Decreasing income to increase benefits

[Seadog]

The was an article in Canada here a few years ago about some girl on assistance, and in the pic she was wearing a $1000 Canada Goose coat. It turned out she paid for that coat by working, but as a consequence, therefore had no money. People were up in arms because they felt essentially that the tax payer bought her this coat. " I earned $1000 and got $1000 from benefits. I also go $1000 worth of food and a $1000 coat" Does it really matter which dollar lines up with which expenditure? Would it be different if she frittered it away on cable TV, $6 lattes or a pyramid scheme?

Taken to it's logical extreme then, basically anyone for whom it can be shown has spent even $1 in not the most efficient way to directly sustain life should have that taken off benefits. Whats a base survival spend? $500 a month? Maybe $300 for a room and $150 for food and $50 misc? $6k a year? So basically, your age minus 16 (since if you didn't start working on your 16th birthday you're a slacker bum), multiplied by $6000. If you've earned more than that in your life, you have no right to benefits and are a leech, because truly, the only reason you're in need is because you were wasteful.


If we make that the test/cutoff then fine, anyone with assets should be ineligible for assistance. Until that point however, I'll be damned if I get penalized for being responsible. The gov't absolutely does not share your opinion on ethics so the only thing you can do is abide by the laws and in a fashion that benefits yourself. 

Until the good folks who are on the side of foregoing benefits they don't need happily pay the greater of either their tax bill as determined by the tax man, or the average annual household tax expenditure, than they are hypocrites. To FIRE and essentially pay zero tax, yet still drive on roads, and expect fire and military protection etc for free?! Thieves.   

[maizefolk]

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

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

There are two ideas being confounded here.

1) I agree people who could help themselves but chose not to in order to receive help from others are being unethical.

2) I disagree that we, as a society, necessarily only want to help people who cannot help themselves. Or put more simply: depending on the context I am not necessarily opposed to public or private charity going to people who have behaved unethically in the past and may do so again in the future.

I think this may be the fundamental disconnect with some posters: saying "you made a bad or immoral decision" is not synonymous with "therefore I'm okay with letting you starve." (I don't think that's the point you and I are disconnected on, a little more on that later.)

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

I disagree with the bolded bit. A "genuinely bad place" is obviously subjective, but I think its definite is dependent on the standards of the folks who are handing out the private charity, or the populace that elects the politicians that set the rules for public charity, rather than each individual who applies for it.

As a result, I'd respectfully object to the underlined bit as that does not, in fact, reflect my own personal standards, beliefs, or ethics.

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

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

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

I'm sure you know the old joke about physicists and assuming a spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum? I feel like that's a good analogy for the crux of where you and I are disagreeing. We both agree that introducing the question of intent into ethics generally, or the ethics of seeking out public or private charity makes the questions more complex, and potentially more subject to gaming by bad actors. Where we differ really seems to be the question of whether considering intent is avoidable complexity, or necessary complexity.

In the specific case you laid out above, a conditional that includes "only" is going to be extremely subject to gaming, because it is quite easy to find some additional motivation to add in to the discussion. So I'd change the statement "The ONLY reason (intent) for decreasing income is to increase benefits." to "The person would reach the same decision to decrease income in the absence of any increase in benefits."

Now this requires reaching a conclusion about people's decision making in a counter-factual scenario, which is obviously hard to determine, but, as you point out, determining a person's set of motivations is difficult as well, and both are impossible with complete certainty, so I don't think I'm making this proposed ethical standard any harder to apply than it already was while at the same time making it somewhat more difficult, but clearly not impossible, to game.

[BTDretire]

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

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

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

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

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

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

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

As I see it, it's not about drawing down your stache, it's about structuring the stache for growth, so it generates little income and keeps you at an income that makes you qualified for benefits. You can sell shares to get you up to the limits and stay qualified. Not that I want help anyone do it!

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

[gerardc]

I'm sure you know the old joke about physicists and assuming a spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum? I feel like that's a good analogy for the crux of where you and I are disagreeing. We both agree that introducing the question of intent into ethics generally, or the ethics of seeking out public or private charity makes the questions more complex, and potentially more subject to gaming by bad actors. Where we differ really seems to be the question of whether considering intent is avoidable complexity, or necessary complexity.

In the specific case you laid out above, a conditional that includes "only" is going to be extremely subject to gaming, because it is quite easy to find some additional motivation to add in to the discussion. So I'd change the statement "The ONLY reason (intent) for decreasing income is to increase benefits." to "The person would reach the same decision to decrease income in the absence of any increase in benefits."

