Gyroscopic Investing

Xan wrote: I look at the subsidized price as the real price, and look at the sticker price as an the inflated tax on "the rich".

Pointedstick wrote: Obamacare is not "a welfare program designed for those that need a helping hand temporarily." That would be COBRA or Medicaid. Obamacare was intended and billed as a broad-based overhaul of the entire health care system, and the subsidies for people whose taxable income is several times the poverty level are a built-in component intended to offset the increase in premiums that was an expected result of the law's passage.

Precisely.

The median household income in the US is $51k.  But a family of four with a household income of $94k still qualifies for Obamacare subsidies.  That's clearly not "a welfare program designed for those that need a helping hand temporarily."  There's obviously a lot more to it than that.

Before the ACA went into effect, I priced a private policy at about half the rack rate of the one I'm using now. Some like to think that the cost change is exclusively because of over-coverage or preexisting conditions, but that's merely a red herring to distract you from the fact that the rates are now for the first time based on income.  The entire system changed.  They turned a flat rate product into a wealth redistribution scheme, and the only way to lower the price for some was to raise it for others.  The only issue was how to sell it.

If the ACA kept advertised premiums at true market rates (or perhaps lowered them to increase access) and charged more for the "wealthy" it would have been considered an income tax and nobody would think twice about early retirees. Voters sure would have complained about the new tax line item, though.  Instead, the powers that be raised the sticker price to the maximum level and offered rebates to bring the average down to the same market rate.  There's no difference in the end result, however, and IMHO people get too hung up on the marketing.  The government just hid the new income tax even more effectively than they probably expected, as the biggest opponents now decry not paying what one does not owe as choosing welfare! 

Tyler wrote: If the ACA kept advertised premiums at true market rates (or perhaps lowered them to increase access) and charged more for the "wealthy" it would have been considered an income tax and nobody would think twice about early retirees. Voters sure would have complained about the new tax line item, though.  Instead, the powers that be raised the sticker price to the maximum level and offered rebates to bring the average down to the same market rate.  There's no difference in the end result, however, and IMHO people get too hung up on the marketing.  The government just hid the new income tax even more effectively than they probably expected, as the biggest opponents now decry not paying what one does not owe as choosing welfare!

Good way to look at it.

It hasn't quite been a zero sum game though.  First, the private insurance pool was dramatically expanded to include "pre-existing conditions" - the hope was that the expense of this would be offset by the inclusion of healthy young people who had been foregoing insurance.  Prior to ACA, someone with pre-existing conditions would either end up on Medicaid or simply be uninsured and hospitals would have to write off their care.  The argument was that care for the uninsured ends up being more expensive because they wait until they hit crisis stage and then go to the ED.  There is some truth to that.

The other factor is that insurance companies, or at least their shareholders, have made a killing.  I just checked United Healthcare and their stock has gone up 50% in the past year.

All well and good.  ACA is welfare for everybody at certain income levels, Medicare is welfare for everybody 65 and over, Social Security is welfare for everybody over 62 and over, etc.

But Medicaid (included in the OP as an option) IS targeted at very low income folks.

Basically, as I understand the OP, someone with the means to provide for themselves is crafting ways to get someone else to to some of the heavy lifting to facilitate an early retirement.  Someone who draws Social Security at least contributed for the requisite period of time to that programs.  I have no problem with early retirement, but a voluntary early retirement funded by Medicaid, EBTs, etc. is wrong.

Doing jiggery-pokery with your income to qualify for certain benefits seems, to me, to be in poor taste at best.  It reminds me of the Saturday morning "elder advocate" radio shows demonstrating how the kids can get mom and dad to transfer assets so that the government, rather than mom and dad, will pay for their long-term care.  And of course the kids get the money.

WildAboutHarry wrote: Doing jiggery-pokery with your income to qualify for certain benefits seems, to me, to be in poor taste at best.  It reminds me of the Saturday morning "elder advocate" radio shows demonstrating how the kids can get mom and dad to transfer assets so that the government, rather than mom and dad, will pay for their long-term care.  And of course the kids get the money.

