Decreasing income to increase benefits

[jim555]

I think you have to keep in mind that 99.998% of those on these programs are very poor.  It just isn't worth the effort to weed out the .002% who are asset rich.

[beltim]

Jumping from "these are agricultural subsidy programs designed to benefit farmers," to "you shouldn't penalize them because of where they live, or their gender or ethnicity" is just arguing from bad faith and, frankly, beneath you.

I'm flattered that you think something is beneath me. 

But these are still separate arguments.  SNAP and WIC are agricultural subsidy programs, which is why they don't offer chipsahoy. 

You continue saying this without any support, and in the face of the text of the actual law that shows that you're wrong.  Why don't you try supporting your argument instead of making things up?

if it's targeted at low income people then why would we suddenly impose additional restrictions that Congress didn't intend?

I provided the text of the law that shows these aren't just aimed at "low income people."  Here it is again: "Participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program shall be limited to those households whose incomes and other financial resources, held singly or in joint ownership, are determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet"

Because it makes us feel morally superior, is my guess.  I have never taken food from a food bank, even though it could cut my grocery bill to near nothing, but I have donated to them and if I ever needed the food for my family I would have no qualms about going to a food bank to get some.  That's what they're for.  And they don't even check your income!  The reason we don't is that (Americans in particular) really look down on the poor as lower-class citizens and less worthy human beings.  We will go to great lengths to avoid looking like one of them because of the social stigma it carries.

Stop projecting.

So let me reiterate:  if you are low income, you should be allowed to utilize government programs targeted at low-income people, free of stigma, because you are still a valued human being.  It doesn't matter why your income is low.  You are of course free to choose not to utilize such programs for you and your family, but you should have the option.   I just get pissed when someone tries to guilt other people into suffering for the benefit of perceived moral superiority.  Let them lead their own lives, and keep your classism to yourself.

Once again you deny the plain facts.  These aren't programs aimed at all low income people, they're aimed at people who can't afford healthy food.  Stop bringing moral superiority and classism into this, and read the law. 

[beltim]

I think you have to keep in mind that 99.998% of those on these programs are very poor.  It just isn't worth the effort to weed out the .002% who are asset rich.

This is exactly right.  After all, who would retire early with millions and decide to enroll in WIC?  That's what I thought until this topic came up.

Anyway, the law actually does mention having assets.  There just aren't any asset tests implemented because they would cost more than they're worth.

[cats]

I know whenever this comes up in an academic sense there are always people saying “oh, sure, I would take SNAP benefits even though I am not dirt poor”, but I can’t recall many posters saying they actually ARE taking SNAP or WIC despite having substantial assets. Seems it must be too much of a PiTA to arrange for most, so I just don’t see this as a big issue.  In terms of avoiding paying your fair share, sol is right that the rich are basically waking up to Christmas every day.

[effigy98]

I'm going to have to agree with pretty much everything sol said which is rare. You should take as much as you want/need within the law. You most likely paid into it many times over. Very little is fair and equal, so why fight it, just go with the flow and get a share. I plan on 100% taking every benefit I can get my hands on that is not a major PITA to get.

[jim555]

I think you have to keep in mind that 99.998% of those on these programs are very poor.  It just isn't worth the effort to weed out the .002% who are asset rich.

This is exactly right.  After all, who would retire early with millions and decide to enroll in WIC?  That's what I thought until this topic came up.

Anyway, the law actually does mention having assets.  There just aren't any asset tests implemented because they would cost more than they're worth.

I have looked through the 423 page SNAP guide book.  Resource (assets) are considered in certain categories, for example someone under a sanction can have an asset test applied.   

[gerardc]

What I like about the US, is that the law/rules trump all, i.e. if it feels wrong but it's legal, we should change the law. If it's not feasible to come up with rules that would effectively disincentivize the behavior we don't like, then the behavior has to be accepted as valid. The reason is that if we try to impose a moral judgement on top of the law (i.e. vague rules on top of a set of better defined rules), then this judgement could not be enforced on actors of bad faith or lying, and only good actors would follow those rules; consequently, the system would be encouraging/rewarding bad actors, which we don't want.

Instead, exploiting the rules in a surprising, unexpected way should be celebrated as smart, as is done in sports when athletes come up with new techniques. That's what happens in the US culture. For example, americans celebrate businesses that succeed despite employing deceptive advertising techniques, or business persons making deals that screw over the other party, as long as it's done within the confines of the law. This is all like a game, and it works well for the economy, apparently.

Instead, trying to guilt people over doing the "right thing", is a weak system, because the lack of clear rules prevents proper punishment. Imagine if in sports we didn't have clear rules, but just "please try not to touch the ball with your hands if you can, it's not fair for the other team". It would be a disaster.

So the obvious answer here is, stop imposing your morality judgement, but do encourage legislation that would means-test food stamps and perhaps ACA subsidies.

[jim555]

A more realistic example for most MMMers would be the 399 to 401 subsidy cliff.  For some it might mean thousands of dollars just be dropping a few dollars of income.

