Author Topic: Decreasing income to increase benefits  (Read 38966 times)

jim555

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #250 on: September 03, 2018, 06:59:17 PM »
After reading through all the SNAP info it looks like if i get to 60 yo I would qualify for a nice benefit if my income stays where it is.  Is that ethical?  I have no problems with it.  I have paid taxes for decades and it is about time I got something back.  Why would I leave money on the table if I qualify for it?  No fraud is involved and it is legal.  Also property taxes get a lot lower at 65 but I would need to apply for that, so that is a no brainer as well.

I would say this:  If you can't work, disabled, and need the food, then by all means please get it.  If all you need to do is work 1 more year in your 40s or 50s so as not to need it, then please leave the food for those who really do and work 1 more year.  If you get to your 60s and learned you made a mistake and find yourself in need of food then again, please take the service that is intended for you.

Or, go ahead and take whatever resources that you legally qualify for but please don't go around voting in a way that increases your own benefit by taxing those who are working just because you still don't want to work.  And please, don't call yourself a humanitarian.
Why would I vote against my own self interest?  I wouldn't vote for someone who wants to get rid of the ACA or food stamps, makes no sense.  Only a fool would vote to hurt themselves.  It is called a democracy, deal with it.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #251 on: September 03, 2018, 08:55:02 PM »
You want to look at some round about way to help yourself rationalize your decision, then feel free to do so.  The end result is convoluting you tax situation to get a benefit that is designed for the destitute.  In my opinion it is unethical, but you do you.

This really doesn't seem that roundabout to me. We all pay taxes based on our income. Part of those taxes go toward food subsidies for everyone. Another part goes toward further food subsidies for low income folks. If you're no longer paying taxes, you're accepting food subsidies. If your ethics state that you should pay for the entirety of your basic needs each year, for as long as you are capable of doing so, retiring early to a super low tax bracket is unethical. On the other hand, you can still be paying your own way each year as an early retiree if your stash is big enough to allow you to manufacture enough income that your taxes remain at least as high as your per-capita share of the federal budget. In rough numbers, we have a $4 trillion federal budget and 325 million people. I hope you've budgeted for over $12k in income tax during your retirement so that you're continuing to pay your own way.

As for me personally, I have no plans to take food stamps. The requirement to register for work programs and accept whatever job might come up as a condition of receiving benefits just doesn't seem worth it for maybe a couple hundred bucks a month. Ethics really doesn't factor into it for me though. I've been paying taxes for years toward all sorts of things that I don't find ethical; I have no qualms against getting some of that money back if my honest application for those funds is accepted.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #252 on: September 03, 2018, 10:38:08 PM »
After reading through all the SNAP info it looks like if i get to 60 yo I would qualify for a nice benefit if my income stays where it is.  Is that ethical?  I have no problems with it.  I have paid taxes for decades and it is about time I got something back.  Why would I leave money on the table if I qualify for it?  No fraud is involved and it is legal.  Also property taxes get a lot lower at 65 but I would need to apply for that, so that is a no brainer as well.

I would say this:  If you can't work, disabled, and need the food, then by all means please get it.  If all you need to do is work 1 more year in your 40s or 50s so as not to need it, then please leave the food for those who really do and work 1 more year.  If you get to your 60s and learned you made a mistake and find yourself in need of food then again, please take the service that is intended for you.

Or, go ahead and take whatever resources that you legally qualify for but please don't go around voting in a way that increases your own benefit by taxing those who are working just because you still don't want to work.  And please, don't call yourself a humanitarian.
Why would I vote against my own self interest?  I wouldn't vote for someone who wants to get rid of the ACA or food stamps, makes no sense.  Only a fool would vote to hurt themselves.  It is called a democracy, deal with it.

So its okay to keep voting more more taxes on others so that you can keep having a better lifestyle?  Maybe we should all pay you a stipend of $5k a month so that you can vote more goodies for yourself.  That is called the fall of democracy.

Sure you would be a fool to vote against your best interest but I hope you don't also do that with the thinking you are helping your fellow man and woman.  You are just helping yourself.

tenant13

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #253 on: September 23, 2018, 12:46:53 PM »
I just spent a solid chunk of time reading this whole thread and am really surprised that nobody has brought Marx into this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs.


Kronsey

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #254 on: December 12, 2018, 11:40:35 PM »
This is an old topic, but I will revive it to provide our scenario as I've struggled with the "morality" of the APTC and Medicaid for my kids.

I'll keep the numbers real simple for 2019:

Roughly $95K of gross income. $38K of 401K savings and $12K of tIRA savings. Approximate AGI on tax return = $45K

That qualifies us for a great ACA insurance plan where we will only be paying $140/month. Our kids will qualify for state health and dental for around $40/month.

We will also receive a tax refund without paying anything in from the EIC, CTC, Saver's Credit, Etc.

So our income will be in a negative tax bracket and with a future ROTH conversion ladder, I may never pay another dime of federal income tax for the rest of my life.

Seems unfair, but I am moving forward with the plan.

oldmachines

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Northwest Arkansas
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #255 on: December 14, 2018, 07:19:29 AM »
I recently voted for several things locally that were not in my personal best interest but that I thought were beneficial to my community as a whole. I have done the same in national elections. I thought I was being ethical, large minded and a good citizen of the world - all things that fit MMM principles. It turns out I was being a fool. How ashamed I am - bad democracy!!! Screw the world around me, from now on it's just ME ME ME.

