Author Topic: Pay taxes so others can have cable, cigarettes, smart phones, vacations -  (Read 31667 times)

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Bob, your post only narrowly avoided endorsing the ugly stereotypes drawn by some of the overtly classist responses it attracted.  If you view your clients' station in life as being enviable, then why don't you go join their ranks?  Free yourself of those white collar shackles and get in on some of that sweet government-subsidy action.

Perhaps you missed this in my OP? ---"I also realize that many Mustacians either are or plan on gaming the system for big bucks through the ACA and hope to pay little if any taxes through smart money management through their lifetime  (See rootofgood.com how to pay $150 taxes on 150K earnings)"

As it currently stands tax payers would be subsidizing my family to the tune of $24,000 annually for health insurance if we were to follow in rootofgood's footsteps.  We would continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, drink expensive booze and take vacations while someone else pays our healthcare tax.  Does that sound fair to you??

Not paying taxes is a goal of many Mustachians who intend on paying virtually nothing for health insurance through the ACA even though they have millions in assets.   It isn't about poor people or class (do we have those in the USA?)   It is a where do you draw the line question?   Clearly subsidizing my family's luxurious lifestyle would be well over the line.   I think most would agree that taking money from themselves to pay for cigarettes, beer, jet skis and meth for some random person is clearly over the line.   

That is the "discuss" part of the post --   The Bob you just hate poor people has no relevance to the post.   It is in the realm of name calling and does not further the discussion.



AlwaysLearningToSave

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
Not paying taxes is a goal of many Mustachians who intend on paying virtually nothing for health insurance through the ACA even though they have millions in assets.   It isn't about poor people or class (do we have those in the USA?)   It is a where do you draw the line question?   Clearly subsidizing my family's luxurious lifestyle would be well over the line.   I think most would agree that taking money from themselves to pay for cigarettes, beer, jet skis and meth for some random person is clearly over the line.   

From a policy perspective, I think you have to assume that people will use the systems in place, whether the tax system or benefits systems, to act in their own self interest.  I feel I can't really begrudge people who take full advantage of benefits available when I take advantage of, for example, tax-advantaged investment accounts.  The fact my benefit doesn't take the form of a payment from the government to me does not change the fact that I am essentially benefiting from a government subsidy (the government foregoes income it would have otherwise earned had I not taken advantage of that tax-advantaged account). 

Thus, you have to look at the incentives the programs create and ensure you are comfortable with the incentives.  But then you get to my earlier post:

It's an unsolvable quandary in my opinion.  I believe there should be some sort of government-provided basic social safety net.  I wager most Americans would agree with that statement even if they disagree on the details of the program (amount of benefits, when you qualify for benefits, etc...). 

But here is the trade-off:  the better the social safety net is at providing for those who truly need it, the easier it is for others to take advantage of it.  The harder it is to take advantage of the social safety net, the more likely it is that it won't catch people who truly need it and are deserving of it.  And the more strings you attach and qualifications you impose, the more difficult and more expensive it is to administer the program.

The system will always have waste.  The struggle is trying to legislate a program that meets enough of the real need, is reasonably administratively efficient, and doesn't result in too much waste or provide no incentive for people to get out of the social safety net when possible.  There is no "right" answer, just attempts achieve the "best" balance, whatever that is.

Sure, Mustachians who arguably don't need ACA subsidies because of significant wealth can still take advantage of ACA subsidies because qualification is based on income.  I wager this is a form of waste in the program that is relatively small in proportion to the number of people who some people would consider more deserving of the benefit: those with both low incomes and low assets.  But trying to police and prevent high-net worth individuals from taking subsidies may cost more than the waste itself. 

norabird

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7988
  • Location: Brooklyn NY
People can do whatever they want with their money and with their benefits. You can't ever and should not ever be able to control other people's choices even if you deem them suboptimal. There are other programs we could invest in if we wanted to steer people to better choices but ultimately everyone has free will--and getting SNAP doesn't mean others have the right to judge you.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
We would continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, drink expensive booze and take vacations while someone else pays our healthcare tax.  Does that sound fair to you??

Yes, it does.  I believe it is fair for anyone to take advantage of any governmental benefit to the fullest extent permitted by law (and any additional rules not having the force of law but nonetheless governing the benefit program).  Unlike many of the participants in this thread, I do not claim to have the moral authority to judge anyone else for doing so.

As far as the fairness of the program itself, I believe it would be fairer if everyone received universal taxpayer-funded healthcare without having to jump through hoops or smartly manage their finances, but that's not the system we (in the United States), as a society, have currently given ourselves to work with.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4147
  • Location: WDC
We would continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, drink expensive booze and take vacations while someone else pays our healthcare tax.  Does that sound fair to you??
I agree with Bob on this point. I don't think it's okay to choose a particular lifestyle for the benefit of accepting subsidies from others. If you can live on less money and choose to do so, great.  Nobody is judging that harshly. But when you take a healthcare subsidy that is meant for people who are less well off, the. That just doesn't sit right with me. I personally don't plan to take a subsidy unless I need it.
My family qualified for free lunches when I was in grade school. Did I take it?  Hell no. I packed a sandwich like any self-respecting person who could afford a loaf of bread would. Could we survive without a hot lunch?  Yes. Part of that is because I had a mother who cared and I know some children don't, but I don't th ink you should go to the food bank if you can afford to feed yourself and especially when you're still buying cable TV every month. I just don't see the difference.

FLA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575

 
[/quote]

I would have no problem giving the poors these gifts as a bribe to stay out of trouble as long as they agreed to be put on birth control so they don't go making more poors and making things worse.
[/quote]

this is disgusting, you know no one's story well enough to make such a sweeping demand. What are you gonna do for birth control that is truly reliable and the "poors" will remember to come in for their follow ups  Sterilization is the only truly permanent choice that requires no follow up.  Too bad- this has been deemed a Crime Against Humanity, torture or actual genocide in many countries, shucks, now how are we gonna stop the poors gaming our system?

 I have a large extended family that arose from a hard working woman, whose ill husband died at 34, leaving huge medical bills.  Were they below the poverty line even with her working more than full time?  You betcha. Should her 3 children have ended up in the tip of a condom because she was the epitome of poor?  I'm gonna go ahead and say "no", since I am the daughter of one of the sons you say she shouldn't have had.  This large family grew, everyone found a way to be educated and no one is near poverty, rather many of us help the impoverished. 

Maybe some day we can sterilize the inhumane, like you

rulesofacquisition

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
I think one point that is being missed is that many people that are using government benefits long-term are being harmed more than helped by the system. I have a nephew that gets social security disability for attention deficit disorder. Frankly, he just doesn't want to work and keeps asking if I'll insure his car, etc. He was raised by his grandmother who is also on disability, she has been sitting around waiting to die for 20 years, probably an addict, could have kept a desk job (and her sanity) after the accident. My stepson's mother is an addict and prostitutes herself to support her habit. We can't get custody to get him out of there despite hot drug tests and witnesses and he is not taken care of despite the TANF, SNAP. Medicaid, Obamaphone, free lunch, child support, etc. she receives. So I have seen the bad side of people receiving "help". However, there are people that need a boost and work to better themselves. I received Medicaid years ago, and I'm sure many people have taken EIC on their taxes or used some "benefit" or the other at some point in their lives. I think Bob sees much more of the bad side of things because of his job, and I happen to know of alot of people working the system, which can tend to make you very negative on the subject. Thanks, Bob, for making me think about this.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
We would continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, drink expensive booze and take vacations while someone else pays our healthcare tax.  Does that sound fair to you??
I agree with Bob on this point. I don't think it's okay to choose a particular lifestyle for the benefit of accepting subsidies from others. If you can live on less money and choose to do so, great.  Nobody is judging that harshly. But when you take a healthcare subsidy that is meant for people who are less well off, the. That just doesn't sit right with me. I personally don't plan to take a subsidy unless I need it.
My family qualified for free lunches when I was in grade school. Did I take it?  Hell no. I packed a sandwich like any self-respecting person who could afford a loaf of bread would. Could we survive without a hot lunch?  Yes. Part of that is because I had a mother who cared and I know some children don't, but I don't th ink you should go to the food bank if you can afford to feed yourself and especially when you're still buying cable TV every month. I just don't see the difference.