[swampwiz]

I know whenever this comes up in an academic sense there are always people saying “oh, sure, I would take SNAP benefits even though I am not dirt poor”, but I can’t recall many posters saying they actually ARE taking SNAP or WIC despite having substantial assets. Seems it must be too much of a PiTA to arrange for most, so I just don’t see this as a big issue.  In terms of avoiding paying your fair share, sol is right that the rich are basically waking up to Christmas every day.

I have a cheap home & car that are owned outright.  I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA (i.e., I had an excellent buy opportunity on a leveraged ETF that I took a credit card advance for about $3K and got out when it his $19K), and have been doing the Roth ladder conversions of 0% federal income tax.  For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit, at least until I start taking SS at age 70.

[swampwiz]

So the obvious answer here is, stop imposing your morality judgement, but do encourage legislation that would means-test food stamps and perhaps ACA subsidies.

Going through asset determination requires nosing into folks' business, and is not cut & dried like income tax, something the IRS is very good at determining.

As income tax is the main way to raise revenue, welfare benefits should go out to all folks who qualify based on demographic attributes, with income tax getting it all back, for those who have an income.  This benefit could be in the form of a refundable tax credit, either gotten after doing one's taxes, or doled out via the EBT card.  A large cohort of bureaucrats could be released - a savings that has to make up for any "unpoor" folks who would get benefits this way.  Oh, and Medicare-For-All as well.

[cats]

I know whenever this comes up in an academic sense there are always people saying “oh, sure, I would take SNAP benefits even though I am not dirt poor”, but I can’t recall many posters saying they actually ARE taking SNAP or WIC despite having substantial assets. Seems it must be too much of a PiTA to arrange for most, so I just don’t see this as a big issue.  In terms of avoiding paying your fair share, sol is right that the rich are basically waking up to Christmas every day.

I have a cheap home & car that are owned outright.  I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA (i.e., I had an excellent buy opportunity on a leveraged ETF that I took a credit card advance for about $3K and got out when it his $19K), and have been doing the Roth ladder conversions of 0% federal income tax.  For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit, at least until I start taking SS at age 70.

To me this sounds like the system working pretty well.  You had SNAP for a while, the rules changed a bit and so you don't get it, you may get it in the future to tide you over until SS kicks in.  You have posted previously about your early retirement being somewhat forced due to poor career prospects.  It sounds like you are financially in a decent but not necessarily rock-solid situation and that you do have to watch your expenditures.  Do you have any idea of how much in SNAP benefits you might wind up receiving over your lifetime?  It sounds like to date it has probably been less than $10k?  And how long between exhausting your Roth conversions and taking SS at age 70?  Unless you are way, way younger than I think you are it seems like your total lifetime benefit is unlikely to exceed $50k.  I think many people on this board, given the choice, would probably choose to sock away another $50k because it feels more certain than trusting a government program to continue operating as it currently does.  Look at your own example--the rules for eligibility changed on you! 

In my opinion, the government should be concerned that an able-bodied and educated person can't find employment at a level that makes it worth his while to get off government benefits, but I don't think they should be too concerned that you are claiming benefits if you're eligible for them.  If the government wants to get you off their benefits roll, they have plenty of options available to stimulate the economy in a way that creates better jobs.  Instead they like to give handouts to corporations, agribusiness, defense contractors,  etc. and then get up in arms about "welfare queens". 

[gerardc]

So the obvious answer here is, stop imposing your morality judgement, but do encourage legislation that would means-test food stamps and perhaps ACA subsidies.

Going through asset determination requires nosing into folks' business, and is not cut & dried like income tax, something the IRS is very good at determining.

... and determining income is cut and dried now? If you're a salaried employee, yes, otherwise, it definitely requires nosing into folks businesses.

The IRS is pretty capable of determining assets. There's FATCA for foreign accounts, but everything in US institutions is on record for sure, as well as real estate. There's stuff happening "under the table" in both the income and wealth domains. Overall I'd say they're pretty equally difficult to look into.

[swampwiz]

So the obvious answer here is, stop imposing your morality judgement, but do encourage legislation that would means-test food stamps and perhaps ACA subsidies.

Going through asset determination requires nosing into folks' business, and is not cut & dried like income tax, something the IRS is very good at determining.

... and determining income is cut and dried now? If you're a salaried employee, yes, otherwise, it definitely requires nosing into folks businesses.

The IRS is pretty capable of determining assets. There's FATCA for foreign accounts, but everything in US institutions is on record for sure, as well as real estate. There's stuff happening "under the table" in both the income and wealth domains. Overall I'd say they're pretty equally difficult to look into.

And folks are up in arms over FATCA, even the ones that aren't trying to dodge taxes.  The reason why FATCA is popular is because most folks don't have foreign accounts, and they pay their taxes on the domestic accounts that they have.

[maizefolk]

So the obvious answer here is, stop imposing your morality judgement, but do encourage legislation that would means-test food stamps and perhaps ACA subsidies.

Going through asset determination requires nosing into folks' business, and is not cut & dried like income tax, something the IRS is very good at determining.

... and determining income is cut and dried now? If you're a salaried employee, yes, otherwise, it definitely requires nosing into folks businesses.