Now this requires reaching a conclusion about people's decision making in a counter-factual scenario, which is obviously hard to determine, but, as you point out, determining a person's set of motivations is difficult as well, and both are impossible with complete certainty, so I don't think I'm making this proposed ethical standard any harder to apply than it already was while at the same time making it somewhat more difficult, but clearly not impossible, to game.

To the bolded bit: should it be "would NOT reach" ? That'd work, but not sure it's better, because what if you have other legit reasons to decrease income, too weak by themselves to make you do it, but the increase in benefits is sufficient to tip the decision over?

In any case, this illustrates well the complexities introduced by intent in our rules. I feel as soon as lawmakers make intent enter the picture, they're basically throwing the towel and letting the judge decide to the best of their ability... this should be used sparingly.

As I see it, it's not about drawing down your stache, it's about structuring the stache for growth, so it generates little income and keeps you at an income that makes you qualified for benefits. You can sell shares to get you up to the limits and stay qualified. Not that I want help anyone do it!

Well, the OP was about decreasing income to increase benefits, but then the discussion bifurcated to include the scenario of decreasing net worth to increase benefits that are means tested. So we have these scenarios:
1- Decreasing income with high net worth (typical FIREe).
2- Decreasing income with low/no savings.
3- Decreasing income and simulteneously drawing down savings.

Still confused which is ethical or not, but it seems that to be unethical, the behavior should be intentional and could have been avoided without "significant" hardship, at a level to be determined later, depending on the mood of the judge.

[maizefolk]

Indeed, a missing not in there. Somewhere in drafting the post I forgot these were the rules for when it was unethical rather than when it was ethical. Thanks for the catch.

I agree that including intent in the law has the effect of putting more power/responsibility into the hands of judges. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as attempts to take more power away from judges (for example passing mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines) have a rather poor track record of increasing the proportion of outcomes that might be considered "just."

And just to be clear I was proposing the above as an ethical test, rather than a legal one. When it comes to the law, I'd much rather have a more permissive law that makes sure everyone who should receives benefits is eligible (even if it means a significant number of people who individual I think shouldn't qualify are also eligible) than a law that ensures no one who shouldn't qualify receives benefits, but at the expense of people who should receive benefits being rejected as well.

[EnjoyIt]

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

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

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

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

Sure it is useful to discuss ethics. But, there will always be unethical players who try and gain the system.  I believe it is impossible to make a perfect rule.  Also, unfortunately in ethics there is the gray area which is what so many examples have been brought up here to help justify their own unethical behavior.  Since means testing is not a cost effective strategy for many government programs we must rely on people to simply do the right thing.

No, I do not think it is unethical to decrease work and raise your children.  Actually I wish more people are willing to cut their spending and raise their kids as opposed to hoping the schools and religious institutions raise their kids for them. I think it is unethical for a family to have more and more kids just to qualify for increased benefits and then choose not to work. 

Basically the ethics I postulate are: 

If a person has the means, the age, and the ability to work but chooses not to because they are lazy and uninterested while also receiving government handouts designed for the needy then that person is acting unethically. 

You want to pigeon-hole that statement into some kind of process diagram and I tell you it is impossible.  There are gray areas and people will always disagree on them or find examples that may justify their own unethical behavior.

[gerardc]

Indeed, a missing not in there. Somewhere in drafting the post I forgot these were the rules for when it was unethical rather than when it was ethical. Thanks for the catch.

I agree that including intent in the law has the effect of putting more power/responsibility into the hands of judges. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as attempts to take more power away from judges (for example passing mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines) have a rather poor track record of increasing the proportion of outcomes that might be considered "just."

And just to be clear I was proposing the above as an ethical test, rather than a legal one. When it comes to the law, I'd much rather have a more permissive law that makes sure everyone who should receives benefits is eligible (even if it means a significant number of people who individual I think shouldn't qualify are also eligible) than a law that ensures no one who shouldn't qualify receives benefits, but at the expense of people who should receive benefits being rejected as well.

Agreed that law should err on the side of recall rather than precision.

Another factor to consider in the ethical test could be the fraction of people that receive a benefit. For the examples of ACA subsidies and even child credits, they seem more like a "supplemental help" that is given to a large population, and phases out gradually with higher income, than some limited resource strictly reserved for those in need of immediate assistance like food stamps. In the first case, it seems ethical to tweak income to maximize benefits (similarly to minimizing taxes), and even get richer in the process, while the second case seems harder to justify.

Ultimately, ACA aims at a higher standard of living, i.e. everyone can have decent health care while still having money for necessities and even non-necessities; it's not strictly a first-aid mechanism for the chronically poor.

[maizefolk]

Yes I'd agree with that (and my comments above are focused more at programs that specifically are targeted to those in extreme and specific need like food stamps (public) and food banks (private), rather than the ACA).