So I assume you skip the mortgage deduction and claim no dependents? As you can afford to own your home and have children without it...

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4147
  • Location: WDC
We would continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, drink expensive booze and take vacations while someone else pays our healthcare tax.  Does that sound fair to you??
I agree with Bob on this point. I don't think it's okay to choose a particular lifestyle for the benefit of accepting subsidies from others. If you can live on less money and choose to do so, great.  Nobody is judging that harshly. But when you take a healthcare subsidy that is meant for people who are less well off, the. That just doesn't sit right with me. I personally don't plan to take a subsidy unless I need it.
My family qualified for free lunches when I was in grade school. Did I take it?  Hell no. I packed a sandwich like any self-respecting person who could afford a loaf of bread would. Could we survive without a hot lunch?  Yes. Part of that is because I had a mother who cared and I know some children don't, but I don't th ink you should go to the food bank if you can afford to feed yourself and especially when you're still buying cable TV every month. I just don't see the difference.

So I assume you skip the mortgage deduction and claim no dependents? As you can afford to own your home and have children without it...
The mortgage deduction is an incentive to encourage people to become homeowners. It's not charity and it's not a handout. I claim no dependents because I have none.
I don't really want to get into a debate about what you or I think are incentives or entitlements. I simply stated my opinion. If you want to play that game, then please describe why it's okay for you to go to a food bank rather than a supermarket. It's not and that's why you wouldn't do it.

Le Poisson

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16356
When folks start up about poverty and how rich our poor are I just remember a little poem I learned in grade school. It goes like this:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Seems to put in perspective our (the Americas) role as a keeper and helper to ALL people rich or poor. Its not our role to judge the poor, but to accept and help them to the best of our ability.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
But when you take a healthcare subsidy that is meant for people who are less well off, the. That just doesn't sit right with me.

What makes you think an ACA subsidy (technically, a tax credit) available to an eligible individual is "meant for people who are less well off" than that individual?  The law sets out specific eligibility requirements for receiving subsidies/tax credits, and they are "meant for" anyone who qualifies for them (including mustachian millionaires).

Quote
My family qualified for free lunches when I was in grade school. Did I take it?  Hell no. I packed a sandwich like any self-respecting person who could afford a loaf of bread would.

Again, what gives you the moral authority to judge someone else for taking advantage of a benefit for which that person qualifies?  If your family qualified for free school lunches, then, in the eyes of the free lunch program, you were fully entitled to receive free lunches.  It's your prerogative to personally opt not to do so if you feel the program's eligibility criteria are too liberal, but what gives you the right to judge another person's level of "self-respect" for taking advantage of a program for which he or she is eligible? 

We, the people, acting through our elected representatives, are the architects of these benefit programs.  When you judge someone for receiving the benefits he or she is entitled to receive under the program's own terms, you are substituting your own judgment for the legislature's and, by extension, society's at large.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
We would continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, drink expensive booze and take vacations while someone else pays our healthcare tax.  Does that sound fair to you??
I agree with Bob on this point. I don't think it's okay to choose a particular lifestyle for the benefit of accepting subsidies from others. If you can live on less money and choose to do so, great.  Nobody is judging that harshly. But when you take a healthcare subsidy that is meant for people who are less well off, the. That just doesn't sit right with me. I personally don't plan to take a subsidy unless I need it.
My family qualified for free lunches when I was in grade school. Did I take it?  Hell no. I packed a sandwich like any self-respecting person who could afford a loaf of bread would. Could we survive without a hot lunch?  Yes. Part of that is because I had a mother who cared and I know some children don't, but I don't th ink you should go to the food bank if you can afford to feed yourself and especially when you're still buying cable TV every month. I just don't see the difference.

So I assume you skip the mortgage deduction and claim no dependents? As you can afford to own your home and have children without it...
The mortgage deduction is an incentive to encourage people to become homeowners. It's not charity and it's not a handout. I claim no dependents because I have none.
I don't really want to get into a debate about what you or I think are incentives or entitlements. I simply stated my opinion. If you want to play that game, then please describe why it's okay for you to go to a food bank rather than a supermarket. It's not and that's why you wouldn't do it.

Not getting into that debate at all. I'm saying it's government money you're accepting, part of a program, why is that money moral and the other money immoral? Because you accept a narrative that states that one is specifically for incentives? That's a copout. You clearly stated that you won't take a subsidy unless you need it. That is regardless of it being an incentive or not. And yet you do take one. So do you need it? And if not why do you take it?

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4147
  • Location: WDC
I'm not going to defend my opinion on the matter.  It's a personal belief and if you feel I'm wrong, then so be it.  Deal with your guilt without trying to bring me down or attacking me. 

Now let's have one of the holier-than-thou crowd please explain to me why they don't shop at food banks that are meant for the needy?  It's no different in my eyes.  Please enlighten me. 

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
With regards to the ACA's subsidy and OP's claim that the government can subsidize his family to the tune of 24k per annum, the real crime here is that it costs that much to insure a family, not where the money is coming from.

It doesn't matter who's responsible: doctors blame insurers, insurers blame hospitals, hospitals blame their administrators, administrators blame the lawsuit-happy culture, plaintiffs blame everyone, everyone blames fat people, fat people blame government incentives, the government blames the cost of med school and all of the above.

Throw it all down the toilet and flush twice.

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Bob, I'm glad you brought this up, as I wanted to share an anecdote from my life this past week but didn't want to start a new thread.

At my son's soccer game, I was sitting next to a classmate's foster parent who is about to adopt the two children she and her husband have cared for for the past three years. When I sat down, she introduced me to the children's birth mother. I have to admit many conflicting emotions washed over me, in large part because I know how messed up my son's classmate is from his early childhood. He has had to spend multiple weeks at a psychiatric facility due to his depression and anger issues. The poor boy is only eight years old. After I got over my initial frustration and sadness with the birth mom, I was happy that she was able to still be a part of her children's lives, despite all that has happened.

Later, I overheard a conversation between the birth mom and the foster mom. The foster mom had taken out her phone for something, and the birth mom said, "Do you want the iPhone 6? I really want one." The asshole that lurks within me wanted to judge this women for even caring about expensive electronics, considering how she had colossally failed her kids. But then I thought how awful that was, as if someone makes some mistakes they are never allowed to care about anything else in life. Then, the foster mom said that she "only" had an iPhone 5 and that she bought a new one for $50 once the new one came out and that this is what she has been doing with iPhones for years. I thought that was pretty clever of her to buy phones that way. 

Anyway, I was later ruminating about how all this and how quick I was to jump to judgment over the woman for even daring to mention expensive electronics. Over the years, though, I have been lucky to hear from others about what it's like to be poor and have opened my eyes to many realities.

#1 It's much easier for a middle class, educated white woman to not give two shits about the fact that she doesn't have the newest and most shiny phone in her pocket than it is for someone who is poor. I have a 5 year old flip phone, in large part because I have internet and wifi at home and a laptop. Plus, I have investment accounts and whatnot, so if someone thinks I'm poor for my phone? Who cares! I know better. But say you are actually poor, I can see how it would matter to you not to look poor. And we all know Apple technology is a status symbol in our culture. Why would the disadvantaged be immune to that?