HipGnosis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #256 on: December 14, 2018, 07:30:30 AM »
-- snip --
In my particular situation I want to pay off my mortgage as quickly as possible so that ...
When my children are getting ready to go to university I can drop my income very significantly, refinance my home and live off that to qualify for tuition subsidies.
BUT,  IF you have a low income, you most probably won't qualify for refinancing your home

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #257 on: December 14, 2018, 11:11:02 AM »
OM, I do the same as you. I was a social worker and poor people have a hard enough time accessing services they needed let alone people with money trying to manipulate the system to get it. Frankly, it makes me sick. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #258 on: December 14, 2018, 11:20:44 AM »
OM, I do the same as you. I was a social worker and poor people have a hard enough time accessing services they needed let alone people with money trying to manipulate the system to get it. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Why does it make you sick?

Does it make you more sick or less sick than a billionaire getting a tax right off for his superyacht?  Because those sorts of tax breaks for the super-rich are worth more, on a dollars basis, then all of the various ACA/medicaid tax optimization strategies put together.

If you really want poor people to have better access to health care, then you should be happy more people are arranging their finances to support the ACA marketplaces that make insurance available to them.  Congress has been systematically undercutting the ACA reforms for the past eight years, trying to take health insurance away from ten million Americans, and you're "sick" that a single worker is voluntarily participating in the subsidy marketplace?  How does that harm anyone?

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #259 on: December 14, 2018, 11:38:48 AM »
OM, I do the same as you. I was a social worker and poor people have a hard enough time accessing services they needed let alone people with money trying to manipulate the system to get it. Frankly, it makes me sick.

Why does it make you sick?

Does it make you more sick or less sick than a billionaire getting a tax right off for his superyacht?  Because those sorts of tax breaks for the super-rich are worth more, on a dollars basis, then (sic) all of the various ACA/medicaid tax optimization strategies put together.

It sounds like you are deflecting to rationalize to yourself and others that it's ok taking advantage of Medicaid for your family of several people at no cost to you, when it was meant for poor people, while you're also bragging about how much money you have in other threads.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #260 on: December 14, 2018, 11:45:56 AM »
I see it the same as Sol.

I would add that I don't see "limited resources" when it comes to government pots. When we begin to moderate the ridiculous incomes of a handful of high-level politicians, I'll believe the account is somehow running low. I don't like when we accept that subsidies for the regular joe blow are necessarily limited. I would rather we resolve the big, wasteful spends then see if we still need to fret about who's getting a medical subsidy.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #261 on: December 14, 2018, 11:57:46 AM »
It sounds like you are deflecting to rationalize to yourself and others that it's ok taking advantage of Medicaid for your family

I'm not on medicaid.  I'm not getting an ACA subsidy, either.

But if I was qualified for one, I would absolutely take it.  Why wouldn't I follow the tax laws as written?  Do you also only take one child tax credit if you're legally entitled to two, just because your children aren't literally starving?  Do you pay more income tax than required?  Do you turn down the tax exemption on your 401k because your 401k is already flush?

Quote
when it was meant for poor people

1.  Why do you suppose to know who it was "meant" for?  We can both read the text of the law, which is very clear about who qualifies for subsidies and who does not.  If you qualify, then I suggest that it was "meant" for you.

2.  If you do qualify, then you are by definition one of the "poor" people.  Anyone who makes too much money cannot qualify for subsidies. 


Let's not forget that rich people are fantastic at making full use of the tax code.  They structure their businesses to minimize their tax burdens, and even MMM did a whole blog post about how to do so.  They shelter personal assets in LLCs, they take out interest-only loans against their personal assets to fund living expenses without paying any taxes at all, and they find all kinds of creative ways to pay their friends and family from offshore shell corporations.  It's all technically legal, and it costs the US government billions of dollars per year.  And yet here we are suggesting that a minimum wage worker shouldn't get subsidized health insurance?  What kind ethical bizarro world do you live in where it's fine for the rich to skirt the rules, but poor people are supposed to suffer and die to appear "moral" to you?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 12:10:21 PM by sol »

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #262 on: December 14, 2018, 12:23:47 PM »
I realize most people need the HI subsidy. What is wrong is making 95k/year and saving half your money in order to qualify. Rich people do legal but unethical things all the time which also makes me sick. The pot of money may not be unlimited in Canada but it is here. When we first retired our gross income was 40k and our HI cost 10k.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #263 on: December 14, 2018, 12:38:08 PM »
The pot of money may not be unlimited in Canada but it is here.

It's the same in any country where politicians' income is ridiculously high, not to mention other government waste. I would apply this idea to any country doing gross fiscal mismanagement, corporate bailouts, etc. That certainly includes the US, as well as Canada. To artificially restrict funding for necessities while blowing wild amounts on nonnecessities -fun for the extremely wealthy- is a game I don't buy into. I think the governments are savvy and strategic when they convince people that the pots are somehow appropriately balanced and set the 90% against each other instead of against the 10%.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #264 on: December 14, 2018, 12:43:45 PM »
I totally agree Joon. What happens at the macro level is horrible. For example the huge tax cuts for the wealthy here and now they want to cut SS and Medicare.  But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to take advantage at the micro level either.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #265 on: December 14, 2018, 12:48:50 PM »
I totally agree Joon. What happens at the macro level is horrible. For example the huge tax cuts for the wealthy here and now they want to cut SS and Medicare.  But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to take advantage at the micro level either.

I don't see it as taking advantage. When there's enough to go around, it's no worry, and there is (enough to go around).

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #266 on: December 14, 2018, 01:38:09 PM »
It sounds like you are deflecting to rationalize to yourself and others that it's ok taking advantage of Medicaid for your family

I'm not on medicaid.  I'm not getting an ACA subsidy, either.

