Decreasing income to increase benefits

[maizefolk]

I'd propose there are three kinds of benefits which are qualitatively different:

A) Programs which apply -- or are at least available -- to everyone regardless of circumstances: roads, farm subsidies to keep food affordable, police protection from crime and military protection from foreign invasion.*

B) Programs which require people to meet certain criteria in order to receive them, but where anyone who qualifies can receive the benefit, spending just automatically goes up for our government as a whole: food stamps, medicaid, social security, ACA subsidies at the moment

C) Programs where there is a limited pot of money, so if too many people apply, no everyone gets it, or benefits are cut for everyone: these include medicaid's home and community-based (HCBS) waiver program for those with severe physical or intellectual disabilities where most states have a waiting list before people can receive services, section 8 housing assistance (waitlist), and ACA subsidies once total spending hits the 0.504% of GDP limit and additional enrollment starts triggering cuts to everyone else's subsidies.

*I believe most of these are the classic examples of "public goods" in the way that term is used by economists.

Nice but how do you classify someone who gets a $40k tax credit by retiring from their $100k/year job and then having to pay no tax? This benefit is certainly not applicable to everybody. How is it different than someone who gets ACA tax credits (for mandatory coverage) or child credits after retiring?

By a tax credit are you just talking about the fact that if you make $100k/year you'd pay $40k in taxes (presumably including payroll and state taxes in addition to federal income taxes) or some more complex scenario.

If it is the former, I'd put that in the category of "available to everyone", although you could certainly argue that the vast majority of americans don't make $100k/year and so have no option to reduce their tax burden $40k/year even if they reduce their income to zero. But the key distinction to me seems to be that there are absolutely no special requirements society places (or realistically could place) on a person's ability to just stop earning income. You just quit (or in the most extreme case, stop showing up and then eventually they'll stop paying you).

[beltim]

Wow, I often disagree with EnjoyIt, but that's some of the most dishonest quoting I've seen on this site.  Read literally ten more words.

Okay, the next ten words talk about the intent of why able bodied person might choose not to work, but that doesn't change the literal (and I suspect unintentional) interpretation of what he said.

Do you think it's immoral to choose not to work for some reasons, but not for others?  Is my reason good enough for you? 

We all live in a society.  We all benefit from having an educated workforce, and national defense, and roads and internet and all of the benefits of living in an advanced society.  Am I required to work until my body gives out to enjoy those benefits, or not?

Perhaps you're simply missing his point.  He wasn't saying that it's immoral to not work.  He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

So if you scrape, save, invest and are responsible for yourself and practice a non-consumerist lifestyle from an early age and you accumulate enough wealth to retire early, it's immoral not to work if you get a government benefit. Yet those that didn't do the aforementioned get to have the benefit because they didn't do that?  Seems like a bit of a twisted view.

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

[beltim]

I thought this entire thread was an example of what I'm talking about.  Lots of people here think that you have a moral obligation to continue working if you are physically able.  I've previously linked to like four different people who said so in this very thread.

Would you mind linking to the post where you linked to the people you think are saying this? 

Because I'm reading the exact same thread and I'm not seeing lots of people saying that.

Edit: of course the simplest explanation is that we may have different definitions of what constitutes "lots."

I would also like to see this, please.

[beltim]

Show an example of what you're talking about here, before putting words in everyone's mouth.  You'll find that no one is making the argument that you're arguing against.

I thought this entire thread was an example of what I'm talking about.  Lots of people here think that you have a moral obligation to continue working if you are physically able.  I've previously linked to like four different people who said so in this very thread. 

Some of them are drawing a distinction (which I think is artificial) between taking handouts from "a program I've paid into" instead of "a program that benefits everyone" but that's just accounting trickery.  We've all paid into all of these programs (whether we use them or not), by virtue of our participation in the workforce.  Your taxes are used to fund every single government program out there, from invading Iraq to needle exchanges, and you can't honestly track which dollar goes to what purpose.  We live in a connected and interdependent society in which we all support each other, whether we like it or not.  No man is an island, no matter how much money he makes or how much tax he pays.  We're all dependent on the system for mutual support. 

Unless you're generating drinking water from a well you dug yourself, pumped with electricity generated by a bicycle you not only pedal yourself, but that you built yourself with ore you mined yourself.  It's ridiculous.

And this interdependence is a good thing!  It's what has allowed our society to flourish, by specialization of the workforce.  I could never grow and mill enough wheat to make all of the bread I eat, but I can buy bread for $2/loaf because someone else can.  This sort of efficiency is what has always allowed some class of society to live a life of leisure.  You think Trump's kids are milling their own flour instead of shopping and playing video games all day throughout their 20s and 30s?  I don't see the early retiree as any different from Trump's kids.  At least the retiree contributed something to society first, before being a full time leach.  Sorry I didn't mean leach, I meant "aristocrat".

Just to be clear, I asked you to show an example of something and you.... went on a four paragraph rant that talked about interdependence.  And never showed an example.  Did I get that right?

[mm1970]

People have studied this issue of forcing people to draw down assets to qualify for programs.  It creates a cycle of dependency and the government doesn't want to discourage savings and wise choices.  This is why so many programs no longer have asset tests.

I agree completely!

This is interesting when it comes to the whole blurry line thing.  Despite EnjoyIt not liking my comments (where I'm only trying to point out that everyone draws their own lines - and pointing out that you can always find some complicated middle instance - I'm pointing out that it's ALL complicated.)

I had a classmate at my expensive private college (thank you US taxpayers) who was good with money.  He'd worked in high school, saved up his birthday money, and even owned a used sports car in college from the money he'd saved.  After college we ended up working near each other in the military.  We had our standard tour and then were both getting out after.  As I mentioned, this guy was good with money.  And he had no debt.  (I had to borrow money for room and board, as I was one of the poor kids.)  He helped me get into saving money for retirement right out of college - for which I will always be thankful. Because who invests?  Not my family, we had a savings account, and that's it.

So I'm getting out and getting a job, with my newly-minted paid for by the government master's degree that I got at night.  He was getting out and going to a top-5 business school.  Guy was brilliant. 

So as we are discussing these plans, he tells me offhandedly that he was busy signing over his savings and non-retirement investment accounts to his younger brother.  Because then, see he gets financial aid for business school.  I was fucking gob-smacked.  That need-based financial aid is for poor people, you jerk.

Well, he's the VP of some major corporation (and has been for at least a decade), and I'm just a joe schmo engineer, so I guess he wins?