#2 Clearly it would be better for Bob's clients and this woman I was overhearing to spend their money on other things. But, as we all know, they are not really allowed to save, else they lose their benefits. They are optimizing the situation, just like I do as a middle class person. For instance, my college fund for my kids rests in our Roth IRAs. Why? So the government might possibly give us grant money. How is this any different from spending your money on consumables rather than saving it so that you can keep your benefits?

Anyway, those are my thoughts that stemmed from this iPhone conversation.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 08:55:12 AM by justajane »

regulator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
I'm not going to defend my opinion on the matter.  It's a personal belief and if you feel I'm wrong, then so be it.  Deal with your guilt without trying to bring me down or attacking me. 

Now let's have one of the holier-than-thou crowd please explain to me why they don't shop at food banks that are meant for the needy?  It's no different in my eyes.  Please enlighten me.

Actually, I would say that the attitude of "its great there are resources for those down on their luck, but I am too good to accept it" strikes me as holier-than-thou.  I think it also helps perpetuate the view of those who accept help as being less worthy.

I would say that while I was a working stiff/cube slave I never thought about this stuff much except to wish I paid less in taxes to support it (and the military industrial complex and all the other stupid things my tax dollars fund).  Now that I am a contractor/ESR type, I have much more variable income from year to year.  You know what?  In my lower income years I will take whatever Uncle Same wishes to give me.  I paid stupid amounts of money into the public coffers in my high earning years and it was pissed away on abjectly idiotic things.  Might as well take what I can get back.  Why does that not extend to a food bank?  Easy.  That is private charity funded by voluntary contributions by good hearted people, not compulsory shakedowns.

trobertson79

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
I support Universal Basic Income as a way which rewards good (productive) behavior while still providing a safety net and proping up the economy.

regulator

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
I support Universal Basic Income as a way which rewards good (productive) behavior while still providing a safety net and proping up the economy.

I can see plusses and minuses, but this will never, ever happen.

FLA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
I know I used an anecdotal to the birth control for the "poor" but I, too, have career experience in this area.  I did home care in the ghetto of our city for 8 yrs and hospice in the home for 11 (not as many of the impoverished end up on hospice and I blame poor community out reach for this, the poor and everyone else all die eventually, hospice care is a provided benefit free of charge for anyone with Medicare or Medicaid and most insurers cover it.)

The 8 yrs in home care taught me so much about poverty, how hard it is to break out of that cycle. Little kids often raised by very ill grandmother on home care and trying to raise her grandchildren at the same time, common scenario. Those kids are mostly raising themselves, thank God for free school breakfast and lunch for those children who qualify.  They parents are MIA, father commonly never involved from the get go, the mother in jail, on drugs, or many other reasons, making the sick grandmother the only thing keeping these kids out of the overburdened foster care system. 

In NY families with one or both parents, or an adult who is not disabled, TANF is provided for a max of 60 months.  The first adult to reach 60 months, the whole family loses TANF.  A family of four typically get $896 a month.  After 24 months of TANF, household adults who are able bodied are expected to meet a work requirement or be enrolled in program to help them become employable.  A single mom with 1 child is required to work 20 hrs/week and is eligible for help with childcare.  In our city, the last childcare center in the inner city closed it's doors probably 12 yrs ago. So impoverished mothers trying to work really do not have the child care benefit or have it but cannot access it easily, a bus ride to day care far from home if a spot could be obtained, bus ride to work, and reverse.  So add in transportation costs.  As for SNAP, that has been one of the most successful programs in NY with only a 3% fraud level.  The max a family of 4 can receive is around $650 and is based on income with a work requirement. Free nutritional programs are provided.  So a family of 4 overall receives approx $1500 a month in TANF and SNAP with strict working requirements and a time limit and likely qualify for Medicaid.  May qualify for Section 8 housing, but the waiting list is usually years. Rent in the inner city, oddly was often higher than what I was paying for mortgage and taxes or about the same rent my ex-husband pays in the suburb with the best schools.  $800-1000 and the housing was a disaster in most cases (not in Section 8 homes/apts, those tended to be live-able, small, old, infestation bugs throughout the whole building, but still a big step up).  Slum lords abound charging those crazy rents. I've had 2 patients literally fall through their front porch, it was so rotted and had to have 911 come lift them out.

So somehow, on this budget, which may actually be do-able for mustachians, really is not all that much and is strictly regulated.  According to the Dept of Labor welfare fraud is about 3%, not bad in my eyes.  Did I see Coach purses (a common complaint), sure, but when you compliment a woman on it, they'd often tell me it was a good fake and where to get one. But yes, some had the real thing.  Did I see giant tvs? Yup, I have no idea where they came from but rest assured other than that tv, the rest of the apt was usually falling down around them, gross furniture many yrs old and mattresses on the floor.  Not one family I saw of whatever combinations of family possible was living the high life. 

As for SSDI or SSI, that is no picnic to get and that gets re-evaluated periodically, as well. Hospice patients with with worst of terminal illnesses usually died long before receiving their benefit and the process is supposedly quicker for certain terminal diagnoses. The family got the back pay, small comfort. 

I have now found myself applying for SSDI, so if you're going to judge, feel free to judge me.  I have 3 snowballing disabling issues that forced me to draw a 23 yr nursing career to a close very suddenly.  I was devastated and waited 9 months to apply for SSDI even though doctors were very blunt that I needed to do this, I would not be working soon, or likely ever, as a nurse or really anything else. I refused to believe that until even I had to say, it's time to give up my position that was held by some random new HR policy.  If I was faking a disability, would I have waited 9 mos to apply?  Do I want to live on $1800 a month?  Of course not.  I had just been told by Vanguard's financial planner and the one from work, that rather than retiring at 62, which I was really hoping for, I could actually retire at 55!  I had no clue.  So I am 45 and lost those 10 years of contributions til age 55.  (highly unlikely I would've done it, I loved my job, but who knows what I'd want to do when I hit 55?)  I got sick so quickly after that, I never really contemplated stopping at 55.  And certainly not 45.

I was denied the first go round, as is nearly everyone, so I now wait 16 months for my hearing before a judge.  I hired a lawyer who has not lost a case yet by one of my doctors because he documents so well, I have a team of 4 docs who all are willing to do thorough documentation.  I am lucky in this, very lucky to have this team.  I am fortunate that I can pay my lawyer the 25% of the settlement.  I am also vey lucky to currently be receiving LTD through my employer, a policy known to not accept you or only pay for a few months.  I anticipate being income-less for probably a year while waiting for SSDI. Easily assumed, as even my LTD case manager tells me do not count on this benefit. 

Anyway, I would give anything to turn this boat around and be at my desk tomorrow, ready to work, until at least 55! I'm not looking up SSI and SSDI fraud stats, someone else will have to do that. I very rarely saw it and don't forget, there are tons of serious illnesses not obvious to the naked eye.  I never once saw a family in poverty, receiving benefits or a disabled person on SSI or even SSDI (the one based on your years of work) take a vacation. No, that's not true, I have had terminal patients awaiting SSDI, take on last trip before they died.  But SSDI is based on years of work.  So these were low to middle class families who had savings or another working spouse. 

So if you feel the need to judge, judge me, at least it's a fair fight. 

CletusMcGee

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Location: Minnesota
<Drops mic on FLA's behalf>

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4147
  • Location: WDC
I'm not going to defend my opinion on the matter.  It's a personal belief and if you feel I'm wrong, then so be it.  Deal with your guilt without trying to bring me down or attacking me. 

Now let's have one of the holier-than-thou crowd please explain to me why they don't shop at food banks that are meant for the needy?  It's no different in my eyes.  Please enlighten me.

Actually, I would say that the attitude of "its great there are resources for those down on their luck, but I am too good to accept it" strikes me as holier-than-thou.  I think it also helps perpetuate the view of those who accept help as being less worthy.