[simonsez]

There will always be unethical players who try and gain the system.  I believe it is impossible to make a perfect rule.  Also, unfortunately in ethics there is the gray area which is what so many examples have been brought up here to help justify their own unethical behavior.  Since means testing is not a cost effective strategy for many government programs we must rely on people to simply do the right thing.

If your horse is high enough, it'll always be easy to see the unethical ones gaming the system.  The line about stricter means testing not being cost effective is overplayed.  Multiple solutions (sampling, potential of an audit, a net worth checkbox type of question, etc.) have already been brought up in this thread.  The reason more rigorous filtering methods don't exist for a particular program (or at least not up until now - if the proprortion on the proverbial teat gets too high then rules have to change) is because the rules are already deemed "good enough".  Aside from the income requirement for SNAP, I think the general (not universal, varies state to state) resource requirement of only allowing up to $2250 in a bank account or other liquid/countable sources is fairly prohibitive and does a good job of keeping participation aligned with intent of the program.

If you say it is impossible to have a perfect set of rules, what would be good enough?  Is there an acceptable threshold of people "doing the right thing" that is less than 100 percent that would work in your eyes?  This is rhetorical but it would be best for discussion if we had transparent and objective parameters to judge if a program is failing the taxpayer and/or the original intent or if it is succeeding and accept the unavoidable noise that comes with even a good signal.

For kicks, here is a GAO link:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-504T
" According to USDA’s fiscal year 2015 agency financial report, $2.6 billion, or 3.66 percent, of all SNAP benefits paid in fiscal year 2014 were improper."
Quick note: the % in 1999 was estimated to be 9.86%.

If I had to guess, and feel free to disagree because this is admittedly a number pulled from thin air, I'd estimate that the SNAP benefits being paid out to those with a high net worth that EnjoyIt would find unethical are at least an order of magnitude smaller than what they currently define as improper benefits.  As a taxpayer, my personal concern is much higher about those receiving improper benefits or SNAP trafficking* compared to a small minority of a minority that are legally following the rules.

* - "a typical retailer trafficking situation, for example, a retailer may charge
$100 to a recipient’s EBT card and give the recipient $50 in cash instead
of $100 in food. The federal government reimburses the retailer $100,
which results in a fraudulent $50 profit to the retailer."

[radram]

3 years FIRE.

I will be artificially be inflating my income this year via IRA conversion in order to reach the minimum income threshold for ACA subsidies, keeping my children off of state sponsored heath plans.

Does this increased income, done solely to keep my children off of one program in order to be placed on another, make me some kind of super-moral person, or a super-morally bankrupt person?

Does it matter that I accepted a long term substitute position at my former employer, but I first made sure the increase of income did not put me over the cliff on the other side of receiving ACA subsidies?

Does it matter that I am taking the full compensation as a 100% 403b contribution, so I am, on paper, still receiving no additional income. I will then have an additional $11,000 or so in a 403b that I can ROTH convert in future years.

I COULD forgo the conversions. Is the morality any different if one of the reasons I decided NOT to allow my children to go onto the state plan was because they only have coverage in my state. I live 15 miles from the state border. A health emergency 15 minutes from home could cost my entire net worth. 15 miles in any other direction, the insurance would cover most of the event.

[swampwiz]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

[swampwiz]

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

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


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

In my state, it's available without limit to anyone over 50 - something that I plan to avail myself of once I finish my Roth ladder.

[swampwiz]

It is immoral to weasel your way into funds defined for the needy just because you are lazy or hate your job.  .....So, if your goal is to be lazy and leach [sic] of [sic] the system without contributing anything towards it then more power to you, but I for one will give you no respect for it.  I will denounce you even further if your goal is to increase the taxes on those who actually work and give you even more benefits.

I reject the notion that those who retire earlier than a standard age are lazy across the board.  I'd wager that out of the white collar able-bodied, those who set their lives up in a way to walk away decades earlier than their peers are more active and motivated in general than those that rot away behind a desk until their eyes are dim.

I get the gist of what you're saying and don't fully disagree but I wouldn't call someone a leech that was high income during their working years and paid far more in taxes than average, especially when said taxes are used to fund the programs at hand.  If you think it is immoral/unethical for someone to take advantage of a program, I think channeling energy into making better eligibility rules rather than looking sideways at a person would be more productive.  Maybe not, though - venting does serve its purpose.

I'd say that part of the early retirement calculus is that available work is distasteful enough - or just simply not available - so that the early retiree considers it to be lower than his "reservation wage".  As an "obsolete", "unemployable" programmer, I do not have access to well-paying work anymore; if I did, I'd continue to work part-time (or part-year, etc.) and increase my standard of living.