Finally, the whole blurry line thing comes to me because I'm a bit of a Type-A workaholic, and I come from a long line of "suck it up" people, who originated here as German immigrant farmers.  Still, my family falls into the "shut up, work hard, stop whining" variety - so they tend to be super hard on people.  And themselves - hence the people with the wrecked bodies still trying to do manual labor, people literally working until they die, suggesting that if you can't live on 40 hrs of work a week you need to work 60 or 80...and that's where the blurry line comes in.  People fought for a 40 hour work week for a reason.  Mental health is as important as physical health.  These lines are rarely going to be black and white.  BTDRetire's post was a good one on the thought processes on comparing welfare and SS, and the disconnect that people have.  Sol's points are also very good in that he's looking at the WHOLE picture - at all people who are on "welfare", including the super wealthy.

Fascinating topic.  Well, my lunch break is over...

[DreamFIRE]

This is not by years worked it is about self sustenance.  It is about badassity and not relying on the hard work of others to pay your way if you are able bodied and can do it for yourself.

Let's talk about "self sustenance" for a moment. Let's look at just one area: groceries. From your posts I infer that you believe a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and uses food stamps to pay for their food is leeching off the public coffers, while a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and pays for their groceries out of their savings is practicing good self-sufficiency.

I would argue that they are both accepting public assistance, just in different amounts. The price of the food you buy is well below the true cost of growing that food and transporting it to market. There's a federal farm bill that provides a ton of direct subsidies to farmers that serve to reduce the price that people pay for food. The truck bringing your food to the supermarket travels on heavily subsidized roads. The laborers who pick crops often are paid so little that they themselves need some public assistance.

All this adds up. If you retired with an income low enough that you no longer have to pay taxes toward the farm bill or the highway system or Medicaid for your farm labor, you are most definitely accepting subsidies for your groceries. The difference between you and someone who takes food stamps is not a difference of kind, it is a difference of degree.

And this goes well beyond the early FIREee with low income.  I read that 45% of tax filers in 2018 won't pay any federal income tax.  And that's just including the tax filers, so you actually have many more that aren't paying federal income tax that aren't included in the 45% figure.  That's a huge part of the population that isn't paying for these public services.  Some of them are low income retirees, but many others are middle class families.

[Cache_Stash]

Wow, I often disagree with EnjoyIt, but that's some of the most dishonest quoting I've seen on this site.  Read literally ten more words.

Okay, the next ten words talk about the intent of why able bodied person might choose not to work, but that doesn't change the literal (and I suspect unintentional) interpretation of what he said.

Do you think it's immoral to choose not to work for some reasons, but not for others?  Is my reason good enough for you? 

We all live in a society.  We all benefit from having an educated workforce, and national defense, and roads and internet and all of the benefits of living in an advanced society.  Am I required to work until my body gives out to enjoy those benefits, or not?

Perhaps you're simply missing his point.  He wasn't saying that it's immoral to not work.  He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

So if you scrape, save, invest and are responsible for yourself and practice a non-consumerist lifestyle from an early age and you accumulate enough wealth to retire early, it's immoral not to work if you get a government benefit. Yet those that didn't do the aforementioned get to have the benefit because they didn't do that?  Seems like a bit of a twisted view.

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

I was referring to the ACA.  Snap is means tested and by no means should someone lie about their means.  That is obviously unethical.

[beltim]

Wow, I often disagree with EnjoyIt, but that's some of the most dishonest quoting I've seen on this site.  Read literally ten more words.

Okay, the next ten words talk about the intent of why able bodied person might choose not to work, but that doesn't change the literal (and I suspect unintentional) interpretation of what he said.

Do you think it's immoral to choose not to work for some reasons, but not for others?  Is my reason good enough for you? 

We all live in a society.  We all benefit from having an educated workforce, and national defense, and roads and internet and all of the benefits of living in an advanced society.  Am I required to work until my body gives out to enjoy those benefits, or not?

Perhaps you're simply missing his point.  He wasn't saying that it's immoral to not work.  He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

So if you scrape, save, invest and are responsible for yourself and practice a non-consumerist lifestyle from an early age and you accumulate enough wealth to retire early, it's immoral not to work if you get a government benefit. Yet those that didn't do the aforementioned get to have the benefit because they didn't do that?  Seems like a bit of a twisted view.

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

I was referring to the ACA.  Snap is means tested and by no means should someone lie about their means.  That is obviously unethical.

Okay, but then why reply to the conversation among sol, EnjoyIt, and me?  We were talking about SNAP and WIC, not about the ACA. 

[DreamFIRE]

  I read a few posts at the beginning, it seemed like there was no one that saw any ethical line about taking money from the government when they actually had large assets. Said another way, I'm going to structure my income to collect welfare.
  I was glad to see the thread take a turn

I also can understand a confusion when people say the say SS should be means tested. I recoil and say, wait a minute I paid into a system that was designed to pay me back in old age. I'm a bit unusual in that I have earned only slightly above median wage over my lifetime and just because I saved my money and the other 75% in my income group didn't doesn't mean I should be penalized.

Interesting.  You state two opposing views in the same post.  First, you state that you think people should be penalized for having large assets in that they should not take advantage of government provided benefits that they are qualified for based on income (note: income and assets are not the same thing).  Then you follow up to say that you don't think you should be penalized for a government provided benefit because you saved your money.

Thus the blurry line. And as I said, some don't even see a line.
I see SS being on the ethical side of the line and could justify it as others justify their positions. :-)
Then their are those that could justify collecting on programs designed to help real poor people
while holding $1M.
 There are some arguments here that make me think I should have taken all the money available.
But we are doing fine, biggest life problem is spending too much time reading MMM! :-)
  EDIT to add,
Both my kids earned* state paid college tuition and I took it, (or they took it)
This one's tough, the money came from the poor peoples tax, (lottery tickets) and went to my kids
to go to college. That damn blurry line!

You mentioned not taking the ACA in your first post.  I don't really think of the ACA tax credit as being just for poor people.   The ACA means testing allows someone to get a tax credit when earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level.  That's over $100K MAGI for a family of 4 (which excludes certain income such as retirement contributions, meaning actual income could be quite a bit higher).

If it makes you feel any better, most of those poor people aren't actually paying any federal income tax (see my previous post).  Lottery tickets are voluntary spending.

[Cache_Stash]

Wow, I often disagree with EnjoyIt, but that's some of the most dishonest quoting I've seen on this site.  Read literally ten more words.

Okay, the next ten words talk about the intent of why able bodied person might choose not to work, but that doesn't change the literal (and I suspect unintentional) interpretation of what he said.

Do you think it's immoral to choose not to work for some reasons, but not for others?  Is my reason good enough for you? 

We all live in a society.  We all benefit from having an educated workforce, and national defense, and roads and internet and all of the benefits of living in an advanced society.  Am I required to work until my body gives out to enjoy those benefits, or not?