Just out of curiosity, and I ask the same of Clacy, have your out of pocket healthcare costs been directly affected by ACA? Have your premiums, deductible and max out of pocket costs significantly increased for no reason except that the law was passed?

iwealth wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote: Doing jiggery-pokery with your income to qualify for certain benefits seems, to me, to be in poor taste at best.  It reminds me of the Saturday morning "elder advocate" radio shows demonstrating how the kids can get mom and dad to transfer assets so that the government, rather than mom and dad, will pay for their long-term care.  And of course the kids get the money.

Just out of curiosity, and I ask the same of Clacy, have your out of pocket healthcare costs been directly affected by ACA? Have your premiums, deductible and max out of pocket costs significantly increased for no reason except that the law was passed?

I am a partner in a business where we provide insurance to nearly 100 employees.  We have had double digit rate increases every year since 2009.  Ultimately we have had to reduce the benefits and pass some of that cost onto our employees. 

WildAboutHarry wrote: All well and good.  ACA is welfare for everybody at certain income levels, Medicare is welfare for everybody 65 and over, Social Security is welfare for everybody over 62 and over, etc.

But Medicaid (included in the OP as an option) IS targeted at very low income folks.

Basically, as I understand the OP, someone with the means to provide for themselves is crafting ways to get someone else to do some of the heavy lifting to facilitate an early retirement.  Someone who draws Social Security at least contributed for the requisite period of time to that programs.  I have no problem with early retirement, but a voluntary early retirement funded by Medicaid, EBTs, etc. is wrong.

We are all "paying into" Medicaid as well: through our general income taxes. Whether the program is paid for via a dedicated payroll tax like SS and Medicare or through the general fund from income taxes, it really makes no difference. The money comes from your taxes.

When you are "paying into" a system like Social Security or Medicare, you're not putting money aside in some kind of segregated fund to pay for your own future expenses; the money you are paying goes straight to other people, and later in life when you receive money, it comes straight from other people. It's a simple transfer payment system funded through taxation, with the quirk that payments are determined through a complicated formula. These programs are no functionally different from ACA, Medicaid, EBT, or unemployment comp. For that matter, they're no functionally different from public schools. If I retire early while my kid is in a public school, am I likewise "[getting] someone else to do some of the heavy lifting to facilitate an early retirement"?

Like it or not, this is the society we live in. The days of people being able to provide purely privately for their own medical care is over for the most part. Likewise, nobody ever rejects Social Security checks or Medicaid once they reach a certain age. And of course, people haven't been providing purely privately for their children's schooling and public safety for quite some time now. Living under a government means accepting a certain amount of welfare. That's just the way it is.

[quote='Pointedstick]When you are "paying into" a system like Social Security or Medicare, you're not putting money aside in some kind of segregated fund to pay for your own future expenses; the money you are paying goes straight to other people, and later in life when you receive money, it comes straight from other people. It's a simple transfer payment system funded through taxation, with the quirk that payments are determined through a complicated formula. These programs are no functionally different from ACA, Medicaid, EBT, or unemployment comp. For that matter, they're no functionally different from public schools. If I retire early while my kid is in a public school, am I likewise "[getting] someone else to do some of the heavy lifting to facilitate an early retirement"?[/quote]

Right, I know there is no "lock box" for Social Security, and all of these programs are ultimately taxpayer driven.  But they are established with a "complicated formula" that is predicated on a population of eligible and non-eligible participants.  If you are in a group that is generally considered to be non-eligible (i.e., having substantial assets), gaming the system to get benefits is wrong.  In my opinion.

And the public school example is not really comparable.  Schools (at least where I am from) are paid from property taxes.  Every property owner pays proportionally.  In CA, retired folk typically pay a disproportionately smaller share of property taxes, thanks to Prop 13.  And arguably, all benefit from the public education system.