[DreamFIRE]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

No, there's still a morality issue.  Even with today's good job market and low unemployment, close to half of tax filers don't pay any federal income tax.  Then there are many others than don't even file taxes, so they don't pay federal income tax, either.

[swampwiz]

It is immoral to weasel your way into funds defined for the needy just because you are lazy or hate your job.  .....So, if your goal is to be lazy and leach [sic] of [sic] the system without contributing anything towards it then more power to you, but I for one will give you no respect for it.  I will denounce you even further if your goal is to increase the taxes on those who actually work and give you even more benefits.

I reject the notion that those who retire earlier than a standard age are lazy across the board.

I reject that broad notion also and never made that statement. Actually I think it is really bad ass for someone to understand the value of money and be able to self sustain themselves and their family without labor.  The key is sustain themselves and not mooch off of others.  I also clearly defined that paying into a system that you later use is not mooching so as to not confuse things like a pension or SS. 

In my view it is not right for someone who can easily work to retire early and live in section 8 housing, and get food subsidies while their neighbors have to work and pay for them.  I have my views on healthcare as well but they are a bit blurry because our system is flawed and therefor do not want to confuse the discussion with something so complex.

There is a difference between getting Section 8 & SNAP.  Getting Section 8 requires living in a dumpy apartment, whereas someone can live in a nice home and get SNAP, since that benefit is completely fungible, save for the folks that grow/raise they own food.

[swampwiz]

  I read a few posts at the beginning, it seemed like there was no one that saw any ethical line about taking money from the government when they actually had large assets. Said another way, I'm going to structure my income to collect welfare.
  I was glad to see the thread take a turn showing there are Mustachians that know right from wrong.
 We all know welfare is set up for poor people. When you have a large nest egg, you are not poor.
  I walked the walk and it was a challenge, I have paid about $60k in insurance for my family since the ACA started, I would have qualified for a large subsidy, I could have an additional $45k or $55k if I had taken the subsidy.
 I also can understand a confusion when people say the say SS should be means tested. I recoil and say, wait a minute I paid into a system that was designed to pay me back in old age. I'm a bit unusual in that
I have earned only slightly above median wage over my lifetime and just because I saved my money and the other 75% in my income group didn't doesn't mean I should be penalized.
  So, yes the line is a little blurry, but some people become blind and can't even see the line when it comes to money.
And to Sol, did you do all the justification of why it ok to take government money just because your mom didn't think it was right for you to retire early?
 Poor mom's, always getting the blame.
 

You haven't been taking the ACA tax credit?  You have been extraordinarily foolish.

[swampwiz]

If they had any sense, they would put a full asset test on any programs that are supposed to be solely for those in need.

Not if it costs more to perform the asset testing on everyone than letting a tiny number get benefits despite having assets.

I have this problem at work with contracts I oversee. It just isn't worth the time and effort to make our (full time, in-the-field) contractors keep meal receipts, scan them, have their supervisor review, total it up, add them to the invoice and send them in. It literally costs us more money to pay them to track receipts than if we just paid them a per diem at the cap of what they can get reimbursed for meals. Not even including the time/money/effort wasted on our side reviewing receipts, verifying totals to the penny, etc. Just the gross outlay to the contracting company is higher because our contracts people insist on meal receipts. Wasting dollars to chase pennies.

Back in my days working for a major defense contractor, I submitted my expense sheet with the actual amounts I spent for meals (I somewhat splurged, going over the then $25/day limit), and didn't mind not getting every last penny, so long as I got the $25.  My department secretary said I had to "play the game" and put down amounts like $24.87 for everyday.

[mm1970]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

No, there's still a morality issue.  Even with today's good job market and low unemployment, close to half of tax filers don't pay any federal income tax.  Then there are many others than don't even file taxes, so they don't pay federal income tax, either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/#5b2e8c082398

17 percent includes students, people with disabilities or illnesses, the long-term unemployed, and other people with very low taxable incomes. Also included would be people like our soldiers in foreign wars who are exempted from paying income taxes while they are on active duty in a war zone.
22 percent of people who did not pay federal income taxes in 2009 are people aged 65 or older who have modest incomes (and do not have earnings).
61 percent are working people who pay payroll taxes but are not paying income taxes.

So, you are pissed that poor people don't pay enough taxes?  Like, they are too poor to live, how dare they only pay payroll tax!

Perhaps somewhat related:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States.

[maizefolk]

So, you are pissed that poor people don't pay enough taxes?  Like, they are too poor to live, how dare they only pay payroll tax!