I would say that while I was a working stiff/cube slave I never thought about this stuff much except to wish I paid less in taxes to support it (and the military industrial complex and all the other stupid things my tax dollars fund).  Now that I am a contractor/ESR type, I have much more variable income from year to year.  You know what?  In my lower income years I will take whatever Uncle Same wishes to give me.  I paid stupid amounts of money into the public coffers in my high earning years and it was pissed away on abjectly idiotic things.  Might as well take what I can get back.  Why does that not extend to a food bank?  Easy.  That is private charity funded by voluntary contributions by good hearted people, not compulsory shakedowns.
Nope.  Never said I was too good to accept it. On the contrary, I don't want to take away from those who truly need it. 
When I had an injury and used a handicapped parking placard, some days I didn't park in the handicapped spot even though I legally could, because someone else might really need that spot. On bad days, of course I used the placard and took the spot. You do what you feel comfortable and I'll do what I feel comfortable with.  besides, I'm sure that by the time my income is that low, they'll have changed the laws by adding a means test

LadyStache in Baja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
    • My Casa Caoba: Making meaning in Mexico
Thanks Bob W for this debate.  This is why I come to the MMM forums.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Thanks Bob W for this debate.  This is why I come to the MMM forums.

You are welcome.   

One thing for all to remember about the redistribution of wealth. (we seem to be letting the uber rich off on this one)  is that the first turn is almost always a waist of tax payer money and a very poor investment.   

But the second turn ---- and the third  well that money often goes to competitive working stiffs.    It in fact keeps the money moving around the economy.   

Systemically though,  it cannot go on indefinitely.  Eventually you'll have more people benefiting than benefit payers.   It appears we have either reached that cusp or have passed it when I look at the national debt. 

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7450
I wrote a response but it looks like the forum "ate" it.  ::shrug::  The percentage of people I was referring to were those with the highest net worth.  For the sake of discussion, let's consider the top 20%.
What I was getting at in my earlier response was that the life expectancy of the most wealthy individuals (those in the upper 20%) is about 4.1 years longer than the median, and 8 years longer than the bottom 20% (median life expectancy at age 65 is currently 19.1 years).  So - it isn't even terms of absolute dollars - the wealthy are the most likely to receive more money from SS than they 'put in'. 
This is an unexpected (or at least unplanned) artifact of demographics.  The program certainly intended for the middle and working classes to benefit the most from this program.  To tie this back into the OP's original question, I have a harder time begrudging poor people buying cigarettes than I do seeing someone with over $1.2MM in investments (the approximate position of someone age 67 in the upper 20%) receiving the same benefits as someone with a $200k net worth, assuming both worked for most of their lives.  Both food stamps and SS are paid for by taxes on income.

Nereo I went ahead and did the math:

Assuming two single people, one who made enough to pay in the max to social security each year, and the other made the inflation adjusted equivalent of $24,000 (which is around the 20th percentile on income). Both take retirement benefits at 67. Their life expectancy at that point is 17 years, but the poorer person dies four years early, and the richer person lives another four years (so 13 years and 21 years respectively).

The two social security bend points are currently at $826/month and $4,980/month.

The person making $24,000 had an average monthly income of $2,000, so receives 90% of $826 + 32% of 2000-826 = $1,119/month in social security benefits.

The person maxing out social security (currently $118,500/year) had an average monthly income of 9,875, so receives 90% of $826 + 32% of $4,980 - $826 + 15% of $9,875 - $4,980 = $2,807/month in social security benefits.

Over their remaining lifetimes the poorer person will collect $1,119*12*13= $174,576 in total payout and the richer person $2,807*12*21= $707,364. Which is almost exactly 4x as much.

Now assuming both people worked for 40 total years, the poorer person payed 6.2% * $24,000 * 40 = $59,520 into social security (and their employer payed the same amount so, $119,040 total) while the richer person payed 6.2% * $118,500 * 40 = $293,880 into social security (and double it again with employer contributions). Which works out to about 5x as much (actually 4.94x).

Now that's actually not as redistributive as I was expecting when I sat down to do the math, and there are lots of simplifications built into the math, so feel free to correct my numbers if you like. But it seems like social security it still a _somewhat_ progressive benefit system even when you factor in the differences in life expectancy you brought up.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
It's an unsolvable quandary in my opinion.  I believe there should be some sort of government-provided basic social safety net.  I wager most Americans would agree with that statement even if they disagree on the details of the program (amount of benefits, when you qualify for benefits, etc...). 

But here is the trade-off:  the better the social safety net is at providing for those who truly need it, the easier it is for others to take advantage of it.  The harder it is to take advantage of the social safety net, the more likely it is that it won't catch people who truly need it and are deserving of it.  And the more strings you attach and qualifications you impose, the more difficult and more expensive it is to administer the program.

The system will always have waste.  The struggle is trying to legislate a program that meets enough of the real need, is reasonably administratively efficient, and doesn't result in too much waste or provide no incentive for people to get out of the social safety net when possible.  There is no "right" answer, just attempts achieve the "best" balance, whatever that is.

The issue that I take with this perspective is that the 'free rider' problem is only unsolvable so long as we continue to expect governments to continue to provide the basic social safety nets.  Government programs are far from the only possible solution here, and certainly are not ideal. 

FLA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
 
[/quote]

The issue that I take with this perspective is that the 'free rider' problem is only unsolvable so long as we continue to expect governments to continue to provide the basic social safety nets.  Government programs are far from the only possible solution here, and certainly are not ideal.
[/quote]

as in the success of trickle down theory? school vouchers? charter schools, prisons owned by for-profit companies?  I'll take Big Government over those schemes

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
I wrote a response but it looks like the forum "ate" it.  ::shrug::  The percentage of people I was referring to were those with the highest net worth.  For the sake of discussion, let's consider the top 20%.
What I was getting at in my earlier response was that the life expectancy of the most wealthy individuals (those in the upper 20%) is about 4.1 years longer than the median, and 8 years longer than the bottom 20% (median life expectancy at age 65 is currently 19.1 years).  So - it isn't even terms of absolute dollars - the wealthy are the most likely to receive more money from SS than they 'put in'. 
This is an unexpected (or at least unplanned) artifact of demographics.  The program certainly intended for the middle and working classes to benefit the most from this program.  To tie this back into the OP's original question, I have a harder time begrudging poor people buying cigarettes than I do seeing someone with over $1.2MM in investments (the approximate position of someone age 67 in the upper 20%) receiving the same benefits as someone with a $200k net worth, assuming both worked for most of their lives.  Both food stamps and SS are paid for by taxes on income.

Nereo I went ahead and did the math:

Assuming two single people, one who made enough to pay in the max to social security each year, and the other made the inflation adjusted equivalent of $24,000 (which is around the 20th percentile on income). Both take retirement benefits at 67. Their life expectancy at that point is 17 years, but the poorer person dies four years early, and the richer person lives another four years (so 13 years and 21 years respectively).

The two social security bend points are currently at $826/month and $4,980/month.

The person making $24,000 had an average monthly income of $2,000, so receives 90% of $826 + 32% of 2000-826 = $1,119/month in social security benefits.

The person maxing out social security (currently $118,500/year) had an average monthly income of 9,875, so receives 90% of $826 + 32% of $4,980 - $826 + 15% of $9,875 - $4,980 = $2,807/month in social security benefits.

Over their remaining lifetimes the poorer person will collect $1,119*12*13= $174,576 in total payout and the richer person $2,807*12*21= $707,364. Which is almost exactly 4x as much.

Now assuming both people worked for 40 total years, the poorer person payed 6.2% * $24,000 * 40 = $59,520 into social security (and their employer payed the same amount so, $119,040 total) while the richer person payed 6.2% * $118,500 * 40 = $293,880 into social security (and double it again with employer contributions). Which works out to about 5x as much (actually 4.94x).