WildAboutHarry wrote: Right, I know there is no "lock box" for Social Security, and all of these programs are ultimately taxpayer driven.  But they are established with a "complicated formula" that is predicated on a population of eligible and non-eligible participants.  If you are in a group that is generally considered to be non-eligible (i.e., having substantial assets), gaming the system to get benefits is wrong.  In my opinion.

Social Security doesn't have an asset test, does it? What about the ACA? Is there actually any evidence that people with substantial assets are not meant to derive benefits from these programs? Even if so, how is structuring your affairs to benefit from such programs any morally different from structuring your assets and income to legally pay lower taxes? Is using a 401k immoral? How about itemizing your way to a near-zero tax rate?

WildAboutHarry wrote: And the public school example is not really comparable.  Schools (at least where I am from) are paid from property taxes.  Every property owner pays proportionally.  In CA, retired folk typically pay a disproportionately smaller share of property taxes, thanks to Prop 13.  And arguably, all benefit from the public education system.

Isn't it? It's a largely free program that's paid for by taxes that you have to pay whether or not you use it. And arguably everyone benefits from everything. We all benefit from a higher level of aggregate public health supposedly enabled by ACA. We all benefit from less poverty among senior citizens that's enabled by Social Security. Etc.

I think like most strategic choices in life, one must ask themselves a few basic questions to figure out if it's the right choice:

1. Does it benefit me?......  In an ERE scenario taking welfare to help pay for health care likely would benefit that individual.

2. Is it legal?.......  Clearly it's legal to do what the OP described.

3. Is it consistent with my moral/ethical beliefs?.......  This one is a little more tricky, and ultimately where I have a problem with it.  I don't think I could use welfare as an ERE strategy from a moral standpoint.  Certainly others will disagree and justify their use of welfare, but I truly think welfare programs should be used as intended and not to avoid work for working age, able bodied people.

An analogy might be a scenario where a 45 year old man, has an opportunity to have a sexual relationship with an 18 year old girl.

Question 1- Does it benefit him?  Probably so if he's single and attracted to her.

Question 2- Is it legal?  I believe that scenario would be legal in the US.

Question 3- This is again where it gets a little sticky and where many people would have a moral/ethical problem with doing something like that.  You would have many people that could justify this type of relationship, and others would not be able to overcome that ethical hurdle. 

I guess each person has to make up their own decisions obviously.  Clearly this is a fascinating topic that will be interesting to watch of the next several years.

WiseOne wrote: Good way to look at it.

It hasn't quite been a zero sum game though.  First, the private insurance pool was dramatically expanded to include "pre-existing conditions" - the hope was that the expense of this would be offset by the inclusion of healthy young people who had been foregoing insurance. Prior to ACA, someone with pre-existing conditions would either end up on Medicaid or simply be uninsured and hospitals would have to write off their care.

All true, and I don't believe it's completely a zero sum game. There have certainly been price increases due to coverage, just not to the degree some people have been led to believe.

One should note that preexisting conditions were still covered before the ACA was passed. Thanks to HIPAA, an uninsured person with cancer could easily get coverage by simply getting a job or marrying someone with one. Nobody seemed worried about a death spiral for guaranteed issue pricing when it was tied to employment. But cut that cord and give self-employed people the same treatment and people freak out. The issue is far too politicized, IMO.

Tyler wrote: One should note that preexisting conditions were still covered before the ACA was passed. Thanks to HIPAA, an uninsured person with cancer could easily get coverage by simply getting a job or marrying someone with one. Nobody seemed worried about a death spiral for guaranteed issue pricing when it was tied to employment. But cut that cord and give self-employed people the same treatment and people freak out. The issue is far too politicized, IMO.

Actually it's quite real.  HIPAA only provides your doctor or nurse will go to jail or pay huge fines if their actions cause you computerized or verbally expressed health information to go to some other party.  Insurance companies are specifically exempted from these provisions.

Marrying someone with insurance obtained through employment was indeed the only way for a person with pre-existing conditions to get coverage, but that typically doesn't work unless the company is large enough to self-insure, or to get their insurance supplier to strike the pre-existing condition clause.