Perhaps somewhat related:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States.

While not disagreeing with your overall argument, this study sounds like it is potentially extraordinarily misleading. Digging into the methodology (provided as a PDF hosted on dropbox from the ALICE project website), the income threshold they use includes the cost of child care for one infant and one preschooler, which A) represents the period of absolute highest financial strain for most households, after children are born but before they are eligible to attend school and B) is clearly irrelevance to single filers. Yet, while the study does adjust for variation in the average household size across regions of the country, as far as I can tell it does not consider single households separately from MFJ or HoH.

As a result, large numbers of single folks without children who are earning enough to comfortably support themselves are classified as households not earning enough to afford the basic necessities of life, producing numbers which are unrealistically pessimistic.

[sol]

As a result, large numbers of single folks without children who are earning enough to comfortably support themselves are classified as households not earning enough to afford the basic necessities of life, producing numbers which are unrealistically pessimistic.

Another way to look at this situation is that large numbers of people "who are earning enough to comfortably support themselves" still can't afford to marry and have children.

[maizefolk]

As a result, large numbers of single folks without children who are earning enough to comfortably support themselves are classified as households not earning enough to afford the basic necessities of life, producing numbers which are unrealistically pessimistic.

Another way to look at this situation is that large numbers of people "who are earning enough to comfortably support themselves" still can't afford to marry and have children.

If we are assuming that they're going to marry spouse who has no income yet will also insist on sending the kids to daycare rather than caring for them during the day, then yes I agree. (And I have a friend who ended up in that exact same situation, so I don't discount that it can happen.)

But generally marrying would either be associated with a significant boost in household income (going from one income to two) or mean the resulting house hold wouldn't didn't need to figure out how to pay for daycare full time.

[swampwiz]

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

just a story of some people's moral compass.

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

When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously).  (NOTE:  That is only a 6-pack every 2 days; I drink quality microbrew.)

[DreamFIRE]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

No, there's still a morality issue.  Even with today's good job market and low unemployment, close to half of tax filers don't pay any federal income tax.  Then there are many others than don't even file taxes, so they don't pay federal income tax, either.

So, you are pissed that poor people don't pay enough taxes?

There seems to be a wild assumption and misunderstanding on your part since you stated that I was "pissed" about people not paying enough taxes (or what I actually said, was "no federal income tax") nor did I say anything specifically about the poor since many middle class families also pay zero federal income tax.  I'm pretty sure I didn't say that I was pissed or give my opinion about the amount of tax paid in my post.  I simply stated a fact in response to swapwiz's comment because he said there would be no morality issue because everyone pays taxes in the system he advocated.  Which side of the morality issue I come out on is another story.  I realize that most middle class families are spending too much money to afford to pay any federal income tax.

[DreamFIRE]

But generally marrying would either be associated with a significant boost in household income (going from one income to two) or mean the resulting house hold wouldn't didn't need to figure out how to pay for daycare full time.

And for the low income single person, if marrying a non-working spouse, you're getting double the standard deduction and then pay a lower tax rate on the remaining taxable income as well.  With a kid, the child tax credits and EIC just add to the benefit.

[DreamFIRE]

When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously).  (NOTE:  That is only a 6-pack every 2 days; I drink quality microbrew.)

As EnjoyIt said, the ACA and healthcare subsidies are one thing, but I couldn't possibly take SNAP benefits, even if I qualified, since I have a healthy stash.  I, too, draw the ethical line before that point.

[dresden]

The reason the asset test was removed in many states was to encourage saving.

There is nothing wrong with following the rules and taking benefits you are entitled to as long as you are being honest and truthful.  People make decisions to lower taxes all the time regardless of whether they need the money.  It’s all part of the same pool and considering the amount of real fraud there is no need to worry about a small number of early retirees benefiting honestly.

On a personal level I never benefited from any programs other than public education and other programs benefiting anyone regardless of need.

[Paul der Krake]

I'm a little confused by the lack of asset tests for SNAP. I've tried using the estimator for a bunch of states that supposedly have done away with them, and it always asks for assets, and all sorts of other very intrusive questions.

Why ask for all this stuff if it's not taken into account?

[TomTX]

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

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

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can modify it to "hookers and booze in Nevada" if the legality is bothering you. They get tested for STDs regularly.

[TomTX]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

No, there's still a morality issue.  Even with today's good job market and low unemployment, close to half of tax filers don't pay any federal income tax.  Then there are many others than don't even file taxes, so they don't pay federal income tax, either.

Quite myopic. Many of them are paying other taxes, including Federal taxes (SSDI). Others are specifically exempt - like soldiers in a war zone, or aged retirees on a meager income.

