundable.

Or maybe the lawmakers all just had a buddy who wanted to change his $20k tax liability one year into a $0 tax liability and buy $20k worth of solar panels so they made the law to help him out...