What happened far too commonly is that someone with private insurance would find their coverage canceled as soon as their diagnosis became known to the insurer.  Also, serious medical conditions often lead to divorce, or to not getting married in the first place.  Basically, a person who is seriously ill who is well supported by family and insurance was, pre-ACA, just plain lucky.

WiseOne wrote: Actually it's quite real.  HIPAA only provides your doctor or nurse will go to jail or pay huge fines if their actions cause you computerized or verbally expressed health information to go to some other party.  Insurance companies are specifically exempted from these provisions.

That's Title II of the act.  Title I addresses preexisting conditions.

"Under HIPAA, employer health plans are no longer allowed to refuse health coverage for a new employee with preexisting conditions, as long as the employee follows certain procedures for approval."

http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-r ... y-act.html

Granted, the system wasn't great and there were still various exclusion periods.  And I agree insurance practices in general are terrible, which is why laws like this were required.  The ACA definitely made things more clean cut for everyone.

clacy wrote: 3. Is it consistent with my moral/ethical beliefs?.......  This one is a little more tricky, and ultimately where I have a problem with it.  I don't think I could use welfare as an ERE strategy from a moral standpoint.  Certainly others will disagree and justify their use of welfare, but I truly think welfare programs should be used as intended and not to avoid work for working age, able bodied people.

But Obamacare is intended for working age, able bodied people. I think that's one of the things that makes it so distasteful to you, but that's just the way the cookie crumbled. That's what we get for electing Democrats to the Presidency and Congress at the same time.

Pointedstick wrote:

But Obamacare is intended for working age, able bodied people. I think that's one of the things that makes it so distasteful to you, but that's just the way the cookie crumbled. That's what we get for electing Democrats to the Presidency and Congress at the same time.

I totally agree with the bolded part, but what's done is done.

It's not distasteful to provide a helping hand to those that truly need help.  I guess it is distasteful to me that people that are able to work and earn enough to pay for their own health care would willingly accept welfare, just as a strategy to retire early.

It's a flaw in the system that goes beyond what the program was intended for (or at least how it was sold to the public).  It goes against my ethical boundries, but I realize that there will always be people that take advantage of any system. 

Another example would be a wealthy person who possibly owns their own business, but sets their income low enough to qualify their children for Pell Grants.  That's not what the program was intended for, but it's certainly possible to take advantage of that system. 

But just because it's possible, doesn't mean that it's ethical or moral.  Of course, ethical and moral boundaries are matters of opinion. 

clacy wrote: It's not distasteful to provide a helping hand to those that truly need help.  I guess it is distasteful to me that people that are able to work and earn enough to pay for their own health care would willingly accept welfare, just as a strategy to retire early.

Again, Obamacare is not a program to "provide a helping hand to those that truly need help." That's not what it is, not what it was intended to be, and not what it was sold as. Obamacare was specifically designed to raise the price and then offer subsidies to offset the higher price for people several times the poverty level--square within the realm of the able-bodied and the middle class. It's welfare for middle-class people. That's the whole point. I get that you don't like this. But it's in a different category from millionaires getting Pell grants for their kids.

Finally, Tyler is not receiving subsidies to retire early. As he said, if there were no subsidies, he would still be able to afford the premiums.

clacy wrote:
It's not distasteful to provide a helping hand to those that truly need help.  I guess it is distasteful to me that people that are able to work and earn enough to pay for their own health care would willingly accept welfare, just as a strategy to retire early.

It's a flaw in the system that goes beyond what the program was intended for (or at least how it was sold to the public).  It goes against my ethical boundries, but I realize that there will always be people that take advantage of any system. 

Let's take retirement out of the discussion for a moment.  I think that's confusing people.

Do you feel that a family of four making $94k a year as self-employed contractors who purchase health insurance on the exchange and accept the subsidies the IRS offers them are acting unethically? 