[joonifloofeefloo]

I'm a little confused by the lack of asset tests for SNAP. I've tried using the estimator for a bunch of states that supposedly have done away with them, and it always asks for assets, and all sorts of other very intrusive questions.

Why ask for all this stuff if it's not taken into account?

I'm not familiar with SNAP, but for programs in general doing this: I don't know why some do it, but a lot of programs do. They ask for a complete list of assets, even though the item is not asset-tested, or it is asset-tested and they disregard those specific accounts, etc. It's common bureaucratic behaviour.

Situations in which I do know why they do it, though:

Some programs track asset levels over the course of time, because a reduction in assets could indicate disallowed dumping or can be assessed as an income (averaged over the period of the program's choice).

Some look at assets -even though those are allowed- in order to calculate imputed income, which is added to other income reported.

[jim555]

I'm a little confused by the lack of asset tests for SNAP. I've tried using the estimator for a bunch of states that supposedly have done away with them, and it always asks for assets, and all sorts of other very intrusive questions.

Why ask for all this stuff if it's not taken into account?

Looks like there are some classes of eligibility outside of "categorically classified" that implement both a income and asset test.  Also someone who has intentional program violations may fall back to income and asset tests.

[DreamFIRE]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

No, there's still a morality issue.  Even with today's good job market and low unemployment, close to half of tax filers don't pay any federal income tax.  Then there are many others than don't even file taxes, so they don't pay federal income tax, either.

Quite myopic. Many of them are paying other taxes, including Federal taxes (SSDI). Others are specifically exempt - like soldiers in a war zone, or aged retirees on a meager income.

I simply stated a fact.  Not everyone is paying FICA taxes either, but those taxes have a specific purpose, not to fund other government programs, and lower income people actually get more back than they paid in as well, so I don't think your comment is relevant.  You also might want to see this post:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2123511/#msg2123511

[jim555]

Also, in WA, if you apply for SNAP benefits and are between the ages of 19-59 and are not disabled, you have to register for work, and accept any position they refer you to.

The time limit is 3 months in a 3 year period, then a work requirement comes into place in order for it to continue.  This can be waived in times of high unemployment.  From a SNAP book:

SNAP has an employment and training component. Unless they are exempt, adults must
participate in some type of work or training activity to receive SNAP. However, there are
many people who are exempt and have no further obligation to participate in work activities.
A SNAP participant is exempt if he or she is:

• under 16 • meeting TANF work requirements• 60 and over • receiving unemployment benefits• age 16 or 17 and not the head of the household • participating in a drug or alcohol
treatment program • attending high school, training, or college on at least a half-time basis Note: College students between the ages of 18 and 49 must meet the student
eligibility criteria listed on pp. 32-33. • taking care of a child under 6 or an incapacitated person • working at least 30 hours/week or earning weekly pay of at least 30 times
the hourly federal minimum wage • a migrant or seasonal farm worker under contract to begin work within the next 30 days

Edit:  I noticed in other places it says time limits only apply to 18 through 49 yo.
Edit 2: Apparently there is a general work requirement for 18 through 59 and a ABAWD (stricter) one for 18 through 49 yo..
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/Clarifications-on-WorkRequirements-ABAWDs-ET-May2018.pdf

[EnjoyIt]

I don't need to propose rules because ethics is not necessarily a legal issue. Itis simply financially impossible to means test every government hand out. We must also rely on people to have their own scruples and do what is right. You do you, if you want to be a player who takes from the needy because the system allows it, that is your choice. But, don't go talking about humanitarian issues and trying to make others pay more so that your lazy ass life is better.

Straw man argument.  Someone acting "without scruples" to get benefits that are "undeserved" is not taking from the needy; he is taking from the taxpayer.  This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about "morality".

No, there's still a morality issue.  Even with today's good job market and low unemployment, close to half of tax filers don't pay any federal income tax.  Then there are many others than don't even file taxes, so they don't pay federal income tax, either.

So, you are pissed that poor people don't pay enough taxes?

There seems to be a wild assumption and misunderstanding on your part since you stated that I was "pissed" about people not paying enough taxes (or what I actually said, was "no federal income tax") nor did I say anything specifically about the poor since many middle class families also pay zero federal income tax.  I'm pretty sure I didn't say that I was pissed or give my opinion about the amount of tax paid in my post.  I simply stated a fact in response to swapwiz's comment because he said there would be no morality issue because everyone pays taxes in the system he advocated.  Which side of the morality issue I come out on is another story.  I realize that most middle class families are spending too much money to afford to pay any federal income tax.