Now that's actually not as redistributive as I was expecting when I sat down to do the math, and there are lots of simplifications built into the math, so feel free to correct my numbers if you like. But it seems like social security it still a _somewhat_ progressive benefit system even when you factor in the differences in life expectancy you brought up.

This is some nice math, and it uses nereo's unsupported numbers. If you use the actual data I cited it would become significantly more progressive.

Argyle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
See, I'd argue that that's exactly what government is for.  It can reach everyone and make sure benefits are standardized and accessible.  Not like, say, charities, where you have one in this town and a bigger one in that town and none at all in the other town, and they have different amounts of money and some only serve families and some run out of money and some close on weekends and it's all haphazard.  So many ways to fall through a haphazard safety net like that. 


Pigeon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1298
See, I'd argue that that's exactly what government is for.  It can reach everyone and make sure benefits are standardized and accessible.  Not like, say, charities, where you have one in this town and a bigger one in that town and none at all in the other town, and they have different amounts of money and some only serve families and some run out of money and some close on weekends and it's all haphazard.  So many ways to fall through a haphazard safety net like that.

I agree completely.  And in addition, many of those charities are trying to cram their religious agendas down the necks of recipients, and have a wide variety of eligibility requirements.

AlwaysLearningToSave

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
It's an unsolvable quandary in my opinion.  I believe there should be some sort of government-provided basic social safety net.  I wager most Americans would agree with that statement even if they disagree on the details of the program (amount of benefits, when you qualify for benefits, etc...). 

But here is the trade-off:  the better the social safety net is at providing for those who truly need it, the easier it is for others to take advantage of it.  The harder it is to take advantage of the social safety net, the more likely it is that it won't catch people who truly need it and are deserving of it.  And the more strings you attach and qualifications you impose, the more difficult and more expensive it is to administer the program.

The system will always have waste.  The struggle is trying to legislate a program that meets enough of the real need, is reasonably administratively efficient, and doesn't result in too much waste or provide no incentive for people to get out of the social safety net when possible.  There is no "right" answer, just attempts achieve the "best" balance, whatever that is.

The issue that I take with this perspective is that the 'free rider' problem is only unsolvable so long as we continue to expect governments to continue to provide the basic social safety nets.   

The problem exists regardless of whether a government provides an entitlement-type safety net or a network of non-governmental organizations provide voluntary charitable support programs.  Soup kitchens still feed people who some would argue should be able to provide their own meal.  Churches still give support to people some would consider undeserving.  People can still become dependent upon support provided by non-governmental charities.  It may be true that NGOs have less waste in terms of benefits provided to "unworthy" recipients, but you also need to factor in the greater administrative costs of maintaining the organizations and the greater likelihood that a more patchwork charitable support system would fail to meet legitimate needs. 

Government programs are far from the only possible solution here, and certainly are not ideal. 

Agreed.  But they can fall short of ideal while also being the best possible solution among many less than ideal solutions.  The reason government support systems as we know them exist is because non-governmental charity proved inadequate in the times support was needed most (think Great Depression).  For all their faults-- and there are many-- these governmental support systems do a lot of good.  If a clearly more ideal system existed, we would have already found it and implemented it. 

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
 

The issue that I take with this perspective is that the 'free rider' problem is only unsolvable so long as we continue to expect governments to continue to provide the basic social safety nets.  Government programs are far from the only possible solution here, and certainly are not ideal.
[/quote]

as in the success of trickle down theory? school vouchers? charter schools, prisons owned by for-profit companies?  I'll take Big Government over those schemes
[/quote]

If you look at the federal budget about 33% is SocSec/Unemployment and 25% is Medicare/Health -- those are obviously easy insurance programs to have the private sector manage.  Military accounts for another 17%.  Could the average Mustachian  provide for the defense of our borders for 2% through a private security mechanism?  So right there 75% of the federal budget could be privatized.   

Many government/military jobs are extensions of the social welfare dynamics of Government.   So yeah,  the US spend trillions on dubious programs and military stuff but ultimately that just keeps the money moving around and people can pretend they are contributing to society.

The problem with privatization is that the bidders tend to pay less than the feds and often provide little or no benefits.  So you erode the middle/government class.   

Did I tell you about my millionaire friend who has signed up his wife and 4 kids for the ACA insurance and is paying like $150 per month for 6 people?   He is definitely gaming the system.   Maybe I mentioned him already.  I forget. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
 
Quote

The issue that I take with this perspective is that the 'free rider' problem is only unsolvable so long as we continue to expect governments to continue to provide the basic social safety nets.  Government programs are far from the only possible solution here, and certainly are not ideal.

as in the success of trickle down theory? school vouchers? charter schools, prisons owned by for-profit companies?  I'll take Big Government over those schemes

Charter schools & school vouchers generally do work well, the failures are newsworthy particularly because they are rare.  You would have to define 'trickle down theory' for me to respond to it, because it's such a politically charged term, and a very fuzzy economic term.  So many people want to blame Art Laffer & his 'Laffer Curve' as a failure, when the Laffer Curve is provably true; but well funded neo-cons during the 80's blended a bit of fact with a bit of fiction.  As for private prisons, (almost) any libertarian (not an anarchist) would tell you that corrections, being part & parcel to the justice system, is an established and proper function of sovereign governments.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
See, I'd argue that that's exactly what government is for.  It can reach everyone and make sure benefits are standardized and accessible.  Not like, say, charities, where you have one in this town and a bigger one in that town and none at all in the other town, and they have different amounts of money and some only serve families and some run out of money and some close on weekends and it's all haphazard.  So many ways to fall through a haphazard safety net like that.

I agree completely.  And in addition, many of those charities are trying to cram their religious agendas down the necks of recipients, and have a wide variety of eligibility requirements.

So?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

Did I tell you about my millionaire friend who has signed up his wife and 4 kids for the ACA insurance and is paying like $150 per month for 6 people?   He is definitely gaming the system.   Maybe I mentioned him already.  I forget.

Well, I'm not a millionaire; but I'm paying $500 a year for a family of 7.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum

Did I tell you about my millionaire friend who has signed up his wife and 4 kids for the ACA insurance and is paying like $150 per month for 6 people?   He is definitely gaming the system.   Maybe I mentioned him already.  I forget.

Well, I'm not a millionaire; but I'm paying $500 a year for a family of 7.

Good for you!   His may actually be cheaper as well.   Haven't checked with him lately.   Our office insurance runs $800 per person per month for shit coverage, huge deducts and out of pockets.   My employer pays it, but I would rather have the cash and shop the exchange myself.   I would have better coverage and cheaper subsidized rates.

  I'm guessing children are around 1/3rd what adults are premium wise, so I would guess your coverage would be around $30,000 per year if you were paying full boat?   Let's be conservative and say $10,000?

So you're paying $500 for that.  Other people are paying $9,500 of your premiums. 

Two questions? 

1. Does that sound fair to those who are forced to pay the $9,500 for someone else's goodies?  (by goodies, I mean you could forgo lots of other things you are paying $9,500 for such as investments,  cell phones, rent,  food etc.. and pay your own premium) I'm guessing the people paying the $9,500 for you don't think it is right.   I'm not one of those people who subsidize others by the way as I pay close to zero taxes.   Our family is a huge beneficiary of taxes. 

2.  I'm guessing there are lots and lots and lots of people who are massively subsidized.  At what point do you imagine that those that actually pay for other people's insurance will be tapped out.   In other words how can this possible go on indefinitely?  Especially with the unrestrained annual increases in premiums in a stagnant wage environment.   

Is it simply a matter of people being subsidized by government (tax payers) out numbering the people paying the taxes?   Isn't that the point at which democracy fails?  You know the point were the poor realize they can vote the high income people's money away from them and then you just run out of high income earners? 