But you have to come up with your income (and in principle may have it verified by the IRS checking all the other documents they received about money paid to you) every year to filing your income taxes, whether you are a salaried employee, a contractor, or someone with partial ownership stakes in half a dozen pass-through entities, three rental properties, and 30% of an oil well out in Oklahoma.

So, assuming a given government program ties their definition of income to a specific line(s) on a 1040 form, all the nosing into folks business to determine income is already baked in to the system, whereas determining net worth/assets -- and having the IRS or a similar government entity verify a subset of those determinations -- would require new nosing into folks business that otherwise wouldn't happen.

[EnjoyIt]

Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally so that the rest of society will pay their way. It is not unethical to adjust your taxes in a legal way to pay less and get more government handouts. It is not unethical because that person is still working and doing their best to pay their own way using legal means to improve their outcome.

[sol]

Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally

Really?  You just said retirement is unethical while you're able-bodied?  At any age?

Aren't you planning to retire some day?  Are you hoping to work until your body breaks down and you can't work anymore?  Is that the only moral choice, in your view?

[beltim]

Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally

Really?  You just said retirement is unethical while you're able-bodied?  At any age?

Aren't you planning to retire some day?  Are you hoping to work until your body breaks down and you can't work anymore?  Is that the only moral choice, in your view?

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

[sol]

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

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

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

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

[beltim]

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

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

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

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

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

[sol]

He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

Right.  Isn't that what retirement is?  Traditionally, a longtime corporate drone would retire with a corporate pension, and allow his former employer to support him through the last years of his life.  Was that arrangement immoral too?   

These days we have social security, which works the same way.  Other workers in the economy pay taxes to support people who receive SS payments.  Whether or not that person could work, once they are old enough they get to draw SS.  Is that immoral if they're not bedridden?  Are you morally obligated to continue working if you're physically able, whether you have savings or not?

I understand the point you're trying to make.  You think it's immoral to exploit the system for personal gain, but I'm trying to highlight that the system is fundamentally broken.  Some people are born rich and never work a day in their lives, so is it immoral for them to have inherited money?  Some people do exhausting manual labor in the hot sun for 14 hours a day and can't afford to feed their kids, is that any less immoral?  How hard you work has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you make, or how moral you are.  The tax system incentivizes these kinds of discrepancies, helping the rich heiress avoid hard work, and making sure the day laborer never gets ahead.  Given these fixed inequalities, I have no qualms about exploiting the system to maximum personal benefit, and in fact would find illogical not to.  It's not like Donald Trump is passing up tax breaks for real estate developers because they are an unfair advantage to him.  Paul Allen doesn't voluntary pay extra for his giant yacht, he structures its ownership through foreign holding companies and pays himself to rent it from himself, just like all rich people do.  These people work the system for maximum benefit because that's the system we live in, the system we've voted for, and the system that has helped American capitalism prosper (for some participants more than others). 

[mm1970]

Jumping from "these are agricultural subsidy programs designed to benefit farmers," to "you shouldn't penalize them because of where they live, or their gender or ethnicity" is just arguing from bad faith and, frankly, beneath you.

I'm flattered that you think something is beneath me. 

But these are still separate arguments.  SNAP and WIC are agricultural subsidy programs, which is why they don't offer chipsahoy.  Regardless of why the surplus is being made available to people, the chosen recipients should be allowed to access it if they qualify, right?  There's no conflict there.  It wouldn't matter if the food was being bought by Congress with more deficit spending, if it's targeted at low income people then why would we suddenly impose additional restrictions that Congress didn't intend?

Because it makes us feel morally superior, is my guess.  I have never taken food from a food bank, even though it could cut my grocery bill to near nothing, but I have donated to them and if I ever needed the food for my family I would have no qualms about going to a food bank to get some.  That's what they're for.  And they don't even check your income!  The reason we don't is that (Americans in particular) really look down on the poor as lower-class citizens and less worthy human beings.  We will go to great lengths to avoid looking like one of them because of the social stigma it carries.

So let me reiterate:  if you are low income, you should be allowed to utilize government programs targeted at low-income people, free of stigma, because you are still a valued human being.  It doesn't matter why your income is low.  You are of course free to choose not to utilize such programs for you and your family, but you should have the option.   I just get pissed when someone tries to guilt other people into suffering for the benefit of perceived moral superiority.  Let them lead their own lives, and keep your classism to yourself.

It's like that other thread somewhere about free lunch for your kids.  How it's unethical to get it if you don't "need" it. 

In our district, they've increased free lunch from about 4 to about 7 elementary schools, out of 12 or 13 - where everyone gets free lunch, whether you need it or not.  Should we not take it?  Same with junior high - used to be 1 of the 4, but now 2 of the 4 get free lunch.

Many many many of my friends and acquaintances have seriously gone out of their way to transfer out of their home schools into another school - one of the two that doesn't get free lunch.  To get away from the poor kids. 

Yes, my kids get free lunch.  No, we don't need it.  But no, I don't think there is anything wrong with being poor, and my kids go to school with the poor kids.

[madamwitty]

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

 A thought experiment and a question.