You allude to what I hate so much about people who are extremely politically polarized. You say some people don't pay taxes and the response is that "you hate the poor for not paying taxes." Someone says we need to decrease spending money on healthcare for the practically dead elderly and the response is "death panels." Someone says adjusting Medicaid benefits and the response is "elderly dying in the street" or "you are racist."  Using extremes like that on the surface make your arguments strong but in reality it s nothing more than fear mongering.

[maizefolk]

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

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

What makes you think that that’s ethical?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can modify it to "hookers and booze in Nevada" if the legality is bothering you. They get tested for STDs regularly.

Oh, I just realized the first sentence of my previous post was ambiguous. When I wrote "The decision to spend all of your money on hookers and blow to the point where you aren't able to feed yourself (or any hypothetical dependents) is not an ethical one." I meant this would be unethical chose that course of action, but I could see how it could also be read to mean "this is a choice that ethics do not enter into." Apologies if that was a source of confusion.

The change in venue and the particular vices pursued in order to irresponsibly run out of money and be unable to take care of yourself certainly address the legality issue. However, if you live in Las Vegas and are drinking and gambling away your monthly paycheck every month to the point that you cannot afford to feed yourself or put a roof over your head, the choice remains an ethical problem in my book.

And again, in my book, once you've managed to make that immoral decision, I see no ethical or moral problem with you seeking food or shelter from public or private charities. Even absent the STDs it still doesn't sound like a particularly pleasant lifestyle, and certainly not one desirable enough that I think we're at any risk of incentivizing people to develop drinking or gambling problems just so they can qualify for the social safety net.

[TomTX]

And again, in my book, once you've managed to make that immoral decision, I see no ethical or moral problem with you seeking food or shelter from public or private charities. Even absent the STDs it still doesn't sound like a particularly pleasant lifestyle, and certainly not one desirable enough that I think we're at any risk of incentivizing people to develop drinking or gambling problems just so they can qualify for the social safety net.

Oh, it's certainly not a practical or even appealing approach. It did stimulate discussion. ;)

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

[sol]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!  I bet you're planning to deliberately choose to not work someday, too.  You're obviously the type. 

(good for you)

[DreamFIRE]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!

Or stealing from the poor, who need those benefits.

[Paul der Krake]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!

Or stealing from the poor, who need those benefits.

Can you steal from the poor, who by definition have nothing to steal?

[DreamFIRE]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!

Or stealing from the poor, who need those benefits.

Can you steal from the poor, who by definition have nothing to steal?

By definition?  Where did you get that definition?  That would be incorrect.  Most poor people have something to steal, although not usually that much, which makes it even worse to steal what little they do have.  In context of the discussion about what is ethical in this thread, this would be in regards to taking funds that were meant for poor people (like SNAP, WIC).

[EnjoyIt]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!  I bet you're planning to deliberately choose to not work someday, too.  You're obviously the type. 

(good for you)

@sol
There you go again taking an extreme stance to a very reasonable discussion about morals and ethics.  We keep telling you that not a single person on this thread is saying not to retire if you can afford it but you just keep on repeating this nonsense.

[TomTX]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!  I bet you're planning to deliberately choose to not work someday, too.  You're obviously the type. 

(good for you)

@sol
There you go again taking an extreme stance to a very reasonable discussion about morals and ethics.  We keep telling you that not a single person on this thread is saying not to retire if you can afford it but you just keep on repeating this nonsense.

There are people in this thread who say that if you do choose to retire, you shouldn't (ethically) take all of the benefits to which you are legally entitled.

[seattlecyclone]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!  I bet you're planning to deliberately choose to not work someday, too.  You're obviously the type. 

(good for you)

@sol
There you go again taking an extreme stance to a very reasonable discussion about morals and ethics.  We keep telling you that not a single person on this thread is saying not to retire if you can afford it but you just keep on repeating this nonsense.

That's just it. We all agree that you can retire when you can afford it, but we differ about the meaning of "when you can afford it." Some, on this very thread, have argued that people who can only afford to retire if they receive government subsidies for health care and/or food cannot really afford to retire. Others disagree.

As I said before, most everyone receives government subsidies for food. Several levels of the food supply chain are subsidized in one fashion or another. If you're paying less tax than your per-capita share of the federal budget, you're receiving food subsidies. I still haven't been persuaded that there's any ethical difference between claiming a low income to avoid tax (despite being able to earn more) and claiming a low income to get food stamps (despite being able to earn more).

This, coupled with the fact that food stamps do come with a bunch of other strings attached (like the requirement to accept pretty much any available job if offered), makes it an unlikely that many early retirees will find that particular program to be appealing.

