ObamaCare - Retire Early and Game the System

[maxparrish]

How is this different than the "gaming" of CEO pay packages?

Or using inversion to "game" the system?

Or any other of the multitude of methods wealthy people have to "game" the system?

I look forward to reading those threads.

I'm not exactly certain why maxparrish thinks that people in their 50's should have to work to be able to afford health care if they could otherwise retire. They'd have to pay $1,000 a month, per person if they tried to retire early. Even if you have a house paid off, the cost of paying for health care is extraordinary unless subsidized by an employer.

Apparently maxparrish likes the status quo.

There are those who are not exactly sure why people who shelter cats, pursue artistic dance, or spend their lives reading poetry in coffee houses should have to work to afford health care either. The list of special pleadings and unjust claims on the fruit of other's labor is endless, as might be expected when the church muscles a 40 percent tithe, and then demands the faithful come to the deacons to present a case of "deserved" and "need" if they wish to obtain some reduced portion back (less the Deacon's salaries and housing subsidy).

I don't fault anyone for gaming the system - if those are the rules of the game then you are entitled to play the game to your advantage. Although Warren Buffet was criticized for his taking advantage of tax breaks and advantages he says he opposes, he rightly said that as long as those are the rules he is going to play and profit by them. (As my union negotiator taught me, you don't play baseball when everyone else is playing football.)

What I do fault is a public policy and tax increase that was supposedly to help those working poor who could never afford insurance, being so badly designed that it actually serves those of those with above average wealth to retire early - and then have the self-righteous well off retirees tell you that a design flaw is what "they deserve" (after forcing the young to buy insurance at inflated actuarial rates to help "the system").

So ya, it is amusing that an accountant is now showing how to exploit Obamacare for one's own advantage. The 'free money' man has a new entry in his book!

 

[ksen]

I am sure there are those who also are not exactly sure why those who shelter cats, pursue artistic dance, or spend their lives reading poetry in coffee houses should have to work to afford health care either.

I am not sure why having to participate in some sort of max-approved work should be the standard as to whether or not you are able to access the US healthcare system.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

[

There are those who are not exactly sure why people who shelter cats, pursue artistic dance, or spend their lives reading poetry in coffee houses should have to work to afford health care either.

Are you saying that these people don't? Because I personally known people in all three who have worked their entire lives in these fields. Why are these people less deserving than others? Why should they not have access to affordable healthcare?

The list of special pleadings and unjust claims on the fruit of other's labor is endless, as might be expected when the church muscles a 40 percent tithe, and then demands the faithful come to the deacons to present a case of "deserved" and "need" if they wish to obtain some reduced portion back (less the Deacon's salaries and housing subsidy).

What special pleading? and unjust claims? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[ksen]

max gotta max

 

[maxparrish]

Are you saying that these people don't? Because I personally known people in all three who have worked their entire lives in these fields. Why are these people less deserving than others? Why should they not have access to affordable healthcare?

What special pleading? and unjust claims? What on earth are you talking about?

NS, I don't find it surprising that after years of participation on this board you don't agree with those of us on that are on the right (especially libertarians) BUT I do find unbelievable that after all this time you are still clueless on basis of the right/libertarian worldview.

Some 101 tutoring: taxes are a form of taking from individuals, and it is then delivered to the State. When Obamacare taxes (or "fines") to give subsidies to early retirees, it is taking from someone who, generally, works and giving to someone else. It takes from the fruit of the workers labor to give to someone else so (in this case) they can take early retirement. In fact, it takes from individuals who must work in their 50s so others, who are more well off, are even BETTER well off.

Why does anyone "deserve" something they take from another, against their will? Did the working person taxed 'steal' income from the retiree? How does a tax payer "deserved" to be relieved of the coin in their purse because someone else decided to devote their lives to cats or poetry reading, rather than providing for themselves?