Perhaps you're simply missing his point.  He wasn't saying that it's immoral to not work.  He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

So if you scrape, save, invest and are responsible for yourself and practice a non-consumerist lifestyle from an early age and you accumulate enough wealth to retire early, it's immoral not to work if you get a government benefit. Yet those that didn't do the aforementioned get to have the benefit because they didn't do that?  Seems like a bit of a twisted view.

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

I was referring to the ACA.  Snap is means tested and by no means should someone lie about their means.  That is obviously unethical.

Okay, but then why reply to the conversation among sol, EnjoyIt, and me?  We were talking about SNAP and WIC, not about the ACA.

My apologies.  Seemed to me a lot of "government subsidies" were being lumped together.

Anywhere where someone was mentioning non-means tested government social program help doesn't include SNAP.  I don't even know what WIC refers to.

[Cache_Stash]

Wow, I often disagree with EnjoyIt, but that's some of the most dishonest quoting I've seen on this site.  Read literally ten more words.

Okay, the next ten words talk about the intent of why able bodied person might choose not to work, but that doesn't change the literal (and I suspect unintentional) interpretation of what he said.

Do you think it's immoral to choose not to work for some reasons, but not for others?  Is my reason good enough for you? 

We all live in a society.  We all benefit from having an educated workforce, and national defense, and roads and internet and all of the benefits of living in an advanced society.  Am I required to work until my body gives out to enjoy those benefits, or not?

Perhaps you're simply missing his point.  He wasn't saying that it's immoral to not work.  He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

I must be missing it.  Where in this chain are we specifically discussing SNAP and WIC?  Are you saying ACA doesn't apply to this portion of the discussion?

[maizefolk]

I don't even know what WIC refers to.

(W)omen, (I)nfants, and (C)hildren. It's another form of food subsidies that specifically goes to pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as children under five years old.

The eligibility criteria are much less stringent than food stamps (something like half of all pregnant women qualify), but the money can only be used for a predefined set of food items which are supposed to be healthier than average.

[iris lily]

What I hate to hear is how the  man receiving an ACA tax credit of hundreds of dollars looks down on the other who is getting medicaid...

Sorry, but that is how I view it. As an ACA credit drawing participant of rather low income-by-choice, I think I am behaving in an ethically questionable way. There are degrees of unethical. And yes,
I think the double millionaire who get Medicaid is a step futher into the ethically suspect world. But I I would do the same if in that position. My state doesnt pay out Medicaid and so it wasnt a possibility when figuring out how to structure our income in retirement.

[iris lily]

What I hate to hear is how the  man receiving an ACA tax credit of hundreds of dollars looks down on the other who is getting medicaid.

I'm not really sure how people stand on ACA and medicaid, is it morally wrong to try and increase your ACA subsidy? Why would Medicaid be any different? The government requires you to have insurance, if you have a low income do you have a choice not to sign up for Medicaid? So, people have to work so they have a certain income or they are immoral?


Is food stamps really that big of an issue? A single person can get at most 200 dollars a month, and use it for 3 months out of 36 (not sure how easy it is to get it for more than 3 months).

One ethical problem in ACA vs Medicaid is that there are shrinking numbers of health care providers who accept Medicaid insurance. That depends on the location, and it is not  universal. Medicaid users are crowding the system.

I suppose it is true also, in some locations, that there are limited numbers of health care providers who accept ACa insurance plans. Here, that doesnt seem to be a problem.But if it were, I woild just oay out of pocket for the low level health vare stuff to get into see whatever physicians I wish to see.

You facts about SNAP are not true for all states.

[EnjoyIt]

I thought this entire thread was an example of what I'm talking about.  Lots of people here think that you have a moral obligation to continue working if you are physically able.  I've previously linked to like four different people who said so in this very thread.

Would you mind linking to the post where you linked to the people you think are saying this? 

Because I'm reading the exact same thread and I'm not seeing lots of people saying that.

Edit: of course the simplest explanation is that we may have different definitions of what constitutes "lots."

I would also like to see this, please.

@sol, @beltim

I think Sol is confused and trying to assume people in a early retirement forum are saying it is  immoral to retire early if you are able bodied and can work.  I have ready every post in this thread and not one person said that.  Sol keeps inferring it, but no one is saying it. 

There are a few people on this forum who believe they are humanitarian by nature and telling them that maybe their actions are immoral is a big smack to their ego and way of thinking that must be defended.  Maybe it is cognitive dissidence.

Let me try one more time and make it as clearly as possible.  If you are a young healthy able bodied individual, I believe it is immoral to take goods and or services that are designed to help the needy when you can either work or afford it yourself.  This is especially so when those resources are limited.  BTW, most resources are limited. To clear it up a little further.  Things like SS, Medicare, and pensions are not services but are obligation to the people who have paid into those services.

[anonymouscow]

One of my experiences in life;  i worked for Hewitt Jackson doing taxes for a few years.  Guy comes in and gives me his w-2's.  Grand total of $7,000 for the year.  That's all of his income.  I asked him if he supported more than 50% of his daughters "needs" for the year. He said "yes".  i didn't believe him but I was obligated to comply with his answers.   He qualified for EIC and received a $1500 'Refund'.  After telling him of his fortunate situation his response was 'Great, I'm going to go out and buy a snowmobile'.

just a story of some people's moral compass.

I think this is funny because I know multiple people who get the child tax credit, they brag about how they’re going to buy a gaming computer, big screen tv, or gaming system. And we’ve all probably been in line with the person buying steak with food stamps then beer and smokes in the next transaction. People here seem he’ll bent on what is moral and not, should all spending by people receiving gov aid be tracked? I think it’s odd that some tax breaks are morally acceptable, would lowering my income so I receive the retirement savings credit be moral? And other things are considered wrong. Corporations and people with money use every trick in the book to save on taxes. Most of the time it seems like people here have 100k salaries and plan to retire with millions, maybe they are upset that they see what they consider as other people taking advantage of the system. It’s easy to say you wouldn’t take ACA subsidies when you make too much to qualify for them.

[jim555]

Medicaid has a claw back for 55 and over, so they are only giving you a loan until you die. 

I have no children and pay school taxes and get nothing for it.  So getting something back somewhere evens things out a bit.  Not that I would even come close to getting back what was paid while I worked.

[Laura Ingalls]

This is not by years worked it is about self sustenance.  It is about badassity and not relying on the hard work of others to pay your way if you are able bodied and can do it for yourself.

Let's talk about "self sustenance" for a moment. Let's look at just one area: groceries. From your posts I infer that you believe a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and uses food stamps to pay for their food is leeching off the public coffers, while a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and pays for their groceries out of their savings is practicing good self-sufficiency.

