Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
So...this is interesting.
I had a quick look at our dividends this year. We also have some interest, but not really a lot. Estimating our income this year, it looks like our subsidy won't change much. We should be below the 400% FPL level (since we're a couple, that's $84600 for 2026). Same bronze plan as we have now. If we don't have any cap gains next year, which we won't if we don't sell anything, it doesn't seem that we'll be affected very much. I had one sale early this year, with a cap gain (which I have to figure the cost basis for). That will affect this years' subsidy when I file my taxes in April.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Estimating our income this year, it looks like our subsidy won't change much. We should be below the 400% FPL level (since we're a couple, that's $84600 for 2026). Same bronze plan as we have now. You can play with scenarios here. It gives estimates with and without enhanced PTC.
https://www.kff.org/interactive/calculator-aca-enh...This is what I get putting in 400% FPL for income - to avoid the subsidy cliff:
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 400% of the poverty level. This means you are likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace, even without enhanced premium tax credits.
Estimates of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help are provided below, along with estimates of what you would pay if enhanced premium tax credits were unavailable. Your cost for a silver plan would increase by $183 per month ($2,199 per year) without enhanced premium tax credits.And if go to 401% FPL:
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 401% of the poverty level. Without the IRA enhanced premium tax credits, those making above 400% of the poverty level would be ineligible for financial assistance.
Estimates of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help are provided below, along with estimates of what you would pay if enhanced premium tax credits were unavailable. Your cost for a silver plan would increase by $1,836 per month ($22,032 per year) without enhanced premium tax credits.Extra $20k!
I actually think the enhanced subs will be retained, at least somewhat. But best to plan as if they will not be.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Query:
What are your approximate total household liquid assets?
What's your household net worth?
Why should ACA Covid-era enhanced subsidies be available regardless of family wealth?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Why should ACA Covid-era enhanced subsidies be available regardless of family wealth?
It isn't available regardless of wealth.
HH# 400% FPL
1 $60,240
2 81,760
3 103,280
4 124,800
These are income limits.
Where would you get reliable information for the assets?
What is your preference for an asset limit? How would you do the reduction in benefits as assets ascend?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Lapsody,
"Household wealth" isn't the same as "income."
Your statement that ACA subsidies are "not avaialble regardless of wealth" is demonstrably false.
An early retiree multi-millionaire who is able to manage AGI and stay in one of the lower brackets is absolutely eligible for the subsidies.
Where would reliable info be available for household wealth?
It would require voluntary reporting, but only for those seeking the ACA subsidies.
Is your concern that you feel ACA-subsidy-seekers would commit fraud in order to obtain the subidies?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Why should ACA Covid-era enhanced subsidies be available regardless of family wealth?A lotta hard-working "kids" may never earn enough to buy a home. Some fortunate ones, Mom's basement dwellers for example, may inherit the family home.
They are then property rich, cash poor, living from paycheck to paycheck. Perhaps re-financing or reverse mortgaging to stay housed...until they can't borrow any more.
Their homes are frequently unmaintained because, let's face it, urban services are increasingly costly. Things the average person is not equipped or physically capable of doing; roofing, tree trimming, whole house painting, fire-safe landscape maintenance...
Cut the subsidies to people in that situation and they may lose the ability to pay utilities and.or property taxes. This is sadly common. They either sell of get liened out, joining the ranks of renters. And who is on the courthouse steps buying up distressed housing? Guys like Trump's first Sec Treas, hisself, hollywood producer/investment banker...
Steve DontCallMeBankruptcyKing Munchkin!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_MnuchinPS: I live in one of those houses. The broke widow didn't have 2 nickles to rub together, and the house showed it.
Took 2 years of hard work to bring it back to habitable- sunken foundation, failed sewerline, corroded plumbing, substandard breaker box and ungrounded wiring; basically uninsurable until I had a crew dig the house out of the deadwood and ivy jungle that covered half of it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Lapsody,
"Household wealth" isn't the same as "income."
Income is part of wealth.