Thought Experiment:

Suppose Person A works part-time for 30 years (or, alternatively full time at a job that he loves, even though he is qualified for a higher-paying position), for $30k/year. He has low enough income that he doesn't have to pay any taxes.

Suppose Person B works full-time for 15 years, making $60k/year, and then retires at $0k/year. He ends up paying $3k per year in taxes (total:$45k). While he is not working, he claims a $1k/year "handout" he wouldn't otherwise have qualified for (total: $15k).

Is Person B "not paying his way" even though he has paid more into the system total? I think overall context counts.

Question:

Is SNAP funding capped? e.g. Does Person B take funding away from another person who would have been able to claim that money?

Edited for typo / math. Don't get bogged down by the specific numbers! It's an illustrative example.

[mm1970]

He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

Right.  Isn't that what retirement is?  Traditionally, a longtime corporate drone would retire with a corporate pension, and allow his former employer to support him through the last years of his life.  Was that arrangement immoral too?   

These days we have social security, which works the same way.  Other workers in the economy pay taxes to support people who receive SS payments.  Whether or not that person could work, once they are old enough they get to draw SS.  Is that immoral if they're not bedridden?  Are you morally obligated to continue working if you're physically able, whether you have savings or not?

I understand the point you're trying to make.  You think it's immoral to exploit the system for personal gain, but I'm trying to highlight that the system is fundamentally broken.  Some people are born rich and never work a day in their lives, so is it immoral for them to have inherited money?  Some people do exhausting manual labor in the hot sun for 14 hours a day and can't afford to feed their kids, is that any less immoral?  How hard you work has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you make, or how moral you are.  The tax system incentivizes these kinds of discrepancies, helping the rich heiress avoid hard work, and making sure the day laborer never gets ahead.  Given these fixed inequalities, I have no qualms about exploiting the system to maximum personal benefit, and in fact would find illogical not to.  It's not like Donald Trump is passing up tax breaks for real estate developers because they are an unfair advantage to him.  Paul Allen doesn't voluntary pay extra for his giant yacht, he structures its ownership through foreign holding companies and pays himself to rent it from himself, just like all rich people do.  These people work the system for maximum benefit because that's the system we live in, the system we've voted for, and the system that has helped American capitalism prosper (for some participants more than others).

These are all very good points.

Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally so that the rest of society will pay their way. It is not unethical to adjust your taxes in a legal way to pay less and get more government handouts. It is not unethical because that person is still working and doing their best to pay their own way using legal means to improve their outcome.

Same question that sol had - for how long?  I mean, apparently we are all fine with house less elderly people living in RVs roving to work hard manual labor for Amazon.

[Paul der Krake]

How do you tell who is really in need from circumstances out of their control?

Imagine the following three people, all making 30k/year
- Person #1's mom was drinking heavily while she was in the womb and as a result she is just dumb as rocks, always has, always will be.
- Person #2 caught the lazies in her youth, and is generally unmotivated and a not-so-great person overall. She could achieve more, but she'd have to undo decades of poor behavior, and she just doesn't feel like it.
- Person #3 is a shrewd early retiree who used to make 400k/year, then realized she could just coast by being low income.

Where do you draw the line? Most people's sense of fairness say that #1 should definitely be helped, #3 should definitely NOT be helped, and they're not sure about #2. Now consider that we're not talking about 3 people, more like 30 millions, each with their own life circumstances, and try to determine fair guidelines to decide who should get help and who shouldn't.

[maizefolk]

Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally

Really?  You just said retirement is unethical while you're able-bodied?  At any age?

Aren't you planning to retire some day?  Are you hoping to work until your body breaks down and you can't work anymore?  Is that the only moral choice, in your view?

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

My reaction as well. EnjoyIt's statement was clearly that they felt it was immoral to do the combination of A AND B as a unit. Sol cropped out B so that he could write a post about how stupid it was to say A is immoral in isolation. Regardless of whether I agree with EnjoyIt or not, blatantly manipulating quotes to ascribe a position to a person which they did not ever advocate is, at best, rather sleazy.

Consider the following statement, which I believe to be true: "It is immoral to marry someone and then kill them so you inherit all of their assets."

If you quoted that as MaizeMan: "It is immoral to marry someone" I'm be rather pissed off.

[pressure9pa]

I'm really enjoying the conversation.  I'd want to throw out this question again, as it was kind of glossed over before.

Does anyone's mind change if the program is public versus private?  For example, does anyone think it is ethical to take benefits from the Federal or state governments, but unethical to take from a church-run (or similar) food pantry or shelter when neither asset test and both are within the confines of "the rules"?  Or maybe vice-versa?

[sol]

Consider the following statement, which I believe to be true: "It is immoral to marry someone and then kill them so you inherit all of their assets."

If you quoted that as MaizeMan: "It is immoral to marry someone" I'm be rather pissed off.

I didn't crop out B, I cropped out the "so you inherit all of their assets."  The rationale for why you would marry someone and kill them didn't seem relevant, just like the rationale for why you would you would choose to work, or work minimally, didn't seem relevant.

