I'd absolutely say it used to. When I started in the work force, I could get health insurance as a waiter at Pizza Hut (owned by Pepsi Co at the time) and it was actually pretty good insurance. I could afford it as a waiter, the deductibles were low enough I could actually see a doctor if I needed to, etc.
When I came back from working for DynCorp, I worked two part time jobs and went to college. I worked as a dispatcher for Scott Co and an armored car guard for AT solutions, plus attended U of L. Guess which had the only available health insurance? The college. Neither job offered benefits to part time workers, and neither would hire full time workers for that exact reason, which is why I was working two part time jobs instead of one full time.
I look at the health insurance my grandparents had, one working for Indiana DNR and one working for GE, and then I look at mine today. What a difference. Especially in retirement.
I never once said you “should”. I consider calling someone unethical to be a pretty serious attack on character, particularly for this sort of thing. ymmvI think I've explained my point of view pretty well. Someone actually making $22k a year and raising a family of 3 needs a boost to buy healthcare. Someone who's retired at 48, and presumably well to do as it was explained, doesn't need it. Seems like common sense. As far as "is it ethical", the person making the judgement gets to decide. Again, seems common sense. If I see a guy with a billfold full of $100's pay for his gas and then scoop all the pennies out of the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny, I'm free to judge his actions as unethical and a dick move independent of any laws, tax codes, printed out rules sheets, etc.
*Can* you do it by using "explicit standards blah blah blah"? Sure. Legal. No dispute. Just like you can scoop out all the pennies. I get that your tit is in a wringer because I and others disagree that just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should* and that you're free from opinions and judgement of others because you colored inside the lines from the legal perspective. Again, I'll point out legally I could sit on I-465 and ticket every driver going 56mph or over. I'm coloring in the lines, so you don't get to judge me. Because, "Where do these standards of “need” and “intent” come from and who gets to make them up?" Perfectly legitimate, and you're being a big meanie if you question it, because who are you to have standards other than what's in the law?
When I came back from working for DynCorp, I worked two part time jobs and went to college. I worked as a dispatcher for Scott Co and an armored car guard for AT solutions, plus attended U of L. Guess which had the only available health insurance? The college. Neither job offered benefits to part time workers, and neither would hire full time workers for that exact reason, which is why I was working two part time jobs instead of one full time.
Oh, absolutely no argument about it being better. Unfortunately, what you mentioned about employers not providing insurance to part time employees was exacerbated by ACA instead of making it better. A lot of full time employees suddenly found themselves "part time" by having their hours cut back so the employer wouldn't have to pay for their insurance (as required by ACA). While they voluntarily paid for it in the past for full time employees, they saw rates going up, or maybe just saw an easy out to cut costs, so the easiest soloution? Less full time employees and more part timers, and possibly even more people on the welfare rolls. Unintended consequences. At least I would like to think it was unintended.
I'm curious, do you consider what the owners of the businesses are doing (hiring multiple part timers vs less full timers) to be unethical, since they are doing it to avoid paying benefits?
Agreed, and you get this often when government intervenes in markets (employment market in this case).
Essential, consumable or luxury? Obamacare doesn’t have a voluntary consumer though.Please provide a detailed definition of business ethics as it relates to providing a good or service at a margin to a voluntary consumer or end user.
Why is that you don't think you "should"? I'll tell you, it is because you know you shouldn't. In other words, deep down you already know the answer to the ethical question.I never once said you “should”.
Well, wealthy people using the legal process in order to qualify for subsidies that were meant for the poor is an example of a lack of character, so, yeah.I consider calling someone unethical to be a pretty serious attack on character, particularly for this sort of thing. ymmv
Why is that you don't think you "should"? I'll tell you, it is because you know you shouldn't. In other words, deep down you already know the answer to the ethical question.
Well, wealthy people using the legal process in order to qualify for subsidies that were meant for the poor is an example of a lack of character, so, yeah.
There is a difference between legalities and ethics, just like there is a difference between taking tax deductions and receiving subsidies.
Is there though? There are a lot of people in this country that think nobody should get to take tax deductions. After all, by reducing the amount of tax one pays takes money out of the coffers for the poor (among other things of course), does it not? Is there really a difference between taking money out of the coffer and not putting it in the coffer to begin with? I suppose it could be argued that those taking the deductions (not putting in to the coffer) AND taking money out of the coffer (subsidies) are double dipping, which might be seen as an ethical issue.
Yes there is, on both counts. IMHO, you are wrong.
Look, Doc asked a question, I answered it. No where did he say anything about making anyone else happy about the answer. You guys will just have to live with the fact that I think your view is unethical and your various attempt to confuse the issue aren't going to change my opinion.
Yes there is, on both counts. IMHO, you are wrong.
Look, Doc asked a question, I answered it. No where did he say anything about making anyone else happy about the answer. You guys will just have to live with the fact that I think your view is unethical and your various attempt to confuse the issue aren't going to change my opinion.
As far as the OP's original question, remember it's just a hypothetical question. Reducing your IRA by 22K isn't going to net anyone 13K worth of subsidy on their health insurance costs. The subsidy is based on income not a tax deferred asset so unless he's making close to 100% return on investment and taking that as income there's no way he can get that much as a subsidy. The overall numbers just don't add up. Though it is an interesting question on ethics.
Let’s say you’re retired and living on a sailboat. You are 48 years old. You have no income. So you pull out $22k from an IRA and pay a penalty on that amount, in order to get a $13,000 subsidy on your ACA policy for you and your wife.
is that ethical?
Is that wrong?
I believe an early withdrawal from an IRA is considered income. So the person would qualify for the subsidy.
Exactly right. Rep inbound.They defined it as income, so they are stuck with treating it as income.
I don't like that our system is so complex that 100,000 loopholes exist, but at some point you just have to admit that they aren't loopholes: they are the point. Our tax system is intentionally complex so that the beneficiaries are obscured. It's not designed to be fair. It's designed so that those who know how to benefit can do so.
So doing something like this is, as I see it, doing exactly what Congress intended when they chose to write such a ridiculous tax code.