Simonjester wrote:
there is a weird thing that seems to happen with many of these programs, and it compounds the difficulty of working out the ethics of taking advantage, or how right it is to be making adjustments that let you collect. So if you are poor you collect and nobody minds. and if you are rich you pay in and it seems "fair" (to some or many at least) and when you are wealthy what you pay in tends to be a small amount relative to what you have, and a small amount relative to what you tend to spend and it has no impact on your lifestyle or ability to meet your needs. but if you are on the cusp with one of these great social experiments you get ("seem to get" .. feel free to correct me if my math or perception is wrong) the worst of it, first you don't qualify for the handout and while it is significantly smaller than the burden on the rich the share of the cost you pay has more effect on your lifestyle or ability to meet your needs and is more likely to make you struggle. so there is this rounded edge to these programs that just seems built to have more and more people slid off that ethical slope into the collecting category. why should you work 50 hours a week to pay top dollar for for care if you can work 30 hours a week and get a subsidy and end up with more cash in pocket.. and why bust ass working 30 if you can work 20 get a EBT card and still have almost as much...
it is beginning to feel like we live in a time where you have to hurry up and join the ...have so much you don't have to work and don't have to worry class.... or get ready to end up sliding into the poverty class, it makes it feel like the era where work ethic equals reward is coming to an end ..

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: It's not distasteful to provide a helping hand to those that truly need help.  I guess it is distasteful to me that people that are able to work and earn enough to pay for their own health care would willingly accept welfare, just as a strategy to retire early.

Again, Obamacare is not a program to "provide a helping hand to those that truly need help." That's not what it is, not what it was intended to be, and not what it was sold as. Obamacare was specifically designed to raise the price and then offer subsidies to offset the higher price for people several times the poverty level--square within the realm of the able-bodied and the middle class. It's welfare for middle-class people. That's the whole point. I get that you don't like this. But it's in a different category from millionaires getting Pell grants for their kids.

Finally, Tyler is not receiving subsidies to retire early. As he said, if there were no subsidies, he would still be able to afford the premiums.

If a means tested subsidy isn't intended to help those with lower economic earnings, then what is if for?  It's a way to redistribute costs. 

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of welfare

a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.

: the state of being happy, healthy, or successful

Full Definition of WELFARE
1
:  the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2
a :  aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b :  an agency or program through which such aid is distributed


I would say that clearly subsidies for ACA exchange coverage falls into that category. 

Tyler wrote:
Let's take retirement out of the discussion for a moment.  I think that's confusing people.

Do you feel that a family of four making $94k a year as self-employed contractors who purchase health insurance on the exchange and accept the subsidies the IRS offers them are acting unethically?

No, I don't think under that scenario the contractor would be unethical.  I don't agree with the law in general, but under the current law, that's not unethical, IMO.  In that case, the person is working and being productive.

I do think that willingly using welfare programs such as disability, medicaid or ACA subsidies purposefully in order to aid the avoidance of work, prior to retirement age, as defined by SS/Medicare qualification(ER), is unethical. 

I'm all for ER, I just think you should be able to stand on your own without welfare to do so. 

This might broaden ones view beyond "thou shall not steal" about what stealing entails.  Food for thought.

From Martin Luther's Large Catechism
Excerpt:
222] Thou shalt not steal.

223] After your person and spouse temporal property comes next. That also God wishes to have protected, and He has commanded that no one shall subtract from, or curtail, his neighbor's possessions.

224] For to steal is nothing else than to get possession of another's property wrongfully, which briefly comprehends all kinds of advantage in all sorts of trade to the disadvantage of our neighbor. Now, this is indeed quite a wide-spread and common vice, but so little regarded and observed that it exceeds all measure, so that if all who are thieves, and yet do not wish to be called such, were to be hanged on gallows, the world would soon be devastated, and there would be a lack both of executioners and gallows. For, as we have just said, to steal is to signify not only to empty our neighbor's coffer and pockets, but to be grasping in the market, in all stores, booths, wine- and beer- cellars, workshops, and, in short, wherever there is trading or taking and giving of money for merchandise or labor.