I would argue that they are both accepting public assistance, just in different amounts. The price of the food you buy is well below the true cost of growing that food and transporting it to market. There's a federal farm bill that provides a ton of direct subsidies to farmers that serve to reduce the price that people pay for food. The truck bringing your food to the supermarket travels on heavily subsidized roads. The laborers who pick crops often are paid so little that they themselves need some public assistance.

All this adds up. If you retired with an income low enough that you no longer have to pay taxes toward the farm bill or the highway system or Medicaid for your farm labor, you are most definitely accepting subsidies for your groceries. The difference between you and someone who takes food stamps is not a difference of kind, it is a difference of degree.

You are looking for weird examples or round about ways of thinking. You want to rationalize for yourself your actions be my guest.  It is your life to live. If you think it is okay to take the resources of the needy because of some farmers in Ohio then that is your prerogative.   The question was asked by the OP and I answered it as my moral compass sees fit.  This is how I will live my life and how I hope to teach my offspring to live theirs.

You are minimizing the cost of cost of farm subsidies because the recipients are not real people to you.  My former neighbors collected about $1.5 mil in subsidies over a ten year period.  I watched them spend almost the same amount in an auction for more land. 

Max SNAP for a family of four is about $500 IIRC.  So one families farm subsidies equals about 300 low income families SNAP benefits.  It not a fact changed because it is an abstract concept to city folks.

[DreamFIRE]

Medicaid has a claw back for 55 and over, so they are only giving you a loan until you die. 

That is state dependent, and it applies to my state as well per my earlier post.  But you're apparently safe from that if you live in Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, and Washington.

[EnjoyIt]

This is not by years worked it is about self sustenance.  It is about badassity and not relying on the hard work of others to pay your way if you are able bodied and can do it for yourself.

Let's talk about "self sustenance" for a moment. Let's look at just one area: groceries. From your posts I infer that you believe a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and uses food stamps to pay for their food is leeching off the public coffers, while a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and pays for their groceries out of their savings is practicing good self-sufficiency.

I would argue that they are both accepting public assistance, just in different amounts. The price of the food you buy is well below the true cost of growing that food and transporting it to market. There's a federal farm bill that provides a ton of direct subsidies to farmers that serve to reduce the price that people pay for food. The truck bringing your food to the supermarket travels on heavily subsidized roads. The laborers who pick crops often are paid so little that they themselves need some public assistance.

All this adds up. If you retired with an income low enough that you no longer have to pay taxes toward the farm bill or the highway system or Medicaid for your farm labor, you are most definitely accepting subsidies for your groceries. The difference between you and someone who takes food stamps is not a difference of kind, it is a difference of degree.

You are looking for weird examples or round about ways of thinking. You want to rationalize for yourself your actions be my guest.  It is your life to live. If you think it is okay to take the resources of the needy because of some farmers in Ohio then that is your prerogative.   The question was asked by the OP and I answered it as my moral compass sees fit.  This is how I will live my life and how I hope to teach my offspring to live theirs.

You are minimizing the cost of cost of farm subsidies because the recipients are not real people to you.  My former neighbors collected about $1.5 mil in subsidies over a ten year period.  I watched them spend almost the same amount in an auction for more land. 

Max SNAP for a family of four is about $500 IIRC.  So one families farm subsidies equals about 300 low income families SNAP benefits.  It not a fact changed because it is an abstract concept to city folks.

The government does a lot of messed up things such as farm subsidies, paying full price for medication via medicare/medicaid, Buying tanks for the military when the military didn't want or ask for them, spending millions on a weekend convention in Vegas, one can go on and on and on.  Many wrongs don't make your particular situation a right.  Here is a very extreme and not exact example: Is it okay to steal a quarter out of a church collection jar when multiple religious radio/tv personalities steal millions from their radio and tv show's audience?

[beltim]

Wow, I often disagree with EnjoyIt, but that's some of the most dishonest quoting I've seen on this site.  Read literally ten more words.

Okay, the next ten words talk about the intent of why able bodied person might choose not to work, but that doesn't change the literal (and I suspect unintentional) interpretation of what he said.

Do you think it's immoral to choose not to work for some reasons, but not for others?  Is my reason good enough for you? 

We all live in a society.  We all benefit from having an educated workforce, and national defense, and roads and internet and all of the benefits of living in an advanced society.  Am I required to work until my body gives out to enjoy those benefits, or not?

Perhaps you're simply missing his point.  He wasn't saying that it's immoral to not work.  He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

I must be missing it.  Where in this chain are we specifically discussing SNAP and WIC?  Are you saying ACA doesn't apply to this portion of the discussion?

In that chain we didn't specifically mention SNAP, WIC, or ACA.  But Sol and I were specifically talking about SNAP and WIC earlier, and EnjoyIt specifically excluded ACA from his statements several times.

[gerardc]

I don't think there's an argument over SNAP or WIC as they're already means tested in spirit and wherever it makes practical sense to do so. If ACA is out of the question, what are we even taking about?

[iris lily]

Medicaid has a claw back for 55 and over, so they are only giving you a loan until you die. 

Is that true for the new-wave Medicaid qualifications post ACA? I am talking about the program known as “Medicaid expansion” for the states that expanded it.

 Edited to add: I see that Dreamfire addressed this, kind of, in his post.

[Laura Ingalls]

This is not by years worked it is about self sustenance.  It is about badassity and not relying on the hard work of others to pay your way if you are able bodied and can do it for yourself.

Let's talk about "self sustenance" for a moment. Let's look at just one area: groceries. From your posts I infer that you believe a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and uses food stamps to pay for their food is leeching off the public coffers, while a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and pays for their groceries out of their savings is practicing good self-sufficiency.

I would argue that they are both accepting public assistance, just in different amounts. The price of the food you buy is well below the true cost of growing that food and transporting it to market. There's a federal farm bill that provides a ton of direct subsidies to farmers that serve to reduce the price that people pay for food. The truck bringing your food to the supermarket travels on heavily subsidized roads. The laborers who pick crops often are paid so little that they themselves need some public assistance.

All this adds up. If you retired with an income low enough that you no longer have to pay taxes toward the farm bill or the highway system or Medicaid for your farm labor, you are most definitely accepting subsidies for your groceries. The difference between you and someone who takes food stamps is not a difference of kind, it is a difference of degree.

You are looking for weird examples or round about ways of thinking. You want to rationalize for yourself your actions be my guest.  It is your life to live. If you think it is okay to take the resources of the needy because of some farmers in Ohio then that is your prerogative.   The question was asked by the OP and I answered it as my moral compass sees fit.  This is how I will live my life and how I hope to teach my offspring to live theirs.