We ALL retire at some point.  My mother tried to tell me it was immoral that I was retiring at age 41, despite the fact that she is currently retired.  Why would it be immoral to do something at 41 and not at 62?  If you think it's a matter of how much you've contributed to society, or how much in taxes you've paid over your lifetime, I have already surpassed my mother on both of those counts by a wide margin.

I realize that lots of people are never going to agree with me on this one.  I've been in this position multiple times before, where the entire community disagrees with me, and that's fine!  I'm not telling you what to do, I'm trying to prevent you from telling other people what to do.  You (the generic you) are free to make your own choices, but a condition of that freedom is that you respect the same rights in others.  If I want to retire at 41 and you think that's immoral, that's a fine "agree to disagree" moment and you are free to judge me as immoral for it. 

[beltim]

He's saying it's immoral to have other people pay your way if you are capable of paying for your own way.

Right.  Isn't that what retirement is?  Traditionally, a longtime corporate drone would retire with a corporate pension, and allow his former employer to support him through the last years of his life.  Was that arrangement immoral too?   

No, and you know it's not the same.  A pension is just deferred compensation.  Social Security is just a government-run old-age insurance program.  None of that is immoral.

[beltim]

Consider the following statement, which I believe to be true: "It is immoral to marry someone and then kill them so you inherit all of their assets."

If you quoted that as MaizeMan: "It is immoral to marry someone" I'm be rather pissed off.

I didn't crop out B, I cropped out the "so you inherit all of their assets."  The rationale for why you would marry someone and kill them didn't seem relevant, just like the rationale for why you would you would choose to work, or work minimally, didn't seem relevant.

That's grammatically incorrect. 

[beltim]

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

 A thought experiment and a question.

Thought Experiment:

Suppose Person A works part-time for 30 years (or, alternatively full time at a job that he loves, even though he is qualified for a higher-paying position), for $30k/year. He has low enough income that he doesn't have to pay any taxes.

Suppose Person B works full-time for 15 years, making $60k/year, and then retires at $0k/year. He ends up paying $3k per year in taxes (total:$45k). While he is not working, he claims a $1k/year "handout" he wouldn't otherwise have qualified for (total: $15k).

Is Person B "not paying his way" even though he has paid more into the system total? I think overall context counts.

Question:

Is SNAP funding capped? e.g. Does Person B take funding away from another person who would have been able to claim that money?

Edited for typo / math. Don't get bogged down by the specific numbers! It's an illustrative example.

Your thought experiment isn't quite germane to the discussion.  No one has tried to argue that reducing your taxes is immoral.  The question is more, is person B moral if they claim food stamps, as a result of them voluntarily quitting after saving enough money to retire.

Actually, SNAP is a mandatory program, meaning the benefit is required, so one person getting benefits does not reduce the pool of money available to others (other than the taxpayers).  In contrast, WIC is distributed by block grants, with limited funding, and so taking benefits does prevent someone else from claiming that benefit. 

[beltim]

I'm really enjoying the conversation.  I'd want to throw out this question again, as it was kind of glossed over before.

Does anyone's mind change if the program is public versus private?  For example, does anyone think it is ethical to take benefits from the Federal or state governments, but unethical to take from a church-run (or similar) food pantry or shelter when neither asset test and both are within the confines of "the rules"?  Or maybe vice-versa?

So you're asking if a church says, "this food is only for the people who have trouble affording food on their own" but doesn't check your assets, if I'd find it ethical to take the food if you didn't have trouble affording food?  No, I do not think that is ethical.  I don't think it matters if the program is public or private.  Do you have a reason why it would be different?

[maizefolk]

Consider the following statement, which I believe to be true: "It is immoral to marry someone and then kill them so you inherit all of their assets."

If you quoted that as MaizeMan: "It is immoral to marry someone" I'm be rather pissed off.

I didn't crop out B, I cropped out the "so you inherit all of their assets."  The rationale for why you would marry someone and kill them didn't seem relevant, just like the rationale for why you would you would choose to work, or work minimally, didn't seem relevant.

There are plenty of actions that are immoral when taken for one reason and moral when taken for another: Killing in self defense vs murder. Stealing to feed a starving child vs stealing to buy a jet ski.

But even more basically than that, a sentence is a complete thought. A phrase is not. By cropping out only a part of a sentence, you radically changed the position the original poster appeared to advocate in order to make it into a different position that was easier for you to argue with.

I'm all for arguing with people on the internet -- I'm on this forum after all -- but arguments with people about things they didn't say in the first place (and editing their comments in such a way that they seem to be saying things they never said) seems even more pointless than most.

[sol]

By cropping out only a part of a sentence, you radically changed the position the original poster appeared to advocate
...
arguments with people about things they didn't say in the first place

Have you been reading along?  Multiple people in this thread have made the identical argument.  They think it is somehow immoral to not work, when you can work.  EnjoyIt jumped on that same bandwagon.  Are we disagreeing because his particular vocalization of that argument was slightly more complex?

How about you, do you think it is immoral to retire?  That's the key point here. 

If we can agree that there are circumstances under which retirement is not immoral, then we can move on to arguing about which existing laws the retiree is subject to (I would argue "all of them") and you can make a case that some laws should not be utilized.