225] As, for instance, to explain this somewhat grossly for the common people, that it may be seen how godly we are: When a manservant or maid-servant does not serve faithfully in the house, and does damage, or allows it to be done when it could be prevented, or otherwise ruins and neglects the goods entrusted to him, from indolence, idleness, or malice, to the spite and vexation of master and mistress, and in whatever way this can be done purposely (for I do not speak of what happens from oversight and against one's will), you can in a year abscond thirty, forty florins, which if another had taken secretly or carried away, he would be hanged with the rope. But here you [while conscious of such a great theft] may even bid defiance and become insolent, and no one dare call you a thief.

226] The same I say also of mechanics, workmen, and day-laborers, who all follow their wanton notions, and never know enough ways to overcharge people, while they are lazy and unfaithful in their work. All these are far worse than sneak-thieves, against whom we can guard with locks and bolts, or who, if apprehended, are treated in such a manner that they will not do the same again. But against these no one can guard, no one dare even look awry at them or accuse them of theft, so that one would ten times rather lose from his purse. For here are my neighbors, good friends, my own servants, from whom I expect good [every faithful and diligent service], who defraud me first of all.

227] Furthermore, in the market and in common trade likewise, this practise is in full swing and force to the greatest extent, where one openly defrauds another with bad merchandise, false measures, weights, coins, and by nimbleness and queer finances or dexterous tricks takes advantage of him; likewise, when one overcharges a person in a trade and wantonly drives a hard bargain, skins and distresses him. And who can recount or think of all these things?

228] To sum up, this is the commonest craft and the largest guild on earth, and if we regard the world throughout all conditions of life, it is nothing else than a vast, wide stall, full of great thieves.

229] Therefore they are also called swivel-chair robbers, land- and highway-robbers, not pick-locks and sneak-thieves who snatch away the ready cash, but who sit on the chair [at home] and are styled great noblemen, and honorable, pious citizens, and yet rob and steal under a good pretext.

.........

250] Let this suffice as an explanation of what stealing is, that it be not taken too narrowly, but made to extend as far as we have to do with our neighbors. And briefly, in a summary, as in the former commandments, it is herewith forbidden, in the first place, to do our neighbor any injury or wrong (in whatever manner supposable, by curtailing, forestalling, and withholding his possessions and property), or even to consent or allow such a thing, but to interpose and prevent it.

251] And, on the other hand, it is commanded that we advance and improve his possessions, and in case he suffers want, that we help, communicate, and lend both to friends and foes.

Full statement:
http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencomman ... hp#para222

... M

clacy wrote: No, I don't think under that scenario the contractor would be unethical.  I don't agree with the law in general, but under the current law, that's not unethical, IMO.  In that case, the person is working and being productive.

So if one called himself "self-employed" rather than "retired" and spent his time working on productive things, then accepting subsidies would be ethical?  Must he always measure his productivity in dollars, or would other metrics (people helped, tools created, souls saved, etc.) also be acceptable? 

Most ERE types do not "retire" to a life of leisure.  I certainly hope I have not given the wrong impression. They save up so that they can move on from their primary career path to learn new skills and try something new without worrying about earned income to put food on the table. The guy who literally wrote the book on ERE left his career as an astrophysicist, took several years off to write a book on financial independence while living completely self-sufficiently, and eventually became a quant trader.

I'll agree with you that working the system to live on the backs of others is unethical.  I even agree that claiming Medicaid when you can easily afford insurance is a little shady, which is why I go out of my way to purchase insurance on the market provided and pay my monthly bill just like everyone else. Just in case anyone gets the impression I'm going out of my way to unfairly decrease my tax bill, I should note that if I took no action with my taxes and just filed normally, in many states I would be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.  My income is quite low. 

Beyond that, I guess we can agree to disagree that one should decline the tax refund offered by the IRS when they calculate one's premium based on their income the way the law is designed.  I do not count on that money and my finances do not at all depend on it.  But the return is what it is.

Speaking personally, I hope to be a productive member of society for a very long time.  I just don't necessarily want to be measured against a paycheck any more. 

clacy wrote: I think like most strategic choices in life, one must ask themselves a few basic questions to figure out if it's the right choice:

1. Does it benefit me?......  In an ERE scenario taking welfare to help pay for health care likely would benefit that individual.