You are minimizing the cost of cost of farm subsidies because the recipients are not real people to you.  My former neighbors collected about $1.5 mil in subsidies over a ten year period.  I watched them spend almost the same amount in an auction for more land. 

Max SNAP for a family of four is about $500 IIRC.  So one families farm subsidies equals about 300 low income families SNAP benefits.  It not a fact changed because it is an abstract concept to city folks.

The government does a lot of messed up things such as farm subsidies, paying full price for medication via medicare/medicaid, Buying tanks for the military when the military didn't want or ask for them, spending millions on a weekend convention in Vegas, one can go on and on and on.  Many wrongs don't make your particular situation a right.  Here is a very extreme and not exact example: Is it okay to steal a quarter out of a church collection jar when multiple religious radio/tv personalities steal millions from their radio and tv show's audience?

Your examples are both stealing.  Neither my former farm subsidy neighbors nor any FIRE’d person following his or her state rules and eligible for SNAP are stealing.  Should we have different rules?  Maybe, but asset testing is costly and the bulk of people income eligible don’t have any assets to speak of.  If you make a Venn diagram with people with incomes low enough for SNAP and millionaires it’s a mighty small sliver in the middle.  It’s not worth the administrative cost to weed them out. 

[seattlecyclone]

Right, there's a huge difference between stealing and accepting a government subsidy to which you are legally entitled.

Also while the cost of verifying a person's net worth may be prohibitive, adding a box to the form that says "Is your net worth higher than $x?" and denying the people who check that box would be remarkably cheap. I know my personal ethics prohibit me from lying to get money when it's not a matter of life and death, but I have no qualms against telling the truth to get money.

[Erica]

What I hate to hear is how the  man receiving an ACA tax credit of hundreds of dollars looks down on the other who is getting medicaid...

Sorry, but that is how I view it. As an ACA credit drawing participant of rather low income-by-choice, I think I am behaving in an ethically questionable way. There are degrees of unethical. And yes,
I think the double millionaire who get Medicaid is a step futher into the ethically suspect world. But I I would do the same if in that position. My state doesnt pay out Medicaid and so it wasnt a possibility when figuring out how to structure our income in retirement.

Your line of reasoning baffles me.
Most medicaid recipients on traditional fee for service medicaid cost taxpayers much less since the middle man (Insurance company) is not benefiting. There is no middle man. Administrative costs are $50 a month per participant last I checked at the centers for medicaid and medicare versus hundreds of dollars the ACA doles out per recipient.
Yet you find the guy taking much less $$$ from the coffers to be more ethical than the guy taking hundreds of dollars?
This makes no sense to me but such is life

[TomTX]

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

So I should spend everything on hookers & blow, THEN go get benefits. Got it.

[jim555]

Medicaid has a claw back for 55 and over, so they are only giving you a loan until you die. 

Is that true for the new-wave Medicaid qualifications post ACA? I am talking about the program known as “Medicaid expansion” for the states that expanded it.

 Edited to add: I see that Dreamfire addressed this, kind of, in his post.

When they added the expansion the law on the books didn't change for estate recovery.  However each state interprets the law differently, some are demanding it while others aren't.

[maizefolk]

Administrative costs are $50 a month per participant last I checked at the centers for medicaid and medicare versus hundreds of dollars the ACA doles out per recipient.

$50/month? That actually seems strikingly high.

The estimates I could find for insurance company spending on overhead were on the order of 10-12%. Overhead for ACA plans specifically is actually a bit lower since the government picks up the cost of running the exchanges and (until recently) advertising. The only specific number I could find was quoted here* and was $265 in administrative/overhead spending by private insurers per person enrolled in the ACA exchanges in 2014 per year (so only $22/month). If we ignore that number and just use the percent overhead number, insurance on the ACA exchange without any subsidy would currently cost me ~$450/month, which -- at 10-12% of spending going to overhead -- would mean $45-54/month in overhead spending for a private plan.

Anyway I'm not arguing medicare/medicaid for all wouldn't actually save a lot of money (and ultimately lives) vs private insurance. And I'm not arguing accepting medicaid OR ACA subsidies as an early retiree is ethically wrong  But I don't see how you come to the conclusion that private insurance costs hundreds of dollars per person per month in overhead/admin costs.

*However it wasn't clear to me where that number came from prior to appearing in that opinion column. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/02/01/the-aca-increased-rather-than-decreased-administrative-costs-of-health-insurance/#1ad41b3c9e77

Edit: could the number you saw have actually been $50/person/year?

[seattlecyclone]

In addition to what maizeman said, I don't find the comparison between ACA subsidies and the minimum cost of Medicaid to be very useful. For everyone on Medicaid who only costs $50 because they don't need to go to the doctor, there's someone else who costs more because they do need care. Meanwhile the amount the government pays for ACA subsidies is the same regardless of how sick you are, because they're offloading the risk to a private insurance company.

I'm also not assigning any relative amount of morality to either option. The law pushes people into one or the other based on their income. I find it hard to fault a lower-income person for taking one type of subsidy, while a higher-income person taking a slightly different type of subsidy is just fine.

[Paul der Krake]

Ultimately any government spending is more or less a subsidy to the millions of people who work in the health industry. The vast majority of ACA and Medicaid recipients wouldn't buy fewer iPhones and lobsters if the subsidies stopped. They'd just go back to not having insurance.

[DreamFIRE]

If you're in a state that puts you on managed care Medicaid, that will cost hundreds of dollars per month,  even if you don't use any healthcare services, which your estate may be on the hook for.

Edit:  Corrected, I mistakenly typed Medicare earlier, but I meant Medicaid.

[EnjoyIt]

This is not by years worked it is about self sustenance.  It is about badassity and not relying on the hard work of others to pay your way if you are able bodied and can do it for yourself.

Let's talk about "self sustenance" for a moment. Let's look at just one area: groceries. From your posts I infer that you believe a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and uses food stamps to pay for their food is leeching off the public coffers, while a low-income retiree who pays no taxes and pays for their groceries out of their savings is practicing good self-sufficiency.

I would argue that they are both accepting public assistance, just in different amounts. The price of the food you buy is well below the true cost of growing that food and transporting it to market. There's a federal farm bill that provides a ton of direct subsidies to farmers that serve to reduce the price that people pay for food. The truck bringing your food to the supermarket travels on heavily subsidized roads. The laborers who pick crops often are paid so little that they themselves need some public assistance.

All this adds up. If you retired with an income low enough that you no longer have to pay taxes toward the farm bill or the highway system or Medicaid for your farm labor, you are most definitely accepting subsidies for your groceries. The difference between you and someone who takes food stamps is not a difference of kind, it is a difference of degree.

