Tell me more. asking for a friend
subsidies setup such that member has a maximum allowable premium. Such that the subsidy = Total prem - Allowable. So if the max allowable for a 60 yr old is 300/month and the actual premium is 1300 a month (silver plan), she got a 1000 subsidy. Then she takes that subsidy and buys a 1000 bronze plan for 0 net. The loophole is that the max allowable premium is not much different for a 20 yr old and a 60 yr old, but the actual premiums are obviously very different, creating massive difference in premium subsidies based on age.
Catch- need to be under 400% FPL income. So you need to mask income for a few years to stay under ~40k. You could do this by taking a heavy distribution several years before retirement, defer income for a few years while playing the ACA game, or actually just be poor.
also only works well if you are relatively healthy. That bronze plan she had came with a 5k deductible, which she never got close to meeting.
we ran this for 5 years (2016 - 2020). First few years was tough due to healthcare.gov being a POS. Was also a little nervous first year at tax time (thought I screwed up), but tax advisor said we did it correctly. My mother was able to keep income distributions under 40k for 5 years. She owned her house and was able to live (without much luxury) on that amount.
Thanks!
Iâve always figured that was part of the design. But, yeah, ACA can be a big deal for early retirees.
(Also, 400% of FPL looks like about $51,500 this year.)
Except that no real market is completely free anyway.
Often the âfree marketâ rhetoric is just an empty way to argue that the inequality chosen by our society is just.
So I think that NAâs criticism fits.
So if someone offered you 60% of your salary to not work you would keep working? Obviously there is an impact. Youâre using very strong language that you know is not entirely true. Some may overstate that impact, but youâre doing the exact same thing when you call it a lie.
On my salary, no. On a minimum wage salary (UK definition) yes. Got to be enough to live on.
Is the 60% for my entire life or for the duration of unemployment insurance?
Tentatively yes if itâs for life, given 0.6 * (current salary) as well as universal healthcare. Hard choice though. If itâs just for some number of weeks, lol no.
Letâs say you were laid off and then called back, but weâre still eligible for several more months of 60%. Would you forego your old job and just get a new one later?
I think that depends a lot on the job, the person and specific circumstances surrounding their life. I doubt any blanket statement would cover that question.
Iâm sure there is unemployment fraud, any program of that size there is bound to be.
But there has been little to no evidence that unemployment benefits throttle the labor market.
Now offering non living wages and benefits on the other hand has absolutely been shown to put a damper on folks desire to go to work.
There are two things having an impact
Employers paying undesirable wages for undesirable employment opportunities.
And unemployment insurance that pays even less than that option, but does not require going to the job.
The âcult of hard workâ tells us that it is clearly the latter, while I believe it has negligible impact on the situation at hand.
We have already gone through this once with the âenhanced UE benefitsâ being blamed for the labor shortage.
After that was proven to be completely false, we have these same people claiming it is the basic UE that is causing the labor shortage.
Next it will welfare and food stamps.
Then they will claim we are not taxing the poor enough.
All while ignoring the actual cause of the labor shortage.
In my current job Iâd return if the alternative was temporary 60% salary. Obviously the ânew jobâ is a hypothetical. Of course if ânew jobâ was guaranteed to be as good and I didnât have to sell my house and uproot my family that changes it, thatâs not what youâre asking though.
In a minimum wage job Iâd still return because 60% of minimum wage is unlivable. (For anything Iâd call a first-world quality of life anyway.)
Unfortunately, the facts donât support the theory that the unemployment payments have a noticeable impact on the infilled jobs problem. The federal subsidy did in fact cease, and there has not been a corresponding âback to work and fill those jobsâ
The hypothesis is rejected. We have to find another theory that fits with the observable facts.
not sure if was a bug or a feature of the ACA. I would argue it skewed the risk pool in the wrong direction. very little motivation for young lives to join, lots of motivation for older members to join. it also encourages early retirement, which is great, but not really something the ACA was targeting.
correct on the new 400% FPL. Was lower when i was looking at it, and also I would tell my mother to shoot for under 40k to be safe.
The GOP is firmly against unemployment extensions. Why pay people who are not working? Bad policy. If they choose to sit on their arse, then screw 'em.
UnlessâŚ
At least five Republican-led states have extended unemployment benefits to people whoâve lost jobs over vaccine mandates â and a smattering of others may soon follow. Workers who quit or are fired for cause â including for defying company policy â are generally ineligible for jobless benefits. But Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas and Tennessee have carved out exceptions for those who wonât submit to the multi-shot coronavirus vaccine regimens that many companies now require. Similar ideas have been floated in Wyoming, Wisconsin and Missouri.
wonder if the benefit so extended would still go to someone who IS vaccinated, but quits bc they pretend not to be. so it could then be extended to anyone.
Iâm not sure this is entirely clear based on data I have seen. Especially considering they started depositing the child tax credit at roughly the same time they stopped the extra unemployment. Also stopping âextraâ unemployment is not the same as stopping all unemployment benefits.
Further evidence Republicans arenât conservatives anymore. Theyâre just authoritarians who want their way.
I think itâs patently clear. You might want to look a bit more into the federal program (PUEC) from the CARES act passed in 2020. And then at the extension part passed in 2021. The second allowed federal funds to be used to cover individuals otherwise excluded from state unemployment benefits - such as independent contractors.
In any case, the programs were subject to state laws and administration. Now, I have no knowledge of which state you live in. Youâll have to reasearch the particulars on your own. But take at a look at the monthly t advanced tax credits versus the monthly unemployment subsidies and extensions. Iâm betting that the child tax credits are pretty small by comparison, and they went into effect in July, where as the Fed subsidy program ended in Sept.
So having their cash income drop, along with the knowledge that the tax credit advances would stop in 3 more months still did not inspire hordes to take up those infilled positions. Seems pretty clear to me.
Yeah, itâs past time to raise the age. And not just SSNRA, but the early & late retirement ages too. Actually, just moving those to catch up to the SSNRA changes they implemented in the 1980s would help. (ie move early retirement to age 64 and late retirement to age 72 instead of the current 62-70. Base it off the same scale for SSNRA: essentially your early retirement age is your SSNRA - 3 and your late retirement age is your SSNRA + 5)
One thing that would be a moral imperative to do first, IMO, is fix the process for getting approved for Social Security Disability. I mean, that should be done regardless of anything else that does or doesnât happen, but it would be even more crucial than it already is if we were to bump up the minimum retirement age. It is stupidly difficult for folks with bona fide disabilities to get approved.
Still, those things ought to happen. As I inch closer towards SSNRA it is in my selfish best interest for them to fix it only for people younger than me, but speaking from a societal good perspective⌠letâs take care of the people who truly canât work, and encourage those who can to work a little longer.