Just to repeat myself for a moment, we all benefit by living in a civilized society.  Other workers pay for our infrastructure, defense, arts, etc.  Am I not allowed to enjoy those things if I am no longer working?  Only if I reach a certain age before not working?  Only if I am prevented from working by some physical ailment?  Or am I, just maybe, subject to the same laws as everyone else?

Social programs are just like any other part of our infrastructure.  They are provided for the common good.  You can choose to avoid freeways or electricity, and you can choose to avoid mental health counseling for the homeless if you are homeless, and you can choose to avoid reduced priced school lunches if you are low income.  That is your right.  It is also your right to choose to participate in these wonders of modern society, if you are eligible.

[maizefolk]

Oh yes, I've been reading along this whole time. But arguing that other people in the thread are simply saying it is immoral to retire doesn't change the fact that:

"Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally" and "Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally so that the rest of society will pay their way" are very different positions for a person to hold in the debate happening on this thread. You are certainly disagree with both of those positions, but it doesn't follow that all positions you disagree with are logically or ethically equivalent to each other.

My own views really don't enter into it.

[gerardc]

Yes, it is unethical for an able bodied person to choose not to work, or work minimally so that the rest of society will pay their way. It is not unethical to adjust your taxes in a legal way to pay less and get more government handouts. It is not unethical because that person is still working and doing their best to pay their own way using legal means to improve their outcome.

This sentence bugs me too. I see what you're trying to say, that you shouldn't retire and receive benefits like ACA, food stamps, welfare designed for the poor, etc., but that retiring to spend your own money IS ethical. The problem is those 2 categories are fundamentally very similar, e.g. even if you use only your own money you'll still pay no taxes but receive societal benefits like roads, parks, police protection, driver's license, FDIC insurance for your bank account, SEC overseeing your investments, etc. You can't get around it; if you earn less as an able bodied person, you WILL be paying less taxes, so the burden on society will be higher, whether you use "unfair" benefits or not.

Another reason I think it's ethical to use Medicaid (or other help) with a high net worth is, imagine person A and person B each earned $20k/year for 30 years; person A spent every penny, person B saved and invested 33% of their income so end up with a sizeable net worth. Now, according to your ethics, person A would be justified to use Medicaid but person B wouldn't, due to their large savings. However the only difference between A and B is that A spent all the money they earned. That doesn't seem like a fair thing to incentivize.

[EnjoyIt]

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say and it is far different than retiring and paying for yourself.  Sure you put into the system and collect social security and medicare.  It is something completely different to have contributed next to nothing and simply expect the world to cover your needs just because you exist. 

And yes Sol, it is immoral to weasel your way into funds defined for the needy just because you are lazy or hate your job.  And yes, life is not fair, Sol.  BTW, if a rich family wants to set their kids up in a trust so they never have to work again it is the choice of their parents. It is their money and they can do whatever they want with it.  They can donate, they can blow it all on cocaine or they can set up a trust.  Likely, those kids have a high likely hood to be lazy bastards but that is the choice of the family that had the money and chose to spend it that way.  As a tax payer I would prefer not to use our taxes to feed lazy able bodied people who just don't want to work.  So, if your goal is to be lazy and leach of 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.

Mustachianism is about badassity.  It is about doing things for yourself instead of outsourcing.  It is about riding a bike and using muscle instead of being lazy and use a car.  How is this any different.  Why not cut off one of your legs so that you get on disability and never work another day in your life? Sounds great right? Maybe get you a home health nurse so that you don't have to get up and bath yourself.  Maybe a bedpan as well?  Or, maybe, those resources are best saved for the disabled instead of weaseling yourself into them.

[gerardc]

It is their money and they can do whatever they want with it.  They can donate, they can blow it all on cocaine or they can set up a trust.

So buying cocaine is OK but getting ACA subsidies when you have some savings is not OK?
You're basically saying that one thing that is illegal is EnjoyIt-approved, and another that is legal is EnjoyIt-disapproved. Based on what authority?

[Cassie]

As a former social worker it is not right to retire early and take benefits that truly poor people need.  If you can afford to retire early you can support yourself.  Many people can’t work for various reasons and the programs are there to assist them. Especially in the states when programs/funding is limited.

[EnjoyIt]

By cropping out only a part of a sentence, you radically changed the position the original poster appeared to advocate
...
arguments with people about things they didn't say in the first place

Have you been reading along?  Multiple people in this thread have made the identical argument.  They think it is somehow immoral to not work, when you can work.  EnjoyIt jumped on that same bandwagon.  Are we disagreeing because his particular vocalization of that argument was slightly more complex?

How about you, do you think it is immoral to retire?  That's the key point here. 

If we can agree that there are circumstances under which retirement is not immoral, then we can move on to arguing about which existing laws the retiree is subject to (I would argue "all of them") and you can make a case that some laws should not be utilized.

Just to repeat myself for a moment, we all benefit by living in a civilized society.  Other workers pay for our infrastructure, defense, arts, etc.  Am I not allowed to enjoy those things if I am no longer working?  Only if I reach a certain age before not working?  Only if I am prevented from working by some physical ailment?  Or am I, just maybe, subject to the same laws as everyone else?