You are looking for weird examples or round about ways of thinking. You want to rationalize for yourself your actions be my guest.  It is your life to live. If you think it is okay to take the resources of the needy because of some farmers in Ohio then that is your prerogative.   The question was asked by the OP and I answered it as my moral compass sees fit.  This is how I will live my life and how I hope to teach my offspring to live theirs.

You are minimizing the cost of cost of farm subsidies because the recipients are not real people to you.  My former neighbors collected about $1.5 mil in subsidies over a ten year period.  I watched them spend almost the same amount in an auction for more land. 

Max SNAP for a family of four is about $500 IIRC.  So one families farm subsidies equals about 300 low income families SNAP benefits.  It not a fact changed because it is an abstract concept to city folks.

The government does a lot of messed up things such as farm subsidies, paying full price for medication via medicare/medicaid, Buying tanks for the military when the military didn't want or ask for them, spending millions on a weekend convention in Vegas, one can go on and on and on.  Many wrongs don't make your particular situation a right.  Here is a very extreme and not exact example: Is it okay to steal a quarter out of a church collection jar when multiple religious radio/tv personalities steal millions from their radio and tv show's audience?

Your examples are both stealing.  Neither my former farm subsidy neighbors nor any FIRE’d person following his or her state rules and eligible for SNAP are stealing.  Should we have different rules?  Maybe, but asset testing is costly and the bulk of people income eligible don’t have any assets to speak of.  If you make a Venn diagram with people with incomes low enough for SNAP and millionaires it’s a mighty small sliver in the middle.  It’s not worth the administrative cost to weed them out.

This has nothing to do about laws and means testing.  This about your own moral compass and doing what you believe is ethical.  I don't think it is ethical to take a limited resource that is designed for the needy just because one is sick and tired of working for it while at the same breath discussing how humanitarian they are. 

A young mustachian who wants to retire early can easily put in an extra year or two and manage to take care of their own needs instead of taking resources designed for the poor.  Or that mustachian can admit to oneself what they are really doing and move on.

[Erica]

Administrative costs are $50 a month per participant last I checked at the centers for medicaid and medicare versus hundreds of dollars the ACA doles out per recipient.

$50/month? That actually seems strikingly high.

The estimates I could find for insurance company spending on overhead were on the order of 10-12%. Overhead for ACA plans specifically is actually a bit lower since the government picks up the cost of running the exchanges and (until recently) advertising. The only specific number I could find was quoted here* and was $265 in administrative/overhead spending by private insurers per person enrolled in the ACA exchanges in 2014 per year (so only $22/month). If we ignore that number and just use the percent overhead number, insurance on the ACA exchange without any subsidy would currently cost me ~$450/month, which -- at 10-12% of spending going to overhead -- would mean $45-54/month in overhead spending for a private plan.

Anyway I'm not arguing medicare/medicaid for all wouldn't actually save a lot of money (and ultimately lives) vs private insurance. And I'm not arguing accepting medicaid OR ACA subsidies as an early retiree is ethically wrong  But I don't see how you come to the conclusion that private insurance costs hundreds of dollars per person per month in overhead/admin costs.

*However it wasn't clear to me where that number came from prior to appearing in that opinion column. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/02/01/the-aca-increased-rather-than-decreased-administrative-costs-of-health-insurance/#1ad41b3c9e77

Edit: could the number you saw have actually been $50/person/year?

Well it's been a number of years so let me do a little re-search and get back to you with links.

[joonifloofeefloo]

Right, there's a huge difference between stealing and accepting a government subsidy to which you are legally entitled.

Also while the cost of verifying a person's net worth may be prohibitive, adding a box to the form that says "Is your net worth higher than $x?" and denying the people who check that box would be remarkably cheap. I know my personal ethics prohibit me from lying to get money when it's not a matter of life and death, but I have no qualms against telling the truth to get money.

+1.

And it took me a long time to get there. For a few decades, I added a lot of extra rules, as though program administrators didn’t know enough to be able to make reasonable guidelines. I went without, worked when I technically was unable, became profoundly disabled through that...  Now I accept the administrator’s guidelines. I don’t pursue things I don’t meet the criteria for, do accept things I do meet the criteria for, continue to work as much and as well as I can, and contribute much.

[gerardc]

And it took me a long time to get there. For a few decades, I added a lot of extra rules, as though program administrators didn’t know enough to be able to make reasonable guidelines. I went without, worked when I technically was unable, became profoundly disabled through that...  Now I accept the administrator’s guidelines. I don’t pursue things I don’t meet the criteria for, do accept things I do meet the criteria for, continue to work as much and as well as I can, and contribute much.

This. I come from a family where people will work themselves to the ground in the guise of dignity or honesty. They'd never dare take disability insurance unless they were comatose or something, they'd go in with a limping leg and possibly aggravate their condition, because they technically can work another day. Meanwhile you have Joe Blow who's perfectly fine but gets a disability check every month because he played out a back condition nobody can diagnose.

Which comes down to what I said above: unless you can write out clear rules for who deserves what benefit, DON'T pass out judgement in the form of "ethics". This just serves to try to manipulate people into voluntarily going against their best interests (similarly to how religion judges people in order to get what they want through community enforcement), and the sad thing is it only works for good people! Bad actors won't follow ethics anyway. So make laws, not ethics. Ethics on its own is even damaging. I know this goes againist what your mama told you, but read again if you don't understand it.

[beltim]

I don't think there's an argument over SNAP or WIC as they're already means tested in spirit and wherever it makes practical sense to do so. If ACA is out of the question, what are we even taking about?

You and I might think so but sol disagrees.

[beltim]

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

So I should spend everything on hookers & blow, THEN go get benefits. Got it.

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

[BTDretire]

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

So I should spend everything on hookers & blow, THEN go get benefits. Got it.

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

 If we can get a subsidy for hookers and blow, I might be persuaded to loosen my ethics! :-)

[maizefolk]

Well if one were going to break laws against drug use and prostitution, why not add in tax fraud and write them both off as business expenses? ;-)

[TomTX]

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

So I should spend everything on hookers & blow, THEN go get benefits. Got it.

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

It's your ruleset. I won't otherwise be able to pay for my groceries. Or are you now meta-judging that what I spent it on was unworthy? How far down the rabbit hole does it go?

[joonifloofeefloo]

Yeah... What I'm seeing in people of uncannily similar circumstances:

Person 1: Spending up to 100% (or more) of income on a car loan or lease, travel, concert tickets, fast food, meals out, a $150 toy for two year old, furniture, recreation. He will pay as little as $500/mo for a unit. Except where silent on spending, policy specifically states these are acceptable uses of income (and any windfalls).