Still on COBRA huh?  Well, you did talk about how staying under ~$40000 taxable income was going to provide your family free healthcare coverage, which happens to be the threshold for Medicaid for your family in the state that you live.

Quote
But if I was qualified for one, I would absolutely take it.  Why wouldn't I follow the tax laws as written?  Do you also only take one child tax credit if you're legally entitled to two, just because your children aren't literally starving?  Do you pay more income tax than required?  Do you turn down the tax exemption on your 401k because your 401k is already flush?

Those are the same old worn out arguments that were used earlier in this discussion - maybe in this very thread.

Quote
1.  Why do you suppose to know who it was "meant" for?  We can both read the text of the law, which is very clear about who qualifies for subsidies and who does not.  If you qualify, then I suggest that it was "meant" for you.

2.  If you do qualify, then you are by definition one of the "poor" people.  Anyone who makes too much money cannot qualify for subsidies. 

Taking advantage of the handout meant for the poor by manipulating your income to appear "poor" when  you are not is what is unethical.  That doesn't make you poor.

Quote
Let's not forget that rich people are fantastic at making full use of the tax code.  They structure their businesses to minimize their tax burdens, and even MMM did a whole blog post about how to do so.  They shelter personal assets in LLCs, they take out interest-only loans against their personal assets to fund living expenses without paying any taxes at all, and they find all kinds of creative ways to pay their friends and family from offshore shell corporations.  It's all technically legal, and it costs the US government billions of dollars per year.  And yet here we are suggesting that a minimum wage worker shouldn't get subsidized health insurance?  What kind ethical bizarro world do you live in where it's fine for the rich to skirt the rules, but poor people are supposed to suffer and die to appear "moral" to you?

So, businesses take advantage of loop holes in tax laws, so it's ok for you, too, to take advantage of the law to take benefits meant for the poor?  Just because someone else is doing something unethical or otherwise sticking it to the taxpayers, you shouldn't rationalize that makes it ok for you to do so.  When they go low, you go high?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 01:41:55 PM by DreamFIRE »

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #267 on: December 14, 2018, 01:44:24 PM »
When I worked with people with disabilities each counselor had a pot of money to spend for the year. You had to figure out how to help 100 clients. It wasn’t divided evenly as each client had different needs to get back to work.  It was never enough. If you ran out of money there was no more until the new fiscal year.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #268 on: December 14, 2018, 01:50:28 PM »
Still on COBRA huh?

No, I'm not.  Why do you keep assuming to know so much about me and my family, and then casting aspersions based on your assumptions? 

Quote
Quote
But if I was qualified for one, I would absolutely take it.  Why wouldn't I follow the tax laws as written?  Do you also only take one child tax credit if you're legally entitled to two, just because your children aren't literally starving?  Do you pay more income tax than required?  Do you turn down the tax exemption on your 401k because your 401k is already flush?
Those are the same old worn out arguments that were used earlier in this discussion - maybe in this very thread.

By "old and worn out" do you mean "ignored and unrefuted"?

The tax code is very clear in this case.  Some people get health insurance subsidies and some people don't.  Why would you try to convince someone who does get subsidies that they shouldn't accept them?  Would you tell a homeless person not to apply for free housing?  An unemployed person not to collect unemployment?  We have these things for a reason.  They are meant to help people.  Why are you trying to prevent people from being helped?

Quote
Taking advantage of the handout meant for the poor by manipulating your income to appear "poor" when  you are not is what is unethical.  That doesn't make you poor.

I agree it doesn't make you poor as judged by my standards, but it absolutely does make you poor as judged by the tax code.  Just because I feel wealthy on minimal income doesn't mean I have to pay taxes like a wealthy person.  This is a simple matter of math.  We don't need to argue about how poor you feel or don't, we only need to follow with the law.  I am suggesting we follow it, and you are suggesting we should not.

Quote
So, businesses take advantage of loop holes in tax laws, so it's ok for you, too, to take advantage of the law to take benefits meant for the poor?

If by "take advantage" you mean "comply with the law" then yes, I absolutely believe it is ethical for poor people to receive the benefits the law entitles them to receive.  Apparently you don't, for some reason?

If you think we should lower the threshold for how poor a person should be before they receive subsidized healthcare, that's a fine argument to make.  Maybe nobody who owns a home should get a subsidy?  Maybe nobody who isn't disabled?  Please, go try to convince congress of the changes you believe in.  In the meantime, the rest of us are going to follow the laws that congress has passed.

When I worked with people with disabilities each counselor had a pot of money to spend for the year. You had to figure out how to help 100 clients. It wasn’t divided evenly as each client had different needs to get back to work.  It was never enough. If you ran out of money there was no more until the new fiscal year.

Cassie, that sounds like a really shitty way to organize disability payments.  Fortunately, the ACA isn't structured that way at all. 

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #269 on: December 14, 2018, 01:57:03 PM »
Still on COBRA huh?

No, I'm not.  Why do you keep assuming to know so much about me and my family, and then casting aspersions based on your assumptions? 


The comment about you using Medicaid is based on your own words from a previous post.

I'm mere days away from retiring at age 41 with a wife and three kids.  I am not worried about healthcare.

The ACA is still the law of the land, and my state's expanded coverage options are pretty good.  Care is totally 100% FREE if my family shows under $40k of paper income, which is pretty easy to do with a paid off house while just drawing on your investment accounts because return of principal isn't income.  Roth contribution withdrawals aren't income.  Gross rental income isn't income.  Spending down our massive savings isn't income.