[DreamFIRE]

This, coupled with the fact that food stamps do come with a bunch of other strings attached (like the requirement to accept pretty much any available job if offered), makes it an unlikely that many early retirees will find that particular program to be appealing.

There appears to be an appeal to some people, even on this forum.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2110421/#msg2110421

My personal moral compass would keep me from taking that step knowing I had a large stash, and those funds are meant for people that can't afford it.

[maizefolk]

That's just it. We all agree that you can retire when you can afford it, but we differ about the meaning of "when you can afford it." Some, on this very thread, have argued that people who can only afford to retire if they receive government subsidies for health care and/or food cannot really afford to retire. Others disagree.

I think that's a very valid summary of the actual discussion happening in this thread, and well as putting your finger on the ultimate source of people's disagreements: what does "can afford to retire" mean? And these are hard questions (at least they are to me).

What I still haven't seen is a single person advocating "if you can work but you chose not you, you are a leach on society (no ifs, ands, or buts)" which is the position sol keeps saying a lot of people in this thread are arguing for. I just don't see it.

[TomTX]

That's just it. We all agree that you can retire when you can afford it, but we differ about the meaning of "when you can afford it." Some, on this very thread, have argued that people who can only afford to retire if they receive government subsidies for health care and/or food cannot really afford to retire. Others disagree.

I think that's a very valid summary of the actual discussion happening in this thread, and well as putting your finger on the ultimate source of people's disagreements: what does "can afford to retire" mean? And these are hard questions (at least they are to me).

What I still haven't seen is a single person advocating "if you can work but you chose not you, you are a leach on society (no ifs, ands, or buts)" which is the position sol keeps saying a lot of people in this thread are arguing for. I just don't see it.

The phrasing is a different, but that basic philosophy was espoused in the 8th post on this very thread:

"I don't think that intentionally performing less than your best in order to get free government benefits intended for people who can't perform at your level is ethical. I don't care how much money you have or how practical it seems."

[maizefolk]

That's just it. We all agree that you can retire when you can afford it, but we differ about the meaning of "when you can afford it." Some, on this very thread, have argued that people who can only afford to retire if they receive government subsidies for health care and/or food cannot really afford to retire. Others disagree.

I think that's a very valid summary of the actual discussion happening in this thread, and well as putting your finger on the ultimate source of people's disagreements: what does "can afford to retire" mean? And these are hard questions (at least they are to me).

What I still haven't seen is a single person advocating "if you can work but you chose not you, you are a leach on society (no ifs, ands, or buts)" which is the position sol keeps saying a lot of people in this thread are arguing for. I just don't see it.

The phrasing is a different, but that basic philosophy was espoused in the 8th post on this very thread:

"I don't think that intentionally performing less than your best in order to get free government benefits intended for people who can't perform at your level is ethical. I don't care how much money you have or how practical it seems."

That is describing a specific set of circumstances under which that particular poster feels choosing not to work is unethical.

I am arguing that we all agree that there are other circumstances where it is completely ethical to chose not to work and we (mostly?) agree that there are some circumstances where it is unethical to chose not to work.

[jim555]

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. 

[EnjoyIt]

My actual plan to increase benefits is to shove liquid assets into retirement accounts as much as possible and have a paid off house 3 years before the kid is ready to go off to college. Planning to reduce the EFC.

Careful, people in this thread will call you an immoral leach on society.  How dare you steal from good hard working Americans!  I bet you're planning to deliberately choose to not work someday, too.  You're obviously the type. 

(good for you)

@sol
There you go again taking an extreme stance to a very reasonable discussion about morals and ethics.  We keep telling you that not a single person on this thread is saying not to retire if you can afford it but you just keep on repeating this nonsense.

That's just it. We all agree that you can retire when you can afford it, but we differ about the meaning of "when you can afford it." Some, on this very thread, have argued that people who can only afford to retire if they receive government subsidies for health care and/or food cannot really afford to retire. Others disagree.

As I said before, most everyone receives government subsidies for food. Several levels of the food supply chain are subsidized in one fashion or another. If you're paying less tax than your per-capita share of the federal budget, you're receiving food subsidies. I still haven't been persuaded that there's any ethical difference between claiming a low income to avoid tax (despite being able to earn more) and claiming a low income to get food stamps (despite being able to earn more).

This, coupled with the fact that food stamps do come with a bunch of other strings attached (like the requirement to accept pretty much any available job if offered), makes it an unlikely that many early retirees will find that particular program to be appealing.

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.

I'll use your extreme example with; the US government has attempted assassination of world leaders for a particular benefit.  They also have supported terrorist organizations to overthought kill and overthought governments.  Maybe you can go out and kill some people also because it benefits you.  What an extreme absurdity.

[EnjoyIt]

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.