U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2017, 04:21 PM
 
4,127 posts, read 3,782,908 times
Reputation: 11328

Advertisements

The problem is that social welfare programs (and the ACA is just that - if you're getting a subsidy) have become income based, not asset based. So someone who earns 120K/year, has no net worth, and lives paycheck to paycheck supporting a family in a city with high cost of living (which is why he's earning that 120K/year), is paying to subsidize someone who has significant assets, but lower income. It's flat out wrong. People should have to liquidate their assets to support themselves before they can benefit from social welfare programs.

But this is how the law is written, so you can legally do it. It's not ethical, but it's legal. Nothing to stop you from doing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2017, 04:24 PM
 
71,526 posts, read 71,712,424 times
Reputation: 49115
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatPeople View Post
AT&T, Verizon and Ford pay 5% in dividends. Not guaranteed, stocks go up and down, but they are not going bankrupt tomorrow.


spending a 5% dividend is still part of your total draw and 5% has a high risk over 30 years of failing . in fact it would not have lasted almost 1/2 of all the 30 year periods since 1871 .

5% as a draw from a portfolio or 5% from a dividend are the same effect on success rates .

FIRECalc looked at the 117 possible 30 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $1,000,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.
Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 117 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-1,227,732 to $3,226,422, with an average at the end of $474,649. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 50 cycles failed, for a success rate of 57.3%.

Last edited by mathjak107; 09-19-2017 at 04:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 04:30 PM
 
15,182 posts, read 4,018,099 times
Reputation: 10975
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
You're very noble...while the tax law is written as it is written and can be followed in such a way that you (collective you) maximize your own benefit, some do wonder that they are "getting away" with something they could afford to a greater degree than others who don't have the benefit of having certain investments.

Of course, nice guys finish last. I do believe that "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.". No one qualifies as having a great fortune here on c-d I suppose...and the word crime sounds much worse than everyday unethical behavior, so no worries.
This Nice Guy didn't finish last and brought an nice little relay team to the finish line along with him.

I was one of those rare creatures who was never scared of working hard - and so have done everything from construction/remodeling to owning a nice sized retail/import/distribution biz to running a top web site(s).

Started saving about 1982 and was putting money away until last year - AND, was never afraid of investing in equities.

I never made big money. But the story of the turtle and the hare is very real....moreso if one never gets divorced and doesn't run scared when the market tanks.

In any case, I am very much for "means testing" and "inheritance taxes" and all that other stuff which makes sure we have enough to fund our society and civilization.

I get it...about being selfish and taking all you can from the tax man. On the other hand, that must be weighed against the duties of a citizen. Some people feel they are doing them when they join the infantry....I feel like I am doing them when I pay my fair share.

There are LOTS of things I could do to reduce my tax burden. But, IMHO, too much of the money ends up going to the accountant as compared to what I save. When I work out the various scenarios it's just not worthwhile to me (filing in multiple states, for example, since I have a nice photography biz and spend time elsewhere).....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 05:04 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,558 posts, read 39,944,045 times
Reputation: 23693
Quote:
Originally Posted by parentologist View Post
The problem is that social welfare programs (and the ACA is just that - if you're getting a subsidy) ...
But this is how the law is written, so you can legally do it. It's not ethical, but it's legal. Nothing to stop you from doing it.
Option 2:

Give us BACK the plans we were able to buy BEFORE ACA... $300 / month (no longer available) vs $2200/ month AFTER A*(?)CA. (no longer affordable, so many of us are now WITHOUT HC, where before at least we were covered, (Catastrophic) but at our own risk. )

It is not like the coverage OR the care is any better (all is more expensive and with less available services) More restrictions / controls on clients and providers. Net gain = Negative
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 05:11 PM
 
1,053 posts, read 515,228 times
Reputation: 1809
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
Option 2:

Give us BACK the plans we were able to buy BEFORE ACA... $300 / month (no longer available) vs $2200/ month AFTER A*(?)CA. (no longer affordable, so many of us are now WITHOUT HC, where before at least we were covered, (Catastrophic) but at our own risk. )

It is not like the coverage OR the care is any better (all is more expensive and with less available services) More restrictions / controls on clients and providers. Net gain = Negative
This is one of the reasons I feel no guilt taking advantage of this system....my pre-ACA premiums were about 250/month. Went to about 600/month the year ACA came in. If "the system" has no problem doing this to me, I have no problem jumping through loopholes they left for me....

I'm just doing my part to hasten the demise of a totally screwed up system...:-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Near San Francisco, CA
184 posts, read 114,730 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
Option 2:

Give us BACK the plans we were able to buy BEFORE ACA... $300 / month (no longer available) vs $2200/ month AFTER A*(?)CA. (no longer affordable, so many of us are now WITHOUT HC, where before at least we were covered, (Catastrophic) but at our own risk. )

It is not like the coverage OR the care is any better (all is more expensive and with less available services) More restrictions / controls on clients and providers. Net gain = Negative

But Obama promised you that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 05:52 PM
 
Location: -"`-._,-'"`-._, ☀ Sunny Florida ☀ ,-"`-._,-'"`-.
1,352 posts, read 731,339 times
Reputation: 1295
Not sure of your filing status or deductions, but you may want to calculate how much tax you pay under your proposed scenario vs. just keeping your income level relatively flat. Then see if you really have a benefit by getting $750/mo subsidy for one year. You may be better off finding a happy medium to manage your income just below the subsidy levels so you get a subsidy for both years (sell off assets and look at tax loss harvesting).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 01:56 AM
 
71,526 posts, read 71,712,424 times
Reputation: 49115
the aca plans suck!!!!!! with no subsidy and cost sharing the deductibles and out of pockets are thousands .

i am so glad my silver plan ends in a few weeks and i go on medicare and a supplement . it is the worst coverage i ever had . they are now the 2nd company i had to fail financially .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 04:42 AM
 
18,392 posts, read 20,145,045 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatPeople View Post
Retired, million-dollar stock portfolio. At $50K in income from dividends a year, no subsidy, cheapest policy for 2018 looks to be $800 a month. Option 1: sell enough stocks to last a year, take tax lumps in 2017, keep 2018 dividends under $20K, get a $750 a month tax subsidy to pay for insurance.

I feel creepy that I can game the tax system by being able to move taxable income from year to year and pay next to nothing. When I was working, I couldn’t pull this stunt, so I paid plenty, including the Medicare surcharge in my one stock option glory year, so I do not feel that bad.

Any thoughts?
I don't see it as gaming the system. It's allowed by law so I would use it. Stop feeling guilty. Way I see it (when I retire) is I paid taxes into the system for 50 years. (People tend to conveniently forget that part when they pass judgement) And I paid a whole lot of money in the last 45 of those 50 years so I'm going to use whatever advantages I can get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 05:19 AM
 
29,775 posts, read 34,863,854 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by skycaller23 View Post
You don't have to intentionally live on nothing. You could have $500,000 in a checking account and live off that which is not income. Now just generate $25K of real "income" and you qualify for Obamacare subsidies.

The qualification for Obamacare is income based, not wealth based.
Again if you have it personally you understand the various ways to use assets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top