Social programs are just like any other part of our infrastructure.  They are provided for the common good.  You can choose to avoid freeways or electricity, and you can choose to avoid mental health counseling for the homeless if you are homeless, and you can choose to avoid reduced priced school lunches if you are low income.  That is your right.  It is also your right to choose to participate in these wonders of modern society, if you are eligible.

Words matter Sol.  How those words are put together make a difference especially in a discussion.  You can't just choose what words you like and don't like. 

Now, let me clear this up for you.  I am not talking about retiring after making sure you can take care of yourself or at the very least added to the coffers of the programs that will assist you if you are an able bodied individual. It is something different to mooch of the hard work of others just because you hate your job and are lazy.  This is a very big difference.  One is bad ass while the other is unethical.

[EnjoyIt]

It is their money and they can do whatever they want with it.  They can donate, they can blow it all on cocaine or they can set up a trust.

So buying cocaine is OK but getting ACA subsidies when you have some savings is not OK?
You're basically saying that one thing that is illegal is EnjoyIt-approved, and another that is legal is EnjoyIt-disapproved. Based on what authority?

Me being socially liberal I believe anyone can do whatever they want with their money or themselves as long as they don't harm others.  If one want to do coke all day long that is their choice and is an extreme example of someone choosing to spend their money in an idiotic way.  This has nothing to do with ACA subsidies and I am honestly not sure of your analogy.

Regarding ACA subsidies.  The US healthcare system is FUBARed and no able bodied low income American will ever be able to afford healthcare in this country without subsidies. I would prefer a better healthcare system but we have what we have and people need to do what they must to survive which is completely reasonable.

[EnjoyIt]

As a former social worker it is not right to retire early and take benefits that truly poor people need.  If you can afford to retire early you can support yourself.  Many people can’t work for various reasons and the programs are there to assist them. Especially in the states when programs/funding is limited.

One would think that if a person really cares about humanity and others would have some disdain in wasting resources that are meant for the less fortunate.

[Erica]

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

It costs less than $50 to be on the rolls for medicaid and you only cost taxpayers $$ WHEN IT IS USED if going the traditional fee for service medi-cal. This equates to a max bill of $50 for those who don't use the services versus the average hundreds of dollars subsidy for those who ALSO don't use the service. Blue Cross, Health NEt, Cigna, all gotta get their share. Avoid them and it's cheaper for the taxpayer.

Of course your countable income must be very very low in which most people, cannot live on poverty wages. But if you can re-arrage finances to save the taxpayers hundreds of dollars so you can qualify for medicaid instead of the ACA, good for you.

Low meaning 123% of the Federal poverty level. That's about $1250 for a single person and $1668 for a couple here in California.

Since I moved out of the Kaiser coverage area, I have no medical insurance. It was 100% subsidized by Employer but now the other plans offered in our area cost about $300+ a month. No thank you.

[Paul der Krake]

Since I moved out of the Kaiser coverage area, I have no medical insurance. It was 100% subsidized by Employer but now the other plans offered in our area cost about $300+ a month. No thank you.

So you're rolling the dice and putting your entire net worth and then some on the line? Hey we've seen this movie before.

[gerardc]

Regarding ACA subsidies.  The US healthcare system is FUBARed and no able bodied low income American will ever be able to afford healthcare in this country without subsidies. I would prefer a better healthcare system but we have what we have and people need to do what they must to survive which is completely reasonable.

Fine, let's use child or tuition benefits as in the OP instead of ACA subsidies.
Are you saying FIREing and using them is unethical?

The thing with ethics is that we must be able to formulate clear rules/laws that would improve the issue, being substantially free of negative side effects. Ethics shouldn't be a side-eye judgement, but working to find better ways to live that can be enforced (see this).

Now, let's say you propose legislation to means-test child benefits or tax credits. This would create a perverse incentive to save less:

Another reason I think it's ethical to use Medicaid (or other help) with a high net worth is, imagine person A and person B each earned $20k/year for 30 years; person A spent every penny, person B saved and invested 33% of their income so end up with a sizeable net worth. Now, according to your ethics, person A would be justified to use Medicaid but person B wouldn't, due to their large savings. However the only difference between A and B is that A spent all the money they earned. That doesn't seem like a fair thing to incentivize.

and I'd say in general means-testing creates perverse incentives. So let's not get all "ethical" about it, please, unless we can argue against those negative side effects.

Admittedly, the case for food stamps is different, since food is a much more urgent need. I've found that states who have removed means-testing have done it mainly to ease the administrative burden and because of low potential of exploitation, rather than based on principle. I could see means-testing to be beneficial for food stamps, but not for child benefits or Medicaid.

[DreamFIRE]

Of course your countable income must be very very low in which most people, cannot live on poverty wages. But if you can re-arrage finances to save the taxpayers hundreds of dollars so you can qualify for medicaid instead of the ACA, good for you.

Low meaning 123% of the Federal poverty level. That's about $1250 for a single person and $1668 for a couple here in California.

Or as Sol said, Medicaid with MAGI income under $40K/yr for his family of 5 for totally free care.