Your statement that ACA subsidies are "not avaialble regardless of wealth" is demonstrably false.
How so? Income is part of wealth, so it isn't false.
It would require voluntary reporting, but only for those seeking the ACA subsidies.
OK, so you want voluntary reporting.
Now, have you any evidence that people are getting ACA coverage that have, say, over a million or two in assets? Just why do you want this to happen? It's going to cost to research this and change the law(s) to require this, it would be nice if it's more than an anecdote on an internet message board. Do you have evidence that we are inadvertently subsidizing a lot of multi-millionaires health care?
Did I tell you I took my wife off of ACA because I talked to the ladies in Doctor's offices that process medical bills and found that most of them wouldn't accept the plan she was on? And I talked to younger people on the same plan and they liked it. My wife needed a specialist, and there were 10 or more around town, but no one within two hours driving distance would take her plan. They listed three specialists within a half hour drive, and they'd either left, didn't take it anymore, or retired. So it depends on the plan and what you need, but if you have money, get good health care. But it's much better than no care. I'm sure there are better plans on ACA, but I dropped my care to a PPO and added her to my plan because I know it's good.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Glad it seems like it will work out for you OP.
I've been dreading looking at it but I will start tonight - -- even though I feel a deal will happen within 7-8 days.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I might HAVE TO VOLUNTARILY PAY TAXES :):):)
The last 5 years I've done a wonderful job keeping my income low as hell, maxing out the subsidies and also usually getting roughly $3400 in child credit refunds. (I retired 5 years ago, no work income)
Trouble is, the "low income" might push my kids on CHIP insurance which is like Medicaid for kids and i've asked around so much - some people told me it's actually really good insurance. Others have told me that *some* doctors and hospitals treat CHIP and Medicaid patients with lower priorities and that aint happening.
Based on what I *think* i know i'll have to RAISE my income and paid a few bucks in taxes - but in return kids stay on the PPO with me and Wifey.
LMAO --me -*trying* to pay taxes.
Hitler is playing Scrabble with Bin Laden and enjoying a cool frigid day.
No. of Recommendations: 2
“What are your approximate total household liquid assets?
What's your household net worth?
Why should ACA Covid-era enhanced subsidies be available regardless of family wealth?”
It’s the age old story.
Person 1 works hard and saves. Sacrifices. Takes career, business and investing risks. Pays a lot of taxes along the way. And eventually builds a nice nest egg.
Person 2 does none of these, but does party hard. Pays little tax. Zero or negative net worth.
Person 1 is expected to pay 100x as much for healthcare, effectively subsidizing person 2.
Is that fair? Not sure. I go back and forth on it.
I would expect a conservative to be on the side of person 1, but what do I know?
No. of Recommendations: 0
“It isn't available regardless of wealth.”
The enhanced subsidies are available at incomes over 400% FPL.
Before the enhanced subsidies there was the subsidy cliff. One dollar over 400% FPL and no sub. The Dems wrote it that way. Probably to get a reluctant senator or two on board.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The enhanced subsidies are available at incomes over 400% FPL.
"Enhanced subsidies expanded income eligibility for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to over 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL), eliminating the "subsidy cliff" for 2021-2025. Under these enhanced subsidies, individuals with incomes above 400% of the FPL (roughly \(\$78,800\) for a single person or \(\$163,200\) for a family of four) can receive subsidies if their premium for a benchmark plan exceeds 8.5% of their income. The enhanced subsidies, however, are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them, at which point the previous 400% FPL income cap will likely return. "
There's still a limit of sorts, but that's clearer. And we know only ~22 million people are on it. AI synopsized it better than I can. :) I wonder how they decided on 8.5%? It's a sliding scale built so that lower incomes pay less and the more you earn, the more you pay. I was talking to a fellow from Denmark and he laments his health care now costs 2000 Euros a year, with a 400 Euro cap on prescriptions. I remember years ago there was an old couple on the board and they were paying close to $40k for health insurance. I think I've been lucky, but not as lucky as that Dane. :)
