Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
isn't roth contributed after tax? so you have already paid the tax, only the income from it is tax free. IRA contribution is deductible, it grows tax fee, and you pay when you withdraw..
taxes are not what i am referring to . read the above
Since when is everything that is legal automatically fair?
they are never fair and shouldn't be . like all walks of life some of us are smarter , have better strategy's , planners , etc . they know how to use the laws and tools better and get rewarded for it . nothing wrong with that .
Numbers on SS disability are astronomical. I know whole families on disability for low intelligence and they are breeding kids like rabbits. People who are drug addicts can get disability. I know a couple of those. Went on it at a young age and will be on it until they die of old age.
I went on Medicare at 65. My husband is younger than I am. When OC came out, he looked at the plans and the costs and it was $1600 a month for a basic plan with a several thousand dollar deductible. We don't make a lot of money, self employed. We barely get by. I am now 73, he is 66. We could not afford the insurance and paid the penalty. We are tax preparers and know many in the same boat, not young people either. We will be working until we die but, our house is paid for though needing some repairs. He is blind in one eye and desperately needs cataract surgery, with good lens. That won't happen.
It is a little painful to hear of the people who have major assets and get subsidies when we struggle for the basics of life and pay our taxes faithfully.
I need to leave this thread. <s>
the issue with having a million dollars in assets and getting a subsidy is the person with a 40k pension would get an aca subsidy but that same person holding the assets in their possession instead generating that same 40k income would not get a subsidy . the logic is off when both need to generate the same 40k for life inflation adjusted and you try to treat them differently for purposes of the subsidy .
the fact is the aca plan subsidy's were not designed to factor in the tiny window they are generally used in by retiree's pre 65 so there really was no thought given to that tiny segment as far as assets ,income type and subsidy ..
anyone who planned well enough to utilize the subsidy's in that window and has substantial assets is certainly within their right to take them .
if they were smarter at doing their taxes using the tools and laws in place should they pay more in tax than their fair share under the law requires ? i don't think so . you get no brownie points for paying more than your share for anything then you have to .
medicare is no different . you can have millions in assets but the only time they count in setting your premium level is when they are sold and become taxable income ..
you pay the same low premium as folks with a lot less in assets until something is sold .
...but the "high" Medicare premium is not that much higher than the low premium. Both are hugely subsidized.
aquietpath, in contrast, is getting a really sweet deal at other people's expense. The subsidy is intended to help the poor.
the higher premium not that much higher than the lower ???????? that is where you are wrong my friend .
we got what amounts to a 600 dollar a month increase in medicare premium last year for a couple , luckily it was only my wife on medicare so she jumped 300 bucks a month , had it been for the two of us we would have gotten slammed by 600 a month more , because we sold an asset 2 years before we retired while still working and not on medicare .
that is a 600 dollar increase per month on top of the lower medicare payment . that is 7200.00 a year in increase in premium on top of the normal rate . on top of that we tripped the aca/ medicare surcharge of almost 4% of total income
thankfully we appealed and won on a technicality but we still had the 4% surcharge . but there is a huge difference between high and low ,.
in 2018 what gets increased will be lower income levels too. they are adding more jumps in at lower incomes than they have in place now . if you sold any hefty assets and had big capital gains in 2016 you may now be within the next jump up bracket .for 2018 .
the jumps up are already a done deal , we just don't know the amounts yet that will be charged .
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-19-2017 at 03:58 AM..
Yep, and the reason for my initial comment. Wrong then and wrong now if they exclude themselves again from whatever health care legislation is approved.
they are never fair and shouldn't be . like all walks of life some of us are smarter , have better strategy's , planners , etc . they know how to use the laws and tools better and get rewarded for it . nothing wrong with that .
If it isn't fair and "shouldn't be", why describe it as paying your "fair share"? I do the same thing, but I also know there's nothing fair about it.
fair share is what the laws say is the minimum amount you should legally pay. get the laws changed if you ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY IT WORKS , BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS .
Self employed and retired at 61. Even though we were promised that I could keep my insurance we lost it and was also promised that I could keep my doctor and lost him too.
So we were forced to go on the exchange and did not want to take the subsidies at all. I looked back and realized that no one read the plan before they voted on it, we were told that we have to pass the bill before we know what is in the bill. We were told that our premiums would go down. We were lied to just to get this bill passed.
So as everyone takes their mortgage deduction, their deduction if they have children etc. I took the subsidy because that is the way they wrote the bill. If they didn't want me to take it because of my net worth than don't offer it to me and certainly don't write it into the bill.
I want the ACA repelled and replace with insurance that I choose to have. If I want a bare bones plan with a high deductible or the plan our Senators and Congressmen have that should be my right. And please no exclusions like if you belong to a union, are a member of Congress, if you are a public employee. Why should a certain segment of our society be exempt from having insurance like they are with the current ACA plan, if it was great wouldn't everyone want it?
Remember Obamas man Jonathan Gruber, who constructed Obamacare? Caught in a viral YouTube video he said "'THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
