New when will furloughed feds go back to work guesses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

[Anonymous]

My guess is never. Think the Heritage Foundation probably wants to either fire most federal employees or work then as long as they can without pay until they quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

For their full time employees.

Good luck getting them to schedule you full-time. That's the oldest trick in their book. They'll offer "generous benefits" yet once you're hired you're always an hour or two away from qualifying for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is never. Think the Heritage Foundation probably wants to either fire most federal employees or work then as long as they can without pay until they quit.

Its not like there are other jobs for excepted workers to take -- so would they just stiff them and violate labor laws if they worked for the months to years it takes to get another job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is never. Think the Heritage Foundation probably wants to either fire most federal employees or work then as long as they can without pay until they quit.

Its not like there are other jobs for excepted workers to take -- so would they just stiff them and violate labor laws if they worked for the months to years it takes to get another job?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is never. Think the Heritage Foundation probably wants to either fire most federal employees or work then as long as they can without pay until they quit.

Its not like there are other jobs for excepted workers to take -- so would they just stiff them and violate labor laws if they worked for the months to years it takes to get another job?

Seems like the administration would love to bring back slavery, so this would be a good start for them at the very least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

For their full time employees.

Good luck getting them to schedule you full-time. That's the oldest trick in their book. They'll offer "generous benefits" yet once you're hired you're always an hour or two away from qualifying for them.

This 100%. When I worked in retail, managers watched hours like hawks to make sure no one accidentally qualified for benefits.

[Anonymous]

Are you a federal worker who is about to miss your first full paycheck? WTOP News would love to talk to you.

Send an email to [e-mail] if you are willing to speak with a WTOP reporter in more detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

For their full time employees.

Good luck getting them to schedule you full-time. That's the oldest trick in their book. They'll offer "generous benefits" yet once you're hired you're always an hour or two away from qualifying for them.

This 100%. When I worked in retail, managers watched hours like hawks to make sure no one accidentally qualified for benefits.

This is something that drives me CRAZY about people posting theoretical budgets for people working 40 hour a week jobs in retail or food service. OK, thanks, now make it 19 hours and they change every week so you can't get a second job during hours your first job is open (or you can but you won't hold it for long when your shifts conflict). And you're not eligible for benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

DP - I don't care. Singling out one instance of people you don't think are "deserving" of ACA subsidies doesn't equate to any cogent point you might be trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

For their full time employees.

Good luck getting them to schedule you full-time. That's the oldest trick in their book. They'll offer "generous benefits" yet once you're hired you're always an hour or two away from qualifying for them.

Wut? Healthy 25-year-olds are getting wrecked by the physical demands of Amazon warehouse and delivery jobs, what makes you think a 57-year-old former office worker can do them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

For their full time employees.

Good luck getting them to schedule you full-time. That's the oldest trick in their book. They'll offer "generous benefits" yet once you're hired you're always an hour or two away from qualifying for them.

Wut? Healthy 25-year-olds are getting wrecked by the physical demands of Amazon warehouse and delivery jobs, what makes you think a 57-year-old former office worker can do them?

Age is just a number. Don’t blame your age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is never. Think the Heritage Foundation probably wants to either fire most federal employees or work then as long as they can without pay until they quit.

Its not like there are other jobs for excepted workers to take -- so would they just stiff them and violate labor laws if they worked for the months to years it takes to get another job?

Yes.

It's not like they care about laws anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think 400% of the poverty limit is a lot?

400% of the poverty limit is $84,600 for a family of 2 and $128,600 for a family of 4. Not much in the DC area for sure, but in some areas of the country, yes. The calculations do not include assets, so an early retired couple in a LCOL area who owns their house outright and has $84,000 in income is getting ACA subsidies.

In the Idaho example on the other thread, the early retired couple with ACA subsidies was paying $51 per month, with premiums rising to over $2000 per month without subsidies - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/idaho-kicks-affordable-care-act-open-enrollment-premiums-are-set-rise-rcna237298

$51 is way too low, and $2000 is way too high. But is the point of these subsidies really so that people can retire early before Medicare kicks in? Who were they intended to help? Were they really intended to continue forever, or were they an emergency measure during COVID scheduled to sunset for a reason?

Do I think the subsidies should be continued for truly needy families? Yes. Should they continue so that people can retire early? No. Should the government be shut down while this is resolved? Emphatically no.

Many people in their 50s “retire” because they are laid off and can’t find another professional job because of ageism.

I guess they can work retail or some other manual job, but it’s not like those give health insurance ?

In principle it should be a sliding scale of subsidies for income and wealth, and $51 is too low, but I’m sure this is the same kind of Reagan Cadillac driving welfare queen exaggerated and non representative anecdote.

Just some examples, Amazon, Walmart, Homedepot, etc. pay medical insurances for their employees. They could work for 2-3 years until 65, so that they can receive health care benefit from those employers.

Like PP said "the calculations do not include assets". So they could have paid-off house. If they have 401K, they are not required to take money out. So they may also have 401K sitting there. Do you think it is reasonable for them to get subsidy paid by taxpayers so they pay $51 a month premium for ACA for both?

For their full time employees.

Good luck getting them to schedule you full-time. That's the oldest trick in their book. They'll offer "generous benefits" yet once you're hired you're always an hour or two away from qualifying for them.

Wut? Healthy 25-year-olds are getting wrecked by the physical demands of Amazon warehouse and delivery jobs, what makes you think a 57-year-old former office worker can do them?

Good thing Amazon is automating all that. No one will be physically wrecked anymore.

[Anonymous]

Age is just a number. Don’t blame your age.

Horatio Alger has just entered the chat.