I'm not saying this to be mean to you or anyone else.   It just seems like the social dynamics and math are setting us up for a major fail in the not very distant future.   That is partly driven by an ever growing insurance and medical industry that already consumes 22+ % of the GNP.    Will the money desires of the insurance/medical corporations eventually bring us to a meltdown?   

It seems like madness to me on the surface?   Perhaps someone can explain it to me so I can understand?   Or is it just a situation where the outcome is already baked into the game and we will have to wait and see?


*disclaimer -- My family's income is primarily if not 100% funded through taxes. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

Did I tell you about my millionaire friend who has signed up his wife and 4 kids for the ACA insurance and is paying like $150 per month for 6 people?   He is definitely gaming the system.   Maybe I mentioned him already.  I forget.

Well, I'm not a millionaire; but I'm paying $500 a year for a family of 7.

Good for you!   His may actually be cheaper as well.   Haven't checked with him lately.   Our office insurance runs $800 per person per month for shit coverage, huge deducts and out of pockets.   My employer pays it, but I would rather have the cash and shop the exchange myself.   I would have better coverage and cheaper subsidized rates.

  I'm guessing children are around 1/3rd what adults are premium wise, so I would guess your coverage would be around $30,000 per year if you were paying full boat?   Let's be conservative and say $10,000?

So you're paying $500 for that.  Other people are paying $9,500 of your premiums. 
Nope. I didn't say I was getting a subsidy.  It's not obamacare, it's an HSA through my employer.  My employer pays about as much per year as I do, unless I hit my annual out-of-pocket limit; which rarely happens anyway. 
Quote
Two questions? 

1. Does that sound fair to those who are forced to pay the $9,500 for someone else's goodies?  (by goodies, I mean you could forgo lots of other things you are paying $9,500 for such as investments,  cell phones, rent,  food etc.. and pay your own premium) I'm guessing the people paying the $9,500 for you don't think it is right.   I'm not one of those people who subsidize others by the way as I pay close to zero taxes.   Our family is a huge beneficiary of taxes. 
I pay very little in income taxes as well, but I don't consider the portion that my employer pays on my behalf to equivalent to a subsidy.  It's just part of my employment compensation package.  My employer is mostly self insured in this regard, taking most of the hit if I go over $11K or so out-of-pocket in a year.  That is their choice.

Quote

2.  I'm guessing there are lots and lots and lots of people who are massively subsidized.  At what point do you imagine that those that actually pay for other people's insurance will be tapped out.   In other words how can this possible go on indefinitely?  Especially with the unrestrained annual increases in premiums in a stagnant wage environment.


My point is simply that even obamacare isn't necessarily the great deal it's touted to be, even after subsidies.   

Quote
    Will the money desires of the insurance/medical corporations eventually bring us to a meltdown?   

If it were just the desires of insurance & medical corporations in play, the answer would be no.  But that is not the case, so yes.

AlwaysLearningToSave

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459

Did I tell you about my millionaire friend who has signed up his wife and 4 kids for the ACA insurance and is paying like $150 per month for 6 people?   He is definitely gaming the system.   Maybe I mentioned him already.  I forget.

Well, I'm not a millionaire; but I'm paying $500 a year for a family of 7.

Good for you!   His may actually be cheaper as well.   Haven't checked with him lately.   Our office insurance runs $800 per person per month for shit coverage, huge deducts and out of pockets.   My employer pays it, but I would rather have the cash and shop the exchange myself.   I would have better coverage and cheaper subsidized rates.

  I'm guessing children are around 1/3rd what adults are premium wise, so I would guess your coverage would be around $30,000 per year if you were paying full boat?   Let's be conservative and say $10,000?

So you're paying $500 for that.  Other people are paying $9,500 of your premiums. 
Nope. I didn't say I was getting a subsidy.  It's not obamacare, it's an HSA through my employer.  My employer pays about as much per year as I do, unless I hit my annual out-of-pocket limit; which rarely happens anyway. 
Quote
Two questions? 

1. Does that sound fair to those who are forced to pay the $9,500 for someone else's goodies?  (by goodies, I mean you could forgo lots of other things you are paying $9,500 for such as investments,  cell phones, rent,  food etc.. and pay your own premium) I'm guessing the people paying the $9,500 for you don't think it is right.   I'm not one of those people who subsidize others by the way as I pay close to zero taxes.   Our family is a huge beneficiary of taxes. 
I pay very little in income taxes as well, but I don't consider the portion that my employer pays on my behalf to equivalent to a subsidy.  It's just part of my employment compensation package.  My employer is mostly self insured in this regard, taking most of the hit if I go over $11K or so out-of-pocket in a year.  That is their choice.

Ugh.  This is one of the biggest flaws of our employer-based health insurance model.  Few people know or understand how much health insurance truly costs. 

An uninformed person who reads that you pay $500 per year for health insurance for a family of seven might think this is what it actually costs.  But it is not even close to the actual cost.  The same problem occurs with premium subsidies-- if people only focus on the amount coming out of their pocket, they will not understand the true cost of the insurance.

To say that you and your employer each only pay $500 for your family's health insurance is an incomplete statement.  Perhaps your family does not consume much healthcare and therefore your employer does not spend very much on your healthcare in any given year, but the amount your employer actually spends on your family's healthcare does not take into account the actuarial cost of your family's health insurance coverage. 

If you have a HDHP/HSA through your employer, your employer is likely setting aside at the very least $9,500 per year to insure your family.  That is only to cover the actuarial risk of your family exceeding the out of pocket maximum.  Your employer also likely pays a premium to an insurance company (probably the one that administers your employer's self-insured plan) to provide stop-gap insurance in the event of unusually high claims during a given period.  Any HSA contributions your employer makes on your behalf are above and beyond that cost.  Any HSA contributions you make to cover your actual expenses are above and beyond that cost.  Thus the cost of your family's (or any family's) health insurance is significantly higher than your statement suggests. 

Your health insurance coverage is "subsidized" in the sense that someone other than you is paying it on your behalf.  It is not a government subsidy because that other person paying it on your behalf is not the government.  And you are correct to point out that the premium subsidy you receive is simply a part of your employment compensation package.  It sounds like you have an outstanding health insurance situation and you should be grateful for it because a lot of people (including me) pay a whole lot more for their insurance than you do. 

But Bob's point remains-- the ACA's subsidy qualification standards allow wealthy people with relatively low incomes to benefit from premium subsidies even though they arguably have the means to bear the cost themselves.  Some people feel this should not be the case and feel those with the means to pay their own insurance premiums should have to pay them even if they have low incomes. 


brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
I'm guessing there are lots and lots and lots of people who are massively subsidized.  At what point do you imagine that those that actually pay for other people's insurance will be tapped out.   In other words how can this possible go on indefinitely?

You seem to be attributing to the ACA the preexisting problems inherent in our hybrid privatized/government-subsidized healthcare system in the U.S. (which gives us the worst of both worlds).  Keep in mind that the largest government subsidy of private health insurance in this country, by an order of magnitude, is the subsidization of employer-sponsored insurance coverage (not ACA tax credits).

Perhaps someone can explain it to me so I can understand?

Read this thread.  I think it contains the discussion you are looking for.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
Your health insurance coverage is "subsidized" in the sense that someone other than you is paying it on your behalf.  It is not a government subsidy because that other person paying it on your behalf is not the government.

But it is government subsidized, because the employer-sponsored insurance coverage (which, as you said, is part of the employee's compensation package) is not taxed (yet the employer can still deduct the expense from the taxes it pays).  So we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing MoonShadow's employer-sponsored insurance coverage just as surely as we are subsidizing Bob W's millionaire friend's ACA-marketplace-purchased insurance coverage.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Your health insurance coverage is "subsidized" in the sense that someone other than you is paying it on your behalf.  It is not a government subsidy because that other person paying it on your behalf is not the government.

