Disagreeing on when to retire with spouse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

[Anonymous]

we have both worked our entire lives. I told my DH that I am out at 55 and that is pushing it. This is not a question of permission or a discussion point. He can do what he wants. This is one of the perks of being an economically independent person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

Agree. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm talking about looking at one's income (which they currently do) AND one's wealth (which they don't but Medicaid does) before giving people a discount (tax credit) on their Obamacare premiums. The fact that it's not being done really means that the government wanted to maximize enrollment to the ultimate benefit of the private insurance companies. They should have just extended medicare for everyone or maybe even opened up the federal govt insurance program to everyone instead of creating a whole new system. But of course, the Republicans and the Insurance industry didn't allow that.

[Anonymous]

OP, wait seven years. By that time your portfolio will have doubled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

Agree. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm talking about looking at one's income (which they currently do) AND one's wealth (which they don't but Medicaid does) before giving people a discount (tax credit) on their Obamacare premiums. The fact that it's not being done really means that the government wanted to maximize enrollment to the ultimate benefit of the private insurance companies. They should have just extended medicare for everyone or maybe even opened up the federal govt insurance program to everyone instead of creating a whole new system. But of course, the Republicans and the Insurance industry didn't allow that.

It's what Obama proposed. So I don't know what you mean. And despite that the same bill didn't pass in both houses, Trump could have fought it. But he didn't. He let it stand. (There was tons of talk about Trump overturning. I voted for Clinton and then Biden, so I'm not sure crazy Trump person. I just think that there is so much misinformation out there coming from all sides and it makes me crazy.)

Anyway, you said that they could figure out who to tax based on gathering information on who is on ACA. That is what I was pushing back on, since the people we need to tax are not the people who go on ACA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

Agree. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm talking about looking at one's income (which they currently do) AND one's wealth (which they don't but Medicaid does) before giving people a discount (tax credit) on their Obamacare premiums. The fact that it's not being done really means that the government wanted to maximize enrollment to the ultimate benefit of the private insurance companies. They should have just extended medicare for everyone or maybe even opened up the federal govt insurance program to everyone instead of creating a whole new system. But of course, the Republicans and the Insurance industry didn't allow that.

It's what Obama proposed. So I don't know what you mean. And despite that the same bill didn't pass in both houses, Trump could have fought it. But he didn't. He let it stand. (There was tons of talk about Trump overturning. I voted for Clinton and then Biden, so I'm not sure crazy Trump person. I just think that there is so much misinformation out there coming from all sides and it makes me crazy.)

Anyway, you said that they could figure out who to tax based on gathering information on who is on ACA. That is what I was pushing back on, since the people we need to tax are not the people who go on ACA.

Ah, got it. That wasn't me. That doesn't make sense. Mine were the last 2 posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we have both worked our entire lives. I told my DH that I am out at 55 and that is pushing it. This is not a question of permission or a discussion point. He can do what he wants. This is one of the perks of being an economically independent person.

This is how I think of things, too. I've saved in my 401k/529 plans/brokerage directly from my paychecks, some of which were accumulated before marriage. Those are the accounts I solely control. I will retire when I feel good about living off the money I have in my accounts. DH can do what he wants. He has more obligations than I do (car loan on a much nicer car than I drive, sending money to extended family members without asking me first), so he may have to work longer than me to keep up his spending. But we are independent adults who don't dictate to each other when we can retire. If we have to adjust current spending, like downsizing or home or giving up a club membership, I am fine with that, too. I won't keep working when I no longer feel I need to, and no amount of whining by DH will change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

In Germany they do something even wilder. They tax homeowners if their monthly cost is less than the market rent as it is really "income'

Lets use me as an example. I own a house in the DMV that rents for $5,500 a month if a rented it. It costs me $3,500 a month to own. In Germany I would be taxes on that $2,000 difference.

It is smart. If we did that here everyone sitting in Chevy Chase, Great Falls, Potomac, Bethesda etc in large mortgage free houses with no kids would either pay tax or downsize. It would open all those homes up for families and bring in income.

Why should my neighbor who bought in 1975 and lives in a 6 bedroom house that rents for $6,000 a month live there in a house that costs him with insurance, taxes and landscaping $2,000 a month and get a $4,000 tax free benefit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

In Germany they do something even wilder. They tax homeowners if their monthly cost is less than the market rent as it is really "income'

Lets use me as an example. I own a house in the DMV that rents for $5,500 a month if a rented it. It costs me $3,500 a month to own. In Germany I would be taxes on that $2,000 difference.

It is smart. If we did that here everyone sitting in Chevy Chase, Great Falls, Potomac, Bethesda etc in large mortgage free houses with no kids would either pay tax or downsize. It would open all those homes up for families and bring in income.

Why should my neighbor who bought in 1975 and lives in a 6 bedroom house that rents for $6,000 a month live there in a house that costs him with insurance, taxes and landscaping $2,000 a month and get a $4,000 tax free benefit?

No they don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

Umm, we are "super rich" and planning to retire in mid-50s. So after 18 months of Cobra, we will be on "Obamacare". Now we won't get any "cheap rates" as we will still have income in the 1%+ from investments. But we will be using ACA/obamacare, as there are not any other choices. You just cannot go out and buy your own health insurance directly from BCBS, I've tried and they redirect you to their ACA plans in the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have around $2.5-3m in assets, excluding any home equity in our primary residence. I feel like we can live on just my spouse's income, maybe cutting back just slightly. My spouse does not want to cut back on our lifestyle at all.