Failing that, the subsidy is still by law capped at a sliding percentage of your household income.  For a family of 5 making $50k it's about 6% of your income and the subsidy covers the rest.  Even if we had some major medical catastrophe and had to pay the out of pocket max, I figure my family's healthcare costs at $50k of paper income would only be $4038 per year, according to my state's marketplace website.  That's for premiums plus all costs before 100% coverage kicks in, like if we all got cancer simultaneously or something.

And honestly, the extreme backup plan for healthcare is the same as the extreme backup plan in case of generic economic collapse (and associated portfolio failure):  just get another job.  I have one now, and it's tolerable.  I'm pretty sure I could get another one if I really really had to, and I'm not prepared to accept that doomsayer prediction that I should just never stop working, in case I someday have to go to work in the future.  That seems silly.

Other than what you posted on this forum yourself, I don't know anything about you.  I know it wasn't long ago that you stated that you FIRed, so you would be well within the COBRA time frame if you weren't yet soaking the taxpayers for your free Medicaid benefits.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 01:58:36 PM by DreamFIRE »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #270 on: December 14, 2018, 02:04:32 PM »
The comment about you using Medicaid is based on your own words from a previous post.

A previous post about a hypothetical future situation that has not come to pass.  I've already reiterated that if I qualified for a subsidy I would take it.  I don't qualify for a subsidy. 

Maybe some day I will.  At that time, I will unflinchingly accept an ACA subsidy if the law says I should have one.  I will also unflinchingly accept police protection for my family and belongings, and fire protection from my local fire department.  Then I will drive on government-funded roads and eat government-inspected meat and each year I will get a government-formulated flu shot.  If you feel I should reject any of these benefits of living in a modern western society, I would welcome your explanation as to why.  Are you worried my flu shot will deprive a homeless person of getting theirs?

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #271 on: December 14, 2018, 02:05:46 PM »
Sol, it’s not disability payments. It’s a federal/state program to help people with disabilities return to work.  So while one client may need lengthy retraining another may only need a job coach. It’s a voluntary program.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #272 on: December 14, 2018, 02:12:09 PM »
The comment about you using Medicaid is based on your own words from a previous post.

A previous post about a hypothetical future situation that has not come to pass.  I've already reiterated that if I qualified for a subsidy I would take it.  I don't qualify for a subsidy. 

Maybe some day I will.  At that time, I will unflinchingly accept an ACA subsidy if the law says I should have one.  I

I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor, although the PCT are CSR come into play more with a lower income, even then, you certainly don't need to be anywhere near "poor" to get a PCT.

And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #273 on: December 14, 2018, 02:22:41 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #274 on: December 14, 2018, 02:58:46 PM »
When I worked with people with disabilities each counselor had a pot of money to spend for the year. You had to figure out how to help 100 clients. It wasn’t divided evenly as each client had different needs to get back to work.  It was never enough. If you ran out of money there was no more until the new fiscal year.

Yes, some very specific budgets are capped per group. And then those of us with access need to be very careful about accepting only what we actually need. e.g., If my household has an income of $20k, my kid better not spend $19.5k of that on himself, and mostly on video games.

When the cap is "budget of first world country", I don't see the same limit. In that case, they're essentially saying, "We have $100,000 to help 100 clients. I, being president of the US, will take $99,999.99 and the other 99 people better be mindful, ethical, and careful in their divvying the remaining penny between them." There's no need for the government to do that. They can divvy the $100k differently from the starting point, providing enough for all 100 clients. The limit is imagined, false, arbitrary, unnecessary, and based only in the greed of a few. It can afford medical coverage (for example) for all.

By the same token, it can also afford to house all veterans, provide supported employment to all people with disabilities that need that, etc. It pretending those must be capped is the only thing that sickens me.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #275 on: December 14, 2018, 03:04:54 PM »
Yes Joon, we could do all those things you mentioned if we quit going to war, giving corporate handouts, tax breaks to the rich, etc. But unfortunately the government would rather waste money than actually help people.  I doubt that will change in my lifetime.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #276 on: December 14, 2018, 03:14:29 PM »
Yep.

I think it's critically important that we continue working for these changes. Who knows whose lifetime it will happen in? But that pot did get wider with American health care, did it not? And I've seen it get wider for children with special needs and adults with disabilities in two parts of Canada. The money that wasn't there suddenly was, and that's because people refused to accept the proposal that the 99% split a penny.

A loooooooooooong ways to go yet, but it's important that we not buy into the false premise, spat with each other over the division of the penny, and agree to unnecessarily limited budgets. The money's there; we need to focus our attention on rearranging the division.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #277 on: December 14, 2018, 03:43:05 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Yes, it's part of the ACA, and I've said as much in my own past posts, but you specifically said "ACA subsidy", and I have never heard anyone describe Medicaid as an ACA subsidy.  They are generally referring to ACA PCT and CSR.  The ACA is not just for poor people despite the Medicaid expansion being part of it.  It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage by using paper income of $40,000 so that other taxpayers will pay for it, while you actually have "massive savings".  It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

Quote
Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.  That's easy for you to make a defense against a case I never tried to make.  Classic straw man.  Nice try, though. LOL

Kronsey

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #278 on: December 14, 2018, 03:46:51 PM »
OM, I do the same as you. I was a social worker and poor people have a hard enough time accessing services they needed let alone people with money trying to manipulate the system to get it. Frankly, it makes me sick.

So you are upset at a person in my scenario because I'm self employed, follow the laws to a T, and yet still qualify for a subsidy? Deferring income via retirement accounts ISN'T "manipulating the system" regardless of how you FEEL about it. I have the exact same after tax income to spend on health care as the person grossing $45K/year. Just because I choose to diligently save shouldn't be reason not to qualify. 