How does anyone's life's avocation, their personal cat hobby, earn their right to take from another who work's for their own security and well being? Are we all servants and slaves to any lump of flesh with homo sapien DNA, whose claims on you are based on nothing more than he thinks he "deserves" a kickback (taxes) on your work?

You may think the cat lover (or well heeled early retiree) deserves charity, and if so you and all the cat lovers of the world are free to make him a dependent. But that is your choice.

Only someone who things "society" owns everyone's real and personal property, and their income, and that society should freely steal from its members, could be as perplexed as you.

 

[ksen]

Some 101 tutoring: taxes are a form of taking

stopped reading here

 

[maxparrish]

Some 101 tutoring: taxes are a form of taking

stopped reading here

You stopped reading long before now.

"taking - the action or process of taking something." And when it is a wrongful taking, it is theft.

 

[ksen]

and that's why I stopped reading right there

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Are you saying that these people don't? Because I personally known people in all three who have worked their entire lives in these fields. Why are these people less deserving than others? Why should they not have access to affordable healthcare?

What special pleading? and unjust claims? What on earth are you talking about?

NS, I don't find it surprising that after years of participation on this board you don't agree with those of us on that are on the right (especially libertarians) BUT I do find unbelievable that after all this time you are still clueless on basis of the right/libertarian worldview.

Okay, but what does this have to do with my question about the people I know who make a living as poets, ballet instructors and cat rescuers?

Some 101 tutoring: taxes are a form of taking from individuals, and it is then delivered to the State. When Obamacare taxes (or "fines") to give subsidies to early retirees, it is taking from someone who, generally, works and giving to someone else. It takes from the fruit of the workers labor to give to someone else so (in this case) they can take early retirement. In fact, it takes from individuals who must work in their 50s so others, who are more well off, are even BETTER well off.

I don't follow. Should the poets not work in their 50s? Shall we close the ballet? Where should the cats go?

Why does anyone "deserve" something they take from another, against their will? Did the working person taxed 'steal' income from the retiree? How does a tax payer "deserved" to be relieved of the coin in their purse because someone else decided to devote their lives to cats or poetry reading, rather than providing for themselves?

You must have missed the last 10,000 years of human history. And you also seem to have a pretty stereotypical view of poets, cat rescuers and dancers. I suggest you actually widen your circle of friends. All three people I know support themselves doing their work, just because you believe that all poets, dancers and cat rescuers are lazy good-for-nothings doesn't mean it is true. Nor does it mean that all others are on welfare. In fact, you'd could find anyone who was serious about these things not to have a job supporting themselves.

Only someone who things "society" owns everyone's real and personal property, and their income, and that society should freely steal from its members, could be as perplexed as you.

Yes, this describes my worldview as your poetry describes modern dance.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Some 101 tutoring: taxes are a form of taking

stopped reading here

Yeah the whole "taxes are theft" fallacy is getting pretty old. Better throw "at the point of a gun" in there for drama.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

About the only way I see to pull this off would be to have huge amounts on Roth-type retirement accounts.

That's correct, and is where the majority of my savings resides. If you've put money aside the old fashioned way you're not penalized. The wild card in all this if you're an average person who has just saved money is of course the insanely high cost of health care. That's what will get you. In a way the ACA is very fair on this.

But do you have enough in that Roth account to retire way early?! That's what I'm questioning.

- - - Updated - - -

How is this different than the "gaming" of CEO pay packages?

Or using inversion to "game" the system?

Or any other of the multitude of methods wealthy people have to "game" the system?

I look forward to reading those threads.

I'm not exactly certain why maxparrish thinks that people in their 50's should have to work to be able to afford health care if they could otherwise retire. They'd have to pay $1,000 a month, per person if they tried to retire early. Even if you have a house paid off, the cost of paying for health care is extraordinary unless subsidized by an employer.

Apparently maxparrish likes the status quo.

You miss that he's talking about how to get that $1000/mo subsidized. I'm just saying his plan is pretty impractical.