Person 2: Spending on none of the above; socking every available penny into savings/investment for future. Despite having the same income, he will pay up to $2400 for an identical unit only because he saved, no other difference, whether his current income supports that market price or not. For a person unable to relocate, the difference is expected to come out of savings, which will quickly be depleted, putting one back to near-zero assets. There are a few exceptions placed by law or policy to address this issue, and I see that as wise.

@gerardc, thank you for your post above. You hit the nail on the head about hyperethics, folks working themselves to the bone per pride and personal standards, others urging us to despite the fallout, etc.

Overall, there are plenty of "third options" to make society work well. I prefer moving toward those than fussing about fractions of total government spending.

[maizefolk]

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

So I should spend everything on hookers & blow, THEN go get benefits. Got it.

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

It's your ruleset. I won't otherwise be able to pay for my groceries. Or are you now meta-judging that what I spent it on was unworthy? How far down the rabbit hole does it go?

The decision to spend all of your money on hookers and blow to the point where you aren't able to feed yourself (or any hypothetical dependents) is not an ethical one.* Distinct from the ethical question, prostitution and drug use are also illegal.

The choice to use both private charity and the social safety net once one is a starving drug addict** and can no longer afford to feed themself is perfectly ethical.* I don't believe anyone has an obligation to go away and starve quietly, just because the reason they find themselves in a bad situation is because of bad choices they made themselves in the past.

My assumption is that you are not presently a starving drug addict, and that you folks were therefore discussing the first choice and not the second one.

*In my own view YMCMV (Your Moral Compass May Vary)

**A complete loss of net worth, combined with the "joys" drug addition and potentially STDs (depending on how careful about safe sex this person is while sleeping with sex workers while high) seems like a poor trade for some free groceries.

[Simpleton]

I am really surprised by the number of people who feel that the "rich" are being unethical by finding legal ways to minimize taxes.

To be honest I kind of believe the whole idea of a progressive tax system is unethical and is really just encourages a sort of mob-rule in democracy as the majority can always vote to tax the minority more and more.

Regardless of how much tax someone making millions of dollars manages to avoid, they are ultimately contributing far more to society than their fair share as measured by everyone contributing equally.

[gerardc]

It's immoral to make someone else pay for your food in your "early retirement" from a program designed to help people pay for groceries they wouldn't otherwise be able to.  It doesn't really make a difference whether they scrimped and saved and invested or not.

So I should spend everything on hookers & blow, THEN go get benefits. Got it.

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

It's your ruleset. I won't otherwise be able to pay for my groceries. Or are you now meta-judging that what I spent it on was unworthy? How far down the rabbit hole does it go?

The decision to spend all of your money on hookers and blow to the point where you aren't able to feed yourself (or any hypothetical dependents) is not an ethical one.* Distinct from the ethical question, prostitution and drug use are also illegal.

I'm sure TomTX post wasn't specifically about hookers and blow. Replace those with clown cars, big houses, fancy restaurants or  entertainement, and his point still stands. Why would spending down your stash with stupid purchases and getting benefits be "ethical", while being frugal and getting benefits unethical?

Is it just a question of intent? Is purposefully drawing down your stash with stupid purchases in order to get benefits, unethical, but having no clue and just being stupid and drawing down your stash with stupid purchases then getting benefits, ethical? I.e. the exact same behavior, circumstances and results can both be ethical or unethical depending on your intent?

If so, that's a slippery distinction because it encourages bad actors to maintain plausible deniability and playing dumb, while good actors won't think they deserve the benefit and work themselves into the ground.

[gerardc]

I am really surprised by the number of people who feel that the "rich" are being unethical by finding legal ways to minimize taxes.

To be honest I kind of believe the whole idea of a progressive tax system is unethical and is really just encourages a sort of mob-rule in democracy as the majority can always vote to tax the minority more and more.

Regardless of how much tax someone making millions of dollars manages to avoid, they are ultimately contributing far more to society than their fair share as measured by everyone contributing equally.

+1

Saying the rich save more money in taxes than the poor is like saying you "save" money by buying something on sale you didn't need. Your basis of comparison is wrong.

[maizefolk]

Is it just a question of intent? Is purposefully drawing down your stash with stupid purchases in order to get benefits, unethical, but having no clue and just being stupid and drawing down your stash with stupid purchases then getting benefits, ethical? I.e. the exact same behavior, circumstances and results can both be ethical or unethical depending on your intent?

If so, that's a slippery distinction because it encourages bad actors to maintain plausible deniability and playing dumb, while good actors won't think they deserve the benefit and work themselves into the ground.

Yes, in the case TomTX put forward, I do think it is a question of intent. And that's why, once you find yourself in a bad place, relying on the safety net we've put in place for people who find themselves in bad places (regardless of how they got there) isn't ethically questionable at all. Before that, the two scenarios you outline are the difference between doing a bad thing on purpose, and doing a bad thing because of ignorance or stupidity.

I'm not sure it is actually a slippery slope in this specific case, because I'm reasonably confident that being a FIREd mustachian who has to buy their own groceries is a more desirable outcome for most people than being broke, but getting free groceries. So bad actors have no strong motivation to try to go from the first situation to the second, and therefore have no need to play dump.

More broadly, I think I understand the reasoning you're putting forward for why it's better to come up with legal or ethical frameworks which are based solely on actions rather than on people's intent. And I agree that such a system would indeed be simpler and less subject to gaming by bad actors. However I would argue that intent is a necessary complexity in both law and ethics. Consider the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. The action and consequence can be exactly the same, yet the intent clearly makes a significant difference both legally and ethically.

[gerardc]

Is it just a question of intent? Is purposefully drawing down your stash with stupid purchases in order to get benefits, unethical, but having no clue and just being stupid and drawing down your stash with stupid purchases then getting benefits, ethical? I.e. the exact same behavior, circumstances and results can both be ethical or unethical depending on your intent?

If so, that's a slippery distinction because it encourages bad actors to maintain plausible deniability and playing dumb, while good actors won't think they deserve the benefit and work themselves into the ground.

Yes, in the case TomTX put forward, I do think it is a question of intent. And that's why, once you find yourself in a bad place, relying on the safety net we've put in place for people who find themselves in bad places (regardless of how they got there) isn't ethically questionable at all. Before that, the two scenarios you outline are the difference between doing a bad thing on purpose, and doing a bad thing because of ignorance or stupidity.

I'm not sure it is actually a slippery slope in this specific case, because I'm reasonably confident that being a FIREd mustachian who has to buy their own groceries is a more desirable outcome for most people than being broke, but getting free groceries. So bad actors have no strong motivation to try to go from the first situation to the second, and therefore have no need to play dump.