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

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

I think some here might suggest that Sol is being unethical to take advantage of Medicaid benefits for his family since he has what he refers to as a massive savings.  He's just working the system to obtain benefits he's legally entitled to with his managed low income.

[DreamFIRE]

Another reason I think it's ethical to use Medicaid (or other help) with a high net worth is, imagine person A and person B each earned $20k/year for 30 years; person A spent every penny, person B saved and invested 33% of their income so end up with a sizeable net worth. Now, according to your ethics, person A would be justified to use Medicaid but person B wouldn't, due to their large savings. However the only difference between A and B is that A spent all the money they earned. That doesn't seem like a fair thing to incentivize.

Agreed.  I've used this same type of example for why I don't think social security benefits should be asset tested.  Savers shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing.

[EnjoyIt]

The thing with ethics is that we must be able to formulate clear rules/laws that would improve the issue, being substantially free of negative side effects. @sol

Lets forget for a minute about legislation and politics and lets talk about our own moral compass.  Someone with moral and ethical standards can make their own choices.  I believe and this is my belief that it is unethical to utilize public services designed to help the needy when one is able bodied and doesn't need those services themselves. This becomes even more perverse when those services or resources are limited.  I find it reprehensible when that same person votes to increase their own benefits by expecting others to work and pay for them.  Services that one has paid into do not count.

This isn't about straw men examples or anyone's particular needs, age or retirement horizons.  This is simply my view on morality.

I will not be going to a soup kitchen and taking food from the hungry, I will not be living in section 8 housing and taking shelter from the homeless, and I will not be on medicaid because I will be able to afford health insurance.  I will be glad to accept medicare when I am 65 and social security when I am 70 because I paid into it.  Everyone here can choose for themselves what is ethical, but don't expect others to respect you or your decision if you are taking limited resources from those who truly need them.

One Disclaimer: I find the healthcare industry in the US to be markedly flawed and can appreciate those who choose to game the system for their own benefit especially when there is so few if any better options.  Maybe it makes me a hypocrite but again these are just my views.

[Padonak]

Ptf

[gerardc]

The thing with ethics is that we must be able to formulate clear rules/laws that would improve the issue, being substantially free of negative side effects. @sol

Lets forget for a minute about legislation and politics and lets talk about our own moral compass.  Someone with moral and ethical standards can make their own choices.  I believe and this is my belief that it is unethical to utilize public services designed to help the needy when one is able bodied and doesn't need those services themselves. This becomes even more perverse when those services or resources are limited.  I find it reprehensible when that same person votes to increase their own benefits by expecting others to work and pay for them.  Services that one has paid into do not count.

I insist that you should be able to propose clearly formulated rules/laws to support your ethical viewpoints, that would be free of negative side effects. A moral compass is only useful insofar as it motivates you to conceive rules that would make the world better, but if you are not able or not willing to put them to the test, or to stronger scrutiny, then this moral compass of yours is not any better than opinion or feeling, i.e. it could be deeply flawed and you wouldn't realize it. The last thing we want as a society is to put side-eye pressure to do something that has overall harmful consequences. Also, the fact that a large number of people have the same opinion as you do absolutely does not prove its legitimacy.

Similarly in sciences, we might say that scientific intuition is important, the reason being that it allows you to formulate hypotheses that have a decent chance of passing the test of experimentation. But at the end of the day, only observed facts, proven by experiments, are considered useful results of science, and no one really cares about your inner scientific compass.

[daverobev]

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.

Food stamps but live in an expensive house, or have lots in investment accounts, or whatever? No.

That is how it should be. But - government is silly. If the tiny number of people like us avail ourselves of programs that we 'ethically' maybe shouldn't, it is a clear case of 'blame the game, not the player'.

In the UK, for example, there are all sorts of benefits you can't get if you have more than 16k GBP (just over $20k USD) (excluding your house and money in a pension scheme, I believe). You don't get the dole (Jobseeker's Allowance) if unemployed and you have the funds to support yourself.

IMHO the UK system is a bit harsh, but compared to other places I feel it is closer to right (as in, if you have millions of dollars in whatever tax shelters or investments, you really oughtn't be able to get SNAP). In Canada, we could get quite a lot into RRSPs and TFSAs and, with two children, get up to $6.5k CAD in child benefits per child if our income was below $35k. Add discounts on energy bills, property tax, sales tax rebates and whatnot... it's pretty crazy, really. Now, I was reading a thing saying that, in the UK, the after tax income of a minimum wage family vs a fairly reasonable earning one with multiple children was shockingly close, and that's wrong too. I think the numbers were 15k GBP and 50k GBP with 3 children, and the net difference was only a few hundred pounds. And, of course, the higher income family can put a big chunk of pre-tax money into a retirement account to bring their earnings down...

How many 'rich' people actually do this? Not many, I'd guess. But who knows. I mean - rich people obviously do all sorts to reduce the tax they pay. And there is probably an argument that true rich people avoid more tax than the people we're talking about here who are using programs (ie, the frugal/decreasing income person uses a program that costs $4k a year, but the rich-rich person is optimising to save $50k in tax...).