I realize most people need the HI subsidy. What is wrong is making 95k/year and saving half your money in order to qualify. Rich people do legal but unethical things all the time which also makes me sick. The pot of money may not be unlimited in Canada but it is here. When we first retired our gross income was 40k and our HI cost 10k.

Was it unethical for you to take advantage of the health benefits offered to you at deeply discounted (or possibly free) rates? Why should my family pay $15,000 more per year for insurance simply because we are self-employed? Shouldn't a person not reliant on the system receive as much or more help than the person who shows up for 40 hours a week at some gov't or corp job and doesn't do anything for 30 of those hours?

And please spare me the BS about the employer (or govt org) "paying" for the difference. All things being equal, it should cost a family or individual the same amount of money to purchase health insurance regardless of self-employed, business owner, employee, or govt employee.

Are we trying to get to a place as a society where it is literally impossible to afford to be self-employed? We are heading there quickly if we don't make some changes. Without subsidies, our health insurance would have been 2.25X our house payment. When my father was my age, he paid around $18/month for health insurance for a family of five, and it was better coverage than what is available today. I have no idea what that would be accounting for inflation, but I'll round up to $100/month. Around $1,800/month vs $100/month... Not looking good for the middle class for sure.

I guess in your world, we should pay what the market demands while at the same time you had no problem with the taxpayers funding your own health insurance (I admit I am assuming you worked for some sort of govt agency during your social work days and received heavily subsidized health insurance).

The entire system is completely screwed up. I'm not suggesting I have all the answers, but to be visibly upset at someone for purposefully arranging their lives to take advantage of the tax code seems a little absurd to me.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #279 on: December 14, 2018, 03:52:59 PM »
Kron, can’t you read? We paid 25% of our income for our HI. Even though it is through my retiree coverage we pay every dime.  We are not subsidized one penny.

Kronsey

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #280 on: December 14, 2018, 03:53:30 PM »
Kron, can’t you read? We paid 25% of our income for our HI. Even though it is through my retiree coverage we pay every dime.  We are not subsidized one penny.

Post retirement, yes?

What about when you worked as a social worker?

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #281 on: December 14, 2018, 03:54:40 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Yes, it's part of the ACA, and I've said as much in my own past posts, but you specifically said "ACA subsidy", and I have never heard anyone describe Medicaid as an ACA subsidy.  They are generally referring to ACA PCT and CSR.  The ACA is not just for poor people despite the Medicaid expansion being part of it.  It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage by using paper income of $40,000 so that other taxpayers will pay for it, while you actually have "massive savings".  It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

Quote
Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.  That's easy for you to make a defense against a case I never tried to make.  Classic straw man.  Nice try, though. LOL

I'm losing my Cobra next year.  How do I determine if I should take the subsidy or not?  If the tax law says I'm eligible, at what level of "massive savings" is the cut off?  Where does it go from black to white.  Seems like a lot of shades of grey.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #282 on: December 14, 2018, 03:59:03 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Yes, it's part of the ACA, and I've said as much in my own past posts, but you specifically said "ACA subsidy", and I have never heard anyone describe Medicaid as an ACA subsidy.  They are generally referring to ACA PCT and CSR.  The ACA is not just for poor people despite the Medicaid expansion being part of it.  It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage by using paper income of $40,000 so that other taxpayers will pay for it, while you actually have "massive savings".  It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

Quote
Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.  That's easy for you to make a defense against a case I never tried to make.  Classic straw man.  Nice try, though. LOL

I'm losing my Cobra next year.  How do I determine if I should take the subsidy or not?  If the tax law says I'm eligible, at what level of "massive savings" is the cut off?  Where does it go from black to white.  Seems like a lot of shades of grey.

It depends on your MAGI income and family size.  I assume you actually mean the ACA PCT and possible CSR, not Medicaid.  If your income qualifies you, you may be entitled to ACA PCT and decent CSR to boot.  In my state (and many others), people go to https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/ and put in the numbers.  Of course, I don't come close to qualifying and purchase through the private sector through my employer's plan.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 04:02:26 PM by DreamFIRE »

Kronsey

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #283 on: December 14, 2018, 03:59:24 PM »
Kron, can’t you read? We paid 25% of our income for our HI. Even though it is through my retiree coverage we pay every dime.  We are not subsidized one penny.

Let's use another example to hopefully clear it up for you -

Let's say you, me and another Joe Smith all go down to the local Toyota dealership to buy a new Prius.

You - the govt employee - show up and are quoted $15K

Joe - the corp employee - shows up and receives the same quote - $15K

I show up - the self employed shlub - and get quoted $35K

I don't understand how anyone could support that system and/or be upset if their was a gov't program that brought the cost down to an affordable level that everyone else is already taking advantage of.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #284 on: December 14, 2018, 04:13:50 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Yes, it's part of the ACA, and I've said as much in my own past posts, but you specifically said "ACA subsidy", and I have never heard anyone describe Medicaid as an ACA subsidy.  They are generally referring to ACA PCT and CSR.  The ACA is not just for poor people despite the Medicaid expansion being part of it.  It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage by using paper income of $40,000 so that other taxpayers will pay for it, while you actually have "massive savings".  It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

Quote
Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.  That's easy for you to make a defense against a case I never tried to make.  Classic straw man.  Nice try, though. LOL

I'm losing my Cobra next year.  How do I determine if I should take the subsidy or not?  If the tax law says I'm eligible, at what level of "massive savings" is the cut off?  Where does it go from black to white.  Seems like a lot of shades of grey.