But it is government subsidized, because the employer-sponsored insurance coverage (which, as you said, is part of the employee's compensation package) is not taxed (yet the employer can still deduct the expense from the taxes it pays).  So we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing MoonShadow's employer-sponsored insurance coverage just as surely as we are subsidizing Bob W's millionaire friend's ACA-marketplace-purchased insurance coverage.

Economically, yes, this is true.  But in real, practical terms, no.  The argument that not  taxing employer-provided health insurance represents an idea that the government has a right to your money.  In fact, employer-provided health insurance has pretty much always been considered tax-free in this country - it's use exploded during world war 2 when wages were capped but fringe benefits like health insurance were quite deliberately not.

If something was never intended to be taxed, philosophically it makes no sense to say not taxing that good is a subsidy.

AlwaysLearningToSave

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
Your health insurance coverage is "subsidized" in the sense that someone other than you is paying it on your behalf.  It is not a government subsidy because that other person paying it on your behalf is not the government.

But it is government subsidized, because the employer-sponsored insurance coverage (which, as you said, is part of the employee's compensation package) is not taxed (yet the employer can still deduct the expense from the taxes it pays).  So we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing MoonShadow's employer-sponsored insurance coverage just as surely as we are subsidizing Bob W's millionaire friend's ACA-marketplace-purchased insurance coverage.

Economically, yes, this is true.  But in real, practical terms, no.  The argument that not  taxing employer-provided health insurance represents an idea that the government has a right to your money.  In fact, employer-provided health insurance has pretty much always been considered tax-free in this country - it's use exploded during world war 2 when wages were capped but fringe benefits like health insurance were quite deliberately not.

If something was never intended to be taxed, philosophically it makes no sense to say not taxing that good is a subsidy.

You are on the money with the WWII time frame.  Its important to remember, though, that the decision to not tax health insurance benefits was made when health care costs were a tiny fraction of what they are now.  Back then it truly was a fringe benefit in that it did not represent a significant portion of an employee's compensation package.  Now it is a HUGE tax expenditure that is often a large fraction of an employee's compensation package. 

The reasoning behind the preferential tax treatment merits reexamination simply because of the drastic change in size of the benefits provided by employers and I would bet that in the future the tax benefits will become more and more limited.

The problem is particularly apparent when you compare someone who receives employer-provided health insurance to someone else who has to pay their own premium with after-tax dollars.  I have not heard any good tax policy justification for treating these two people differently.  Yet one receives a large tax benefit and the other does not.  In my opinion, the tax code should be neutral with respect to these two different cases. 

EDIT TO ADD:  In my opinion, this is one of the biggest shortfalls of the ACA:  it does not take a clear policy position on employer-sponsored health insurance versus privately-purchased health insurance.  The ACA attempts to strengthen the private-pay market to make it more competitive but at the same time requires large employers to provide insurance to employees and leaves intact the preferential tax treatment for employer-sponsored plans as compared to privately purchased plans.  In my mind, the ACA would be better if it moved us in a clear policy direction, either doubling down on the employer-sponsored model or moving us toward an entirely individual market system. 

From a policy perspective, I think it would be better to move toward an entirely individual-market health insurance system because it has the best chance of eliminating the moral hazard/third-party-payer problem that contributes to increased healthcare costs.  But that is just my two cents. 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 04:33:45 PM by AlwaysLearningToSave »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Quote from: AlwaysLearningToSave link=topic=44747.msg836380#msg836380
If you have a HDHP/HSA through your employer, your employer is likely setting aside [b
at the very least [/b]$9,500 per year to insure your family.  That is only to cover the actuarial risk of your family exceeding the out of pocket maximum.  Your employer also likely pays a premium to an insurance company (probably the one that administers your employer's self-insured plan) to provide stop-gap insurance in the event of unusually high claims during a given period.  Any HSA contributions your employer makes on your behalf are above and beyond that cost.  Any HSA contributions you make to cover your actual expenses are above and beyond that cost.  Thus the cost of your family's (or any family's) health insurance is significantly higher than your statement suggests. 

Higher, yes.  I can agree with that assessment.  I believe that the actual total costs to my employer, on average, are around $4,500 annually.  This is the true total cost of my family's HSA.  Still a great deal for my employer, and cheaper (for them) than if I took the standard PPO plan.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

The reasoning behind the preferential tax treatment merits reexamination simply because of the drastic change in size of the benefits provided by employers and I would bet that in the future the tax benefits will become more and more limited.

The problem is particularly apparent when you compare someone who receives employer-provided health insurance to someone else who has to pay their own premium with after-tax dollars.  I have not heard any good tax policy justification for treating these two people differently.  Yet one receives a large tax benefit and the other does not. In my opinion, the tax code should be neutral with respect to these two different cases. 

It largely is.  If you have no employer coverage, your health care expenses, including premiums; above a certain percentage of your gross income is tax deductible.  Ironically, the ACA actually increased this percentage.  It was 7.5% of gross income, now it's 10%; both of which are roughly in line with the tax deductible costs to employers for health care, compared to the median income. Apparently 7.5% was too low of a bar for the conscience of a liberal.

Quote
The ACA attempts to strengthen the private-pay market to make it more competitive
Maybe so, but it actually achieves the opposite.  Pretty much what every honest economist said it would do.  Before the ACA, any citizen could shop on the individual market within their state.  After the ACA, it's limited to your county of residence.  So while your ACA compliant plan might have the exact same contract, coverage & name as the one your cubicle neighbor has, yours might be more expensive than his if you live in a rural county and he lives in the city, with more competition.

Quote

From a policy perspective, I think it would be better to move toward an entirely individual-market health insurance system because it has the best chance of eliminating the moral hazard/third-party-payer problem that contributes to increased healthcare costs.  But that is just my two cents.

I would agree with your two-cents, so long as the restrictions of regulations are lifted.  Otherwise it would just be an exercise in futility.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7281
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog

The reasoning behind the preferential tax treatment merits reexamination simply because of the drastic change in size of the benefits provided by employers and I would bet that in the future the tax benefits will become more and more limited.

The problem is particularly apparent when you compare someone who receives employer-provided health insurance to someone else who has to pay their own premium with after-tax dollars.  I have not heard any good tax policy justification for treating these two people differently.  Yet one receives a large tax benefit and the other does not. In my opinion, the tax code should be neutral with respect to these two different cases. 

It largely is.

No, it really isn't neutral. The itemized deduction for health care expenses is nowhere near as lucrative as the exclusion that pertains to employer-provided coverage. If you buy your own insurance, you only get to deduct the cost if you already itemize and if your costs are over 10% of your income.

Suppose you're a single person with an $8k/year insurance policy. If your gross income (including insurance cost) is $60k, having your employer provide this insurance takes $8k off the top (pre-FICA). In the 25% tax bracket with 7.65% payroll tax, the employer-provided insurance means you pay $2,612 less tax than if the cost of your insurance was taxed as compensation income. If you instead buy this insurance yourself, you get to deduct at most $2,000 (since the first 10% of your income, or $6k, can't be deducted). You need to pay FICA on the whole amount regardless, so the most you will save on your taxes is $500. That's only if you have other itemized deductions that would bring you above the standard deduction threshold.

The higher your income, the more likely you'll be itemizing due to higher state taxes and other things, but that 10% threshold means you'll be able to deduct less of it. With a lower income, you're less likely to be itemizing in the first place.

The employer-provided health insurance exclusion really is a good deal. There's no good reason for employer-provided coverage to be preferred in this way, especially now that everyone can buy decent insurance on the private market.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

The reasoning behind the preferential tax treatment merits reexamination simply because of the drastic change in size of the benefits provided by employers and I would bet that in the future the tax benefits will become more and more limited.