2. Is it legal?.......  Clearly it's legal to do what the OP described.

3. Is it consistent with my moral/ethical beliefs?.......  This one is a little more tricky, and ultimately where I have a problem with it.  I don't think I could use welfare as an ERE strategy from a moral standpoint.  Certainly others will disagree and justify their use of welfare, but I truly think welfare programs should be used as intended and not to avoid work for working age, able bodied people.

An analogy might be a scenario where a 45 year old man, has an opportunity to have a sexual relationship with an 18 year old girl.

Question 1- Does it benefit him?  Probably so if he's single and attracted to her.

Question 2- Is it legal?  I believe that scenario would be legal in the US.

Question 3- This is again where it gets a little sticky and where many people would have a moral/ethical problem with doing something like that.  You would have many people that could justify this type of relationship, and others would not be able to overcome that ethical hurdle. 

I guess each person has to make up their own decisions obviously.  Clearly this is a fascinating topic that will be interesting to watch of the next several years.

Under what moral system would the age of either (adult) party make it immoral or unethical for an adult male to have a sexual relationship with an adult female, assuming both are single and there is no coercion involved?

Libertarian666 wrote:

Under what moral system would the age of either (adult) party make it immoral or unethical for an adult male to have a sexual relationship with an adult female, assuming both are single and there is no coercion involved?

Under my own personal moral system.  Anyone that knows 18 y/o girls know they are not at full mental development and often incapable of making good choices, particularly in that arena.  I would hope that I personally would make the choice to pass if presented with that situation, and if I did it, I'm sure I would regret it after.  I think I would lose some respect if a friend did the same thing in that scenario.

Look, I'm not saying it's a crime against humanity, nor is taking welfare as an ER strategy, but it's a little "sleazy", IMO.

[quote=Pointedstick]We all benefit from less poverty among senior citizens that's enabled by Social Security. Etc.[/quote]

But we all don't benefit when someone fraudulently claims disability to gain Social Security disability payments, or otherwise gains benefits that are not truly warranted.

Let's take two taxpayers, A and B.  They both have identical income needs to meet living expenses.  They both have mortgages with $1,000 monthly payments.  But Taxpayer A has assets sufficient to pay off the mortgage.  Taxpayer A does so, and now requires $12,000 less in annual income to maintain the same standard of living.  And by reducing income, Taxpayer A now "qualifies" for a greater benefit under ACA (or whatever) than Taxpayer B.  This seems perverse to me.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:We all benefit from less poverty among senior citizens that's enabled by Social Security. Etc.

But we all don't benefit when someone fraudulently claims disability to gain Social Security disability payments, or otherwise gains benefits that are not truly warranted.

Let's take two taxpayers, A and B.  They both have identical income needs to meet living expenses.  They both have mortgages with $1,000 monthly payments.  But Taxpayer A has assets sufficient to pay off the mortgage.  Taxpayer A does so, and now requires $12,000 less in annual income to maintain the same standard of living.  And by reducing income, Taxpayer A now "qualifies" for a greater benefit under ACA (or whatever) than Taxpayer B.  This seems perverse to me.

I agree, it's perverse. But you're not really complaining about Taxpayer A, you're complaining about Obamacare. And I agree. It's a ridiculous law. I don't like it. But, given that it exists, I think it's sane to play ball and do what it's incentivizing you to do--lower your income and take the subsidies. IMHO this is no functionally or morally different from someone who structures their income or assets to gain tax benefits--something everybody does.

The common thread in your and Clacy's attitudes seem to be distaste at the notion that able-bodied, productive people should consent to take government handouts. But that ship has sailed, I'm afraid. We don't live in that world anymore, if we ever really did in the first place.

Pointedstick wrote: We don't live in that world anymore, if we ever really did in the first place.

And if we did live in that world, health insurance wouldn't have become prohibitively expensive for self-insured middle class citizens to begin with.

As Tyler explained earlier in the thread, it's all a wash.