More broadly, I think I understand the reasoning you're putting forward for why it's better to come up with legal or ethical frameworks which are based solely on actions rather than on people's intent. And I agree that such a system would indeed be simpler and less subject to gaming by bad actors. However I would argue that intent is a necessary complexity in both law and ethics. Consider the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. The action and consequence can be exactly the same, yet the intent clearly makes a significant difference both legally and ethically.

That makes sense and we're getting a bit closer to understanding but still not 100% there.

It boils down to having a good definition of being in a bad place, or legitimaly requiring governmental help, VS being able to help yourself; in the end we only want to help those who can't help themselves and those who could help themselves but choose not to are being unethical.

The problem with posing this definition is that a "genuine bad place" depends on the standards of living of each individual, their tolerance for pain and general badassity. For example, person A "needs" to have their TV subscription, eat out, cannot work too much, etc. and as a result spends all their savings and ends up needing help. According to their intent (not trying to game the system), this is ethical. In contrast, person B has a high pain tolerance, is frugal and will work 12 hour days to earn a living on top of saving some money, preventing them to achieve their dreams in the process, or spend quality time with their kids, and in good faith they assume everyone including person A does the same. According to your standards, it would be unethical for person B to work less or retire, because their decrease in income would be intentional and they'd benefit as a result. This doesn't seem right.

Let's try again. I posit that it's only unethical to decrease income to increase benefits if:
- The decrease in income is intentional, AND
- The ONLY reason (intent) for decreasing income is to increase benefits.
This means that if decreasing income also increases happiness, or is otherwise necessary for general well being, then the behavior is ethical. Seems like this definition would satisfy everyone so far?

Except this poses another problem. If your "friend" suggests you to decrease income and promises you more happiness as a result, your intent is now happiness, not leeching, which is ethical. But what if the reason you'll be happier is indirectly linked to the benefits you're getting? I.e. by blacklisting some taboo intents, it becomes advantageous to identify intents closely correlated to those taboo intents, then feeding those off clueless loved ones.

We can't even scientifically determine cause and effect relationships with certainty, so using intent in law is prone to all kinds of complications. No wonder the justice system is so fucked.

[EnjoyIt]

Is it just a question of intent? Is purposefully drawing down your stash with stupid purchases in order to get benefits, unethical, but having no clue and just being stupid and drawing down your stash with stupid purchases then getting benefits, ethical? I.e. the exact same behavior, circumstances and results can both be ethical or unethical depending on your intent?

If so, that's a slippery distinction because it encourages bad actors to maintain plausible deniability and playing dumb, while good actors won't think they deserve the benefit and work themselves into the ground.

Yes, in the case TomTX put forward, I do think it is a question of intent. And that's why, once you find yourself in a bad place, relying on the safety net we've put in place for people who find themselves in bad places (regardless of how they got there) isn't ethically questionable at all. Before that, the two scenarios you outline are the difference between doing a bad thing on purpose, and doing a bad thing because of ignorance or stupidity.

I'm not sure it is actually a slippery slope in this specific case, because I'm reasonably confident that being a FIREd mustachian who has to buy their own groceries is a more desirable outcome for most people than being broke, but getting free groceries. So bad actors have no strong motivation to try to go from the first situation to the second, and therefore have no need to play dump.

More broadly, I think I understand the reasoning you're putting forward for why it's better to come up with legal or ethical frameworks which are based solely on actions rather than on people's intent. And I agree that such a system would indeed be simpler and less subject to gaming by bad actors. However I would argue that intent is a necessary complexity in both law and ethics. Consider the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. The action and consequence can be exactly the same, yet the intent clearly makes a significant difference both legally and ethically.

That makes sense and we're getting a bit closer to understanding but still not 100% there.

It boils down to having a good definition of being in a bad place, or legitimaly requiring governmental help, VS being able to help yourself; in the end we only want to help those who can't help themselves and those who could help themselves but choose not to are being unethical.

The problem with posing this definition is that a "genuine bad place" depends on the standards of living of each individual, their tolerance for pain and general badassity. For example, person A "needs" to have their TV subscription, eat out, cannot work too much, etc. and as a result spends all their savings and ends up needing help. According to their intent (not trying to game the system), this is ethical. In contrast, person B has a high pain tolerance, is frugal and will work 12 hour days to earn a living on top of saving some money, preventing them to achieve their dreams in the process, or spend quality time with their kids, and in good faith they assume everyone including person A does the same. According to your standards, it would be unethical for person B to work less or retire, because their decrease in income would be intentional and they'd benefit as a result. This doesn't seem right.

Let's try again. I posit that it's only unethical to decrease income to increase benefits if:
- The decrease in income is intentional, AND
- The ONLY reason (intent) for decreasing income is to increase benefits.
This means that if decreasing income also increases happiness, or is otherwise necessary for general well being, then the behavior is ethical. Seems like this definition would satisfy everyone so far?

Except this poses another problem. If your "friend" suggests you to decrease income and promises you more happiness as a result, your intent is now happiness, not leeching, which is ethical. But what if the reason you'll be happier is indirectly linked to the benefits you're getting? I.e. by blacklisting some taboo intents, it becomes advantageous to identify intents closely correlated to those taboo intents, then feeding those off clueless loved ones.

We can't even scientifically determine cause and effect relationships with certainty, so using intent in law is prone to all kinds of complications. No wonder the justice system is so fucked.

I don't understand why you are trying so hard to pigeon hole this discussion into a process map.  One can always find loop holes and straw man arguments if they try hard enough. There will always be bad actors who try and game the system mostly because it is impossible to make a perfect system of checks and balances for every government program.  Instead why no just evaluate the situation for yourself and decide if it is ethical or not.  If you think it is okay to take a certain limited resource designed for the less fortunate for yourself despite being rich then feel free for you to do you.  I personally think it is unethical despite its legality. 

[gerardc]

I don't understand why you are trying so hard to pigeon hole this discussion into a process map.  One can always find loop holes and straw man arguments if they try hard enough. There will always be bad actors who try and game the system mostly because it is impossible to make a perfect system of checks and balances for every government program.  Instead why no just evaluate the situation for yourself and decide if it is ethical or not.

Don't you think it's useful to examine carefully the ramifications, reasons, consequences, etc. of your belief system, to perhaps elucidate whether you're right or wrong? Otherwise we can all agree to have our own opinions, disagree and go on our merry ways. With your system, law books would only be 1 page and read "Do what you think is best please, be honest and ethical, thanks." We can do better than that.

If you think it is okay to take a certain limited resource designed for the less fortunate for yourself despite being rich then feel free for you to do you.  I personally think it is unethical despite its legality.

Do you agree that it's ethical to take a limited resource designed for the less fortunate for yourself if could have been rich, but instead you intentionally decided to reduce income for other reasons (like staying home to raise kids, traveling, etc.) that ultimately made you struggle financially? If so we all agree.