The problem is particularly apparent when you compare someone who receives employer-provided health insurance to someone else who has to pay their own premium with after-tax dollars.  I have not heard any good tax policy justification for treating these two people differently.  Yet one receives a large tax benefit and the other does not. In my opinion, the tax code should be neutral with respect to these two different cases. 

It largely is.

No, it really isn't neutral. The itemized deduction for health care expenses is nowhere near as lucrative as the exclusion that pertains to employer-provided coverage. If you buy your own insurance, you only get to deduct the cost if you already itemize and if your costs are over 10% of your income.

Suppose you're a single person with an $8k/year insurance policy. If your gross income (including insurance cost) is $60k, having your employer provide this insurance takes $8k off the top (pre-FICA). In the 25% tax bracket with 7.65% payroll tax, the employer-provided insurance means you pay $2,612 less tax than if the cost of your insurance was taxed as compensation income. If you instead buy this insurance yourself, you get to deduct at most $2,000 (since the first 10% of your income, or $6k, can't be deducted). You need to pay FICA on the whole amount regardless, so the most you will save on your taxes is $500. That's only if you have other itemized deductions that would bring you above the standard deduction threshold.


That just makes it a more progressive tax anyway, since an independent businessman would have to pay for both sides of his own FICA; and couldn't deduct the portion of his own health care expenses under 7% (now 10%) unless he had employees for which he provided an employer sponsored group plan anyway.  No, it's not perfectly neutral; both of us could easily find particular people who are more or less screwed over on either side.  That's not really the point.  The health care deduction rule is specifically designed to approximate the deduction advantages of employer sponsored care, without making it just as easy to quit working.
Quote

The higher your income, the more likely you'll be itemizing due to higher state taxes and other things, but that 10% threshold means you'll be able to deduct less of it. With a lower income, you're less likely to be itemizing in the first place.


Only because the standard deduction includes such things in it's calculations.  Repeal the standard deduction and almost anyone would be itemizing, which is the point.  If your itemized deductions don't beat the standard, the tax code gives you an easy way to do at least as well.  And damn near anyone who would qualify for subsidies would be in the 7% range without either ACA subsidies or an employer sponsored plan.  Notably, that may not be quite as true now that the threshold is 10%.

Quote
The employer-provided health insurance exclusion really is a good deal. There's no good reason for employer-provided coverage to be preferred in this way, especially now that everyone can buy decent insurance on the private market.

Sure there is.  Economically encourage working class/middle class people who can work, to work for an employer.  Just look around this forum to see how many people who wish to retire early are ecstatic about how much easier it is for a former employee to get subsides the following year, to know how strongly geared towards encouraging corporate employment (as opposed to self-employment or an early retirement lifestyle) our complex tax system is structured.  It's not entirely on purpose, mind you, but some of it is.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7281
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
No, it's not perfectly neutral; both of us could easily find particular people who are more or less screwed over on either side.  That's not really the point.  The health care deduction rule is specifically designed to approximate the deduction advantages of employer sponsored care, without making it just as easy to quit working.

Challenge accepted. Lay out one scenario where someone would be better off getting paid $x and paying $y for their own health insurance policy than they would be if they got paid $(x-y) and had their employer pay $y for the same health insurance policy. I dare you.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
But it is government subsidized, because the employer-sponsored insurance coverage (which, as you said, is part of the employee's compensation package) is not taxed (yet the employer can still deduct the expense from the taxes it pays).  So we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing MoonShadow's employer-sponsored insurance coverage just as surely as we are subsidizing Bob W's millionaire friend's ACA-marketplace-purchased insurance coverage.

Economically, yes, this is true.  But in real, practical terms, no.  The argument that not  taxing employer-provided health insurance represents an idea that the government has a right to your money.  In fact, employer-provided health insurance has pretty much always been considered tax-free in this country - it's use exploded during world war 2 when wages were capped but fringe benefits like health insurance were quite deliberately not.

If something was never intended to be taxed, philosophically it makes no sense to say not taxing that good is a subsidy.

You are on the money with the WWII time frame.  Its important to remember, though, that the decision to not tax health insurance benefits was made when health care costs were a tiny fraction of what they are now.  Back then it truly was a fringe benefit in that it did not represent a significant portion of an employee's compensation package.  Now it is a HUGE tax expenditure that is often a large fraction of an employee's compensation package. 

I was a little wary of posting my comment in response to saying that employer-provided tax-free health insurance is a subsidy.  But the language of "tax expenditure" is even worse - it implies that the government is spending money on things – but it's not.  The government doesn't spend money on health insurance - it has deliberately been set up not to tax that employer-provided benefit, because it is a public good.  Again, employer-provided health insurance was never intended to be taxed.  We can have a discussion about whether this is good or not, but the language of "tax expenditure" implies that it is the government's money to spend, and it's not.

Quote
EDIT TO ADD:  In my opinion, this is one of the biggest shortfalls of the ACA:  it does not take a clear policy position on employer-sponsored health insurance versus privately-purchased health insurance.  The ACA attempts to strengthen the private-pay market to make it more competitive but at the same time requires large employers to provide insurance to employees and leaves intact the preferential tax treatment for employer-sponsored plans as compared to privately purchased plans.  In my mind, the ACA would be better if it moved us in a clear policy direction, either doubling down on the employer-sponsored model or moving us toward an entirely individual market system. 

The ACA does do this - that's the point of the employer mandate - to get more people insured by forcing more employers to offer health insurance to their employees.

Quote
From a policy perspective, I think it would be better to move toward an entirely individual-market health insurance system because it has the best chance of eliminating the moral hazard/third-party-payer problem that contributes to increased healthcare costs.  But that is just my two cents.

That's exactly the kind of good starting point for the type of discussion I mentioned earlier.

P.S.  I've tried to find some data on how much employer-provided health insurance cost in the 40s and 50s, and came up blank.  There's information on total costs, and how many people had employer-provided health insurance, but I haven't found any info of what the cost actually was to employers.  If anyone has that info I'd be very grateful if they shared.

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
i'm still waiting for companies to save on fica tax by just hiring independent contractors instead of employees... pass burden of tax onto the individual.

if mcdonalds put out an app saying $20 per each hundred burgers made/sold, open it to public and anyone who wants to make extra cash just shows up and works? sure they could make 100 burgers in a hour, and get $20/hr, but they wouldnt have a job the next hour... and still have to pay taxes that employer would have if they had been employeed. but at $1, mcdonalds would still make a $80 profit after labor costs.

imagine that as the future minimum wage job...

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9933
  • Registered member
Bread and circuses, my friend.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Age: 43
I was a little wary of posting my comment in response to saying that employer-provided tax-free health insurance is a subsidy.  But the language of "tax expenditure" is even worse - it implies that the government is spending money on things – but it's not.  The government doesn't spend money on health insurance - it has deliberately been set up not to tax that employer-provided benefit, because it is a public good.  Again, employer-provided health insurance was never intended to be taxed.  We can have a discussion about whether this is good or not, but the language of "tax expenditure" implies that it is the government's money to spend, and it's not.

The objection to the terminology is a bit bizarre.  It would be functionally equivalent if, instead of directly providing employees with employer-subsidized health insurance, employers provided employees with a lump sum of dollars that had to be used by the employee to purchase health insurance coverage, where that lump sum was tax deductible for the employee.  Surely the tax deduction for that compensation could be fairly described as a "government subsidy" or a "tax expenditure", so why not the non-taxed compensation provided in the form of direct insurance coverage?  Because that employer-provided benefit is a public good?  Isn't that equally true in both cases?  If an employer paid for the college tuition of its employees or its employees' children, and that benefit were not taxed, wouldn't we say the government/taxpayers are subsidizing the tuition?