Seems fair.
what if spouses wants to retire today too?

OP here. I already answered that and said it would be fine.

Then what would you do for healthcare? I think you're too young to fully understand how things change wrt what you need medically as you get older.

Also, ACA is great, you have some options. But it is NOT cheap. in our 50s, coverage for 2, with VSP and Dental will run $2K/month, with a $6K/12K deductible and max OOP of $9K/$18K. No Out of Network Coverage, except urgent care and ER.

In comparison, we pay $270/month for FULL Family (worker/spouse/all kids) for a PPO (not EPO), $1250/$2500 deductible Ind/Family and max OOP $3500/7K. And we have Out of network OOP capped at $7K/$14K. I believe COBRA costs would be $1900/month. So about the same but for way less coverage and No OON coverage. Not an issue normally, but it is nice to know that if you have some rare medical condition, you can choose to go anywhere in USA and at max pay $7K. With ACA, you are left locally to choose (and we have excellent choices)

This is totally false—or, charitably, I can say it's extremely unlikely.

I suggest everyone considering and nearing early retirement check out their exchange to get exact prices for themselves or their family. At least for Maryland, the figures I have seen are nothing close to what the fearmongers here suggest ("Plan on $2K/month for two people!"). I am a 42-year-old man and I currently pay $2K PER YEAR on the exchange for my health insurance (I have a $10K deductible, but that works for me because I'm healthy). I plan on retiring at 45 so the cost of healthcare is a big question.

I ran lots of quotes for various scenarios: insuring me alone in 10-15 years, insuring a family of 4 in the event I get married, insuring a family member with a chronic condition that causes me to frequently hit the deductible and OOP max. In virtually no scenario could I figure out how to even arrive at a $2K/month spend—and this included plan premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Yet, to hear DCUM talk, you need to plan for $2K/month in premiums alone for two people. Utterly absurd. Potential early retirees, you must run quotes for yourself, as this field is fraught with misinformation.

NP - I just ran the numbers for an ACA plan in Maryland. Our income makes us ineligible for federal subsidies. Estimated premiums were nearly $1,600 a month for a family of four, or around $20k per year. Like a PP said, the ACA is a good option but not an inexpensive one, unless you qualify for federal subsidies.

I'm the PP you and others have quoted. I do plan on receiving subsidies, and the figures cited above—including being unable to find a way to get the healthcare spend for a family of four to reach $2K per month, even with a family member with a chronic condition that causes us to hit the OOP max—assume the use of subsidies. However, keeping one's taxable income down in retirement is an essential part of financial planning, and it is not difficult to qualify for subsidies.

For example, if retiring early with $4M and using a 3% withdrawal rate, that $120K income qualifies a family of four as "low-income" and eligible for subsidies. However, notwithstanding this classification, that income still affords a great quality of life. The federal income tax due would be $0 due to the capital gains tax laws. None of that $120K needs to go toward 401(k)s, IRAs, etc. Assuming the house is paid off when retired, none of the $120K needs to go to mortgage payments. It's all disposable income and is likely on par with that available to an UMC family earning $300K. Therefore, only the very wealthy and the very poor planners are not eligible for subsidies.

And lastly, many here overstate the importance and magnitude of the subsidies. As mentioned, I am currently paying $2K PER YEAR for my plan (with no subsidies since I still work), so barring someone with very serious health problems, options are available for everyone that are much cheaper than the figures often cited here.

Holy F if we are subsidizing health care for 40 year old retirees with $4m in assets, that is messed up.

Agree. Why doesn't the means test also consider one's net worth instead of just MAGI? I would like to see this policy changed. I don't want to subsidize 40-year retirees.

For the same reasons that Kamala's tax on unrealized capital gains is DOA: the government does not collect information about net worth; it would likely be illegal for it to do so; and it would be extremely difficult to collect this information as a practical matter. It's easy enough to assess the value of stocks and bonds. But is every neighborhood gas station owner supposed to get an annual appraisal of his business? Will a farmer qualify for ACA subsidies one year and none the next, depending on the price of farmland and despite the fact that he cannot easily sell a small fraction of his land? Will every piece of art and bottle of wine need to be appraised annually?

DP. Fair points but I don't think it's as complicated as you describe. The government does require net worth information to determine medicaid qualification. Shouldn't be too difficult to extend that to Obamacare.

One, I think the concept of taxing unrealized gains is ludicrous. On top of which, what super rich person is on Obamacare? All you'd do is be able to tax the people you really aren't trying to tax. I have an incredibly wealthy sibling in his 70s. Huge net worth, none of it tied up in the stock market, beyond which he does not have Obamacare. We have signifiant wealth as well (not close to his) and while we have self insure, it is private not Obamacare. And I will say, having looked at ACA when we were self-insuring, we got better insurance for less going private rather than going ACA. So there is no incentive for people with a lot of money to go ACA.

Please list who your "private insurance company" is? Seriously looking to retire soon and will need it for a decade until medicare kicks in (or even then, would rather self insure if cheaper)