It depends on your MAGI income and family size.  I assume you actually mean the ACA PCT and possible CSR, not Medicaid.  If your income qualifies you, you may be entitled to ACA PCT and decent CSR to boot.  In my state (and many others), people go to https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/ and put in the numbers.  Of course, I don't come close to qualifying and purchase through the private sector through my employer's plan.

You completely missed my question.  You're saying that if I have "massive savings" and I qualify based on my income, it is unethical to take the subsidy.  What is the level of "massive savings" for me to determine whether or not to take the subsidy?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #285 on: December 14, 2018, 04:14:19 PM »
It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage

Yes, I did say that a family that is poor enough can get free health insurance through medicaid.  Is that an incorrect statement?

I did not say that my family is currently doing that.  We are not currently doing that.  We make too much money to qualify.  But if I was poor enough, I would qualify for medicaid.  So would you, and every other American citizen.

Quote
It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

You still haven't explained to me why you think medicaid is for poor people, when the laws specifically states what income levels qualify.  Do you feel that there is some secondary "intention" behind the law beyond what it actually says, and that people should adhere to this invisible intention instead of what the law actually says?

Quote
An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.

I think I understand.  You think that some government benefits are fine to take, and others are not, and you think it is a straw man that I compared two different types of government benefits when trying to illustrate that we are each legally entitled to all of the benefits conferred to us.

I was hoping you would see that you don't get to personally decide which government benefits other people are entitled to.  The law does that, and your opinion of what is moral and what is not moral to utilize is not just irrelevant, but quite sanctimonious.  What gives you the right to decide how the laws should be applied?  Who appointed you the arbiter of our collective morality?  We have literal judges that decide how the laws should be applied, and I will continue to follow their advice instead of yours because yours seems kind of hypocritically preachy.

I'm not arguing that YOU should take medicaid if you are legally entitled to it.  I respect your right to make your own decisions about what is right for your family.  But I am asking that you tone down the attempts to control other people who are attempting to also make decisions about what is best for their families.  Let them do their own thing, just like we let you do yours.  Please.  As long as everyone is following the law, I don't see the problems that you apparently do.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #286 on: December 14, 2018, 04:15:54 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Yes, it's part of the ACA, and I've said as much in my own past posts, but you specifically said "ACA subsidy", and I have never heard anyone describe Medicaid as an ACA subsidy.  They are generally referring to ACA PCT and CSR.  The ACA is not just for poor people despite the Medicaid expansion being part of it.  It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage by using paper income of $40,000 so that other taxpayers will pay for it, while you actually have "massive savings".  It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

Quote
Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.  That's easy for you to make a defense against a case I never tried to make.  Classic straw man.  Nice try, though. LOL

I'm losing my Cobra next year.  How do I determine if I should take the subsidy or not?  If the tax law says I'm eligible, at what level of "massive savings" is the cut off?  Where does it go from black to white.  Seems like a lot of shades of grey.

It depends on your MAGI income and family size.  I assume you actually mean the ACA PCT and possible CSR, not Medicaid.  If your income qualifies you, you may be entitled to ACA PCT and decent CSR to boot.  In my state (and many others), people go to https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/ and put in the numbers.  Of course, I don't come close to qualifying and purchase through the private sector through my employer's plan.

You completely missed my question.  You're saying that if I have "massive savings" and I qualify based on my income, it is unethical to take the subsidy.  What is the level of "massive savings" for me to determine whether or not to take the subsidy?

Maybe I misread what you were stating?  It looks like you're referring to medicaid only.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #287 on: December 14, 2018, 04:18:19 PM »
It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage

Yes, I did say that a family that is poor enough can get free health insurance through medicaid.  Is that an incorrect statement?

I did not say that my family is currently doing that.  We are not currently doing that.  We make too much money to qualify.  But if I was poor enough, I would qualify for medicaid.  So would you, and every other American citizen.

Quote
It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

You still haven't explained to me why you think medicaid is for poor people, when the laws specifically states what income levels qualify.  Do you feel that there is some secondary "intention" behind the law beyond what it actually says, and that people should adhere to this invisible intention instead of what the law actually says?

Quote
An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.

I think I understand.  You think that some government benefits are fine to take, and others are not, and you think it is a straw man that I compared two different types of government benefits when trying to illustrate that we are each legally entitled to all of the benefits conferred to us.

I was hoping you would see that you don't get to personally decide which government benefits other people are entitled to.  The law does that, and your opinion of what is moral and what is not moral to utilize is not just irrelevant, but quite sanctimonious.  What gives you the right to decide how the laws should be applied?  Who appointed you the arbiter of our collective morality?  We have literal judges that decide how the laws should be applied, and I will continue to follow their advice instead of yours because yours seems kind of hypocritically preachy.

I'm not arguing that YOU should take medicaid if you are legally entitled to it.  I respect your right to make your own decisions about what is right for your family.  But I am asking that you tone down the attempts to control other people who are attempting to also make decisions about what is best for their families.  Let them do their own thing, just like we let you do yours.  Please.  As long as everyone is following the law, I don't see the problems that you apparently do.

Sol, as usually, make the point much more saliently. 

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #288 on: December 14, 2018, 04:30:51 PM »
When I was working as part of my benefits package I paid 500/ month for HI.  I do have a problem with both subsidies and Medicaid when you make 95k/year. Yes it is legal. Legal is not necessarily ethical and moral.   Many wealthy people cheat and manipulate the system all the time for their benefit. That’s how the rich get richer. I think it’s wrong.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #289 on: December 14, 2018, 04:50:22 PM »
I was clearly referring to Medicaid, as you were "your state's expansion and $40K", not the ACA.   It's Medicaid that is meant for the poor.  ACA is not just for the poor

The medicaid expansion was part of the ACA.  It was, in fact, most of the ACA if you measure by number of people covered.  For this reason I tend to use the terms interchangeably when discussing this topic.  Do you think it is ethical to take an ACA subsidy but not ethical to go on medicaid?  If that's the case, what are your feelings on medicare?  How do you draw a distinction?

Yes, it's part of the ACA, and I've said as much in my own past posts, but you specifically said "ACA subsidy", and I have never heard anyone describe Medicaid as an ACA subsidy.  They are generally referring to ACA PCT and CSR.  The ACA is not just for poor people despite the Medicaid expansion being part of it.  It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage by using paper income of $40,000 so that other taxpayers will pay for it, while you actually have "massive savings".  It's intended for poor people, not people with "massive savings".

Quote
Quote
And enough of your worn out straw man arguments that are unrelated.

I'm a little confused by this comment, so please clarify for me.  What argument that I made do you feel is a straw man?  Are you sure you're using that term correctly?  A straw man argument is one that you posit because it is easily refuted.  The argument that a person who qualifies for a government-provided benefit (like subsidized health insurance) should voluntarily refuse it is yours, not mine.

An example of one of your straw man arguments would be you arguing that you deserve to have police protection, when I was never implying that you shouldn't.  That's easy for you to make a defense against a case I never tried to make.  Classic straw man.  Nice try, though. LOL

I'm losing my Cobra next year.  How do I determine if I should take the subsidy or not?  If the tax law says I'm eligible, at what level of "massive savings" is the cut off?  Where does it go from black to white.  Seems like a lot of shades of grey.

It depends on your MAGI income and family size.  I assume you actually mean the ACA PCT and possible CSR, not Medicaid.  If your income qualifies you, you may be entitled to ACA PCT and decent CSR to boot.  In my state (and many others), people go to https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/ and put in the numbers.  Of course, I don't come close to qualifying and purchase through the private sector through my employer's plan.

You completely missed my question.  You're saying that if I have "massive savings" and I qualify based on my income, it is unethical to take the subsidy.  What is the level of "massive savings" for me to determine whether or not to take the subsidy?

???  Where did I say that someone with a massive savings shouldn't get an ACA subsidy (PTC) if they qualify based on MAGI?

The link I gave you will help you determine if you qualify for an ACA PCT and CSR.  There is no asset test.

Kronsey

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #290 on: December 14, 2018, 04:52:55 PM »
When I was working as part of my benefits package I paid 500/ month for HI.  I do have a problem with both subsidies and Medicaid when you make 95k/year. Yes it is legal. Legal is not necessarily ethical and moral.   Many wealthy people cheat and manipulate the system all the time for their benefit. That’s how the rich get richer. I think it’s wrong.

Fair enough. No use beating a dead horse. I used to be in the same camp as you, but my opinions have changed after a health crisis of my own as well as the continued escalating costs of health insurance. I will never be convinced that it is ok for a self-employed family to pay $1,800/month while 80+% of the population take advantage of large subsidized employee and govt plans often paying a tiny fraction of my unsubsidized costs for the same or better coverage (and I'm talking about employer and employee costs combined, not just the portion that the employee pays).

I am happy that you were able to retire and am sorry that HI takes up over a quarter of your budget. Hope you are enjoying your retirement!

Edited to Add (sorry, just can't help myself :) - Would you feel the same way if I was receiving pension contributions on my behalf but had no access to those funds until retirement and also didn't have access to HI through my employer? Say my gross salary was $45K and my employer was contributing $50K to a pension plan. My AGI would still be $45K, but I would technically be "making" $95K just like my own personal example. I'm just betting/guessing you would feel differently in that scenario, although the future outcome is very similar.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 04:55:25 PM by Kronsey »

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #291 on: December 14, 2018, 05:10:07 PM »
It was the Medicaid expansion you were referring to when you said how your family can get totally FREE health coverage

Yes, I did say that a family that is poor enough can get free health insurance through medicaid.  Is that an incorrect statement?


That would be correct, but you started talking about an ACA subsidy, and that's not the same thing as Medicaid, even though Medicaid is part of the ACA.  It seems you were trying to blur the distinction, which is why I referred back to your older post about getting on Medicaid vs. an ACA plan.  It appears you missed the point with your response here.

Quote
I did not say that my family is currently doing that.  We are not currently doing that.  We make too much money to qualify.  But if I was poor enough, I would qualify for medicaid.  So would you, and every other American citizen.

Not every American citizen would qualify based on the figures you gave because not all states expanded Medicaid as part of the ACA.  It sounds like you changed your plans for your family's free Medicaid if you aren't using the program as originally planned in your older post.  But to say you make too much money, well, you yourself mentioned how you could easily regulate your income to qualify for Medicaid despite your massive savings (see post of yours I quoted a few posts back).

Quote
You still haven't explained to me why you think medicaid is for poor people, when the laws specifically states what income levels qualify.  Do you feel that there is some secondary "intention" behind the law beyond what it actually says, and that people should adhere to this invisible intention instead of what the law actually says?

I happen to know the intent of the law.  I've heard that an asset test wasn't included due to the large administrative overhead that would be involved, so it allows some rich people to slide through the cracks if they are unethical in their use of a program meant for poor people.  It might be a small price to pay overall since most wealthy people would also have incomes that would disqualify them.

Quote
I was hoping you would see that you don't get to personally decide which government benefits other people are entitled to.
Quote
What gives you the right to decide how the laws should be applied?


You're getting into the straw man argument area again because I never said that I get to decide what benefits you are entitled to OR that I have the right to decide what laws should be applied.  Not once.  I simply stated that Medicaid is meant for poor people and that it isn't ethical for wealthy people to exploit the program.  I wasn't making a legal case.  This was all discussed earlier in the thread.  I realize many wealthy people have no conscience and will take all they can get from a program meant to help poor people.  That's on them.  I know I can't control that and won't even try to.

Quote
But I am asking that you tone down the attempts to control other people who are attempting to also make decisions about what is best for their families.

Merely stating that Medicaid is for poor people and that I think it's unethical for rich people to exploit the program is NOT "attempting to control people".  They can make their own decisions, but I have an opinion that I'm free to state just as you are free to keep ignoring.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #292 on: December 14, 2018, 05:36:08 PM »
Kron, in your example the money is not accessible so yes I would be fine with it because you have no choice.  Actually I have chosen to keep working part time from home at age 64 because our nest egg is not huge and we want to travel, and do other activities that cost money while we can. I bring in another 22k/year. I have lost 3 friends ages 59-67 the last 3 years.   Sorry you are having health issues.

Kronsey

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 169
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #293 on: December 14, 2018, 06:08:50 PM »
Kron, in your example the money is not accessible so yes I would be fine with it because you have no choice. 

Well to give you some more details, if I wasn't self-employed and went to work for an accounting firm in my area that was smaller (think under 20 employees), I probably wouldn't have access to health insurance. I would probably have 401K access, but that would be it. My salary would probably be somewhere around $70K. So if I wanted to save enough for a somewhat early retirement, I would choose to max out the 401K and an IRA as well (probably wouldn't have cash flow for any more savings at this point).

That would get me somewhere around the same taxable income level that I am now and would therefore still qualify me for CSR and APTC under the ACA as well as Medicaid for HI for my kids. Quite frankly, it still feels weird for me to accept those benefits on the Medicaid side, but I literally have 0 other options for my kids. I'm not saving this money to take advantage of the system. I'm saving the money because I don't want to be working til I'm in my sixties. In other words, if healthcare wasn't even in the discussion (single payer for all!) I would still be making the exact same decisions. And I technically don't have access to the money outside of 72T distributions or the ROTH conversion ladder mentioned earlier.

Maybe I'm trying to make sense of it in my own head as well, but it just seems inconsistent that you would pigeon hole my scenario as "immoral" because you view 95K as a lot of money, but wouldn't view others as "immoral" with the same net spendable cash flow that I will have in 2019 simply because they don't have access to their money (which I would argue I don't either).

Actually I have chosen to keep working part time from home at age 64 because our nest egg is not huge and we want to travel, and do other activities that cost money while we can. I bring in another 22k/year. I have lost 3 friends ages 59-67 the last 3 years.   Sorry you are having health issues.

That sounds like a pretty good arrangement assuming the part-time work isn't too taxing. My parents are recently retired and are enjoying in. They are both 66 and are starting to show signs of fatigue/slowing down. Nothing majorly wrong, just making comments like "I can't get up and down the stairs like I used to" and "I just don't have the energy to do as much as in the past". On the other hand, my mom's mother (my grandma) is still going strong at 89. Hard to predict how you are going to age, so I think it is very wise to do some of those bucket list items while you still feel like it. Doing taxes for seniors in the past, people really seemed to grow tired of traveling and on the go stuff somewhere in their early to middle 70's. That isn't a huge sample size, but enough to make me realize I probably won't want to be a world traveler by the time I reach my 70's.

The health issues are actually improving. I had a rough surgery and subsequent diagnosis almost exactly two years ago. Outside of ACA changes, I would have been uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. Without proper medications for my condition, I probably wouldn't be able to work at all. The current system we have sucks, but I am hopeful we as a nation can come up with some better solutions.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #294 on: December 14, 2018, 08:27:54 PM »
We really need Medicare for all. We are aging well and still walk 4 miles a day but who knows what the future holds. It’s professional work on the computer.  My mom traveled into her 80’s.  You will get SS that is probably equal to our pensions. You sound like a good person so I am not going to pass judgment anymore.  As Joon pointed out the problem is more at the macro level than the micro.  She wrote a good book on accessing benefits that I bought, read and then donated to teachers so they could help their students families.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #295 on: December 14, 2018, 10:33:43 PM »
^ Hey!!! Thanks, Cassie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #296 on: December 14, 2018, 10:43:49 PM »
Absolutely Joon although we don’t always agree 100% I really admire you and if I get to Canada I really want to meet you.  I loved the book and what you are doing for spreading the word about people with disabilities.  We both have the same heart goal.

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #297 on: December 14, 2018, 10:51:22 PM »
We both have the same heart goal.

Absolutely!

Part of this discussion ties in to much of the stuff in the book. In my experience, too many people feel they're "not poor enough" to receive support, that they "should leave it for someone who needs it more", are ashamed to accept it, fear people's judgement if they did. These are common messages, and they leach in through our skin. We're subsequently confused and unsure when people insist to us that we're the exception, we're allowed, they won't judge us, that we're the ones it was meant for... We can't take that in, because we've heard the other message over and over and over from so many sources. We don't know where that arbitrary or imaginary line in other people's minds is, so we go without, and suffer terribly. I'd rather one rich person receive a medical subsidy than nine lower-income people go without because of these common words.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7946
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #298 on: December 14, 2018, 11:00:36 PM »
You are so right! I rarely change my mind from discussions but you are correct. 

joonifloofeefloo

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • On a forum break :)
Re: Decreasing income to increase benefits
« Reply #299 on: December 14, 2018, 11:12:17 PM »
Oh!!

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!