Politics is fine, but not partisan sniping or proselytizing. If you can't treat people with opposing views with some minimal respect and courtesy, then consider yourself individually exempt from being able to discuss politics in this sub.
OP - please change the "MAGAcracy" bit or I'm deleting this.
Edit: Fair warning for those that actually like this sub and want to continue being able to participate in here. There's no get out of jail free card about politics. If you're an asshole over politics, then you get banned just the same as being an asshole about anything else. So watch yourselves unless you don't mind having your account silenced.
Edit2: This post has thrown off enough reports that I'm going to lock it overnight to prevent problems. I'll unlock it in the morning for continued commentary.
Edit3: This post has run its course. Thank you to everyone who remained civil. For everyone who did not, thank you for helping us more finely calibrate how future political posts will be handled.
Don't worry. The ACA is going to be replaced by a plan that's better than anyone has ever seen before. You'll have amazing medical care at a level never seen before in history. All the bigliest doctors. And we'll see the detailed plans in just two more weeks...
I can’t speak to Costa Rica, but with friends and family in Thailand and the Philippines, you have to be in dense urban centers and while general care is more affordable and excellent, I would say that some of the advanced care isn’t as good as the US.
Yeah I know someone whose fam was in Costa Rica, her dad had to get emergency heart surgery. Care was so good that it was a big catalyst to them buying a place and spending half of each the year down there now. It’s become expensive but still much better than Canada/US.
You can choose to agree or disagree with the following statement and that the Fed is independent if you choose to do so.
But, if the Fed were to become a bunch of the current administration, they would be tasked with doing the most beneficial thing to help get their "boss" reelected. This would create horrific incentives to value short term gains over long term sustainability and security.
Doesn't that sound familiar...
Argentina-ization. Literally the central bank was printing money to pay off governing party’s political supporters, and the government threatened all the actual economic experts and prevented them from reporting accurate inflation metrics.
Great for soccer, horrible for economics.
This is exactly the type of plan for “destroying the administrative state”, by which they mean all functions are designed exclusively to support the political goals of the top by any means necessary and all experts will be fired or prosecuted or worse. Likely absolute literal looting of Treasury to a hijacked or new political party.
Possibly Social Security and Medicare will be discretionary at the whims of the political parties which can put people on or off lists as they feel.
This means lots of inflation, and TIPS will not help you as it is adjusted according to official statistics which may be lies if it gets as bad as Argentina.
The value of international diversification will have proven itself as US equity market and bonds plummet. German euro bonds will be the new risk free asset.
Yeah but there’s a big difference between going Argentina or Turkey here.
Bends to political winds =/= the big guy making you spread your cheeks at will
What will happen when a greedy autocrat takes power with an administration full of yes men with a roadmap that involves replacing civil service professionals with lackeys???
More than just the ACA is at risk.
Share the same concerns. I'm counting on ACA so this and Medicare are definitely issues I'm going to fight for (My elderly parents benefited from the reduction in prescription costs. It was a game changer for their limited fixed income).
My plan to mitigate these risks is to have a passport, and know how to travel internationally. Have some destinations in mind to migrate to, even just temporarily, if need be. And, know that you don’t get to stay wherever you want for as long as you want without following each countries’ rules.
I am considering this but am not at the stage of FIRE where I can live independently without an income. If you are in a similar situation, do you have a plan for what you would do for work? That’s my biggest issue I’m figuring out as I plan for this contingency.
I don’t have a plan for working internationally, but if you have about $800 a month, you could figure it out while in Southeast Asia. If you can, do some test trips out of the country to get used to the process.
Frankly, if the ACA gets repealed I'm screwed for early retirement because I have a pre-existing condition. The financial portion of health insurance is low on my concern list as I could not even get it before the ACA was passed.
Everyone please vote for the party that isn't trying to repeal one of the few advances we have made in healthcare in the last 20 years. Thanks.
Just my 2 cents but if the GOP really wanted to repeal it they would’ve in Trumps first 2 years. The reality is it is working. The ACA is Obama’s legacy piece of legislation. No Republican can say it was a good piece of legislation.
They tried to in 2017. It missed passing by a 51-49 vote with 3 Republicans voting with the Democrats to keep it.
If 2024 gives them a couple seats, it is gone.
I remember the audible shock from senate Democrats when Senator McCain voted nay on repealing the ACA.
Edit: realized I typed "neigh" instead of "nay", as if Senator McCain was a horse.
Is there a list of republicans that openly support project 2025?
Isn’t it something that a private conservative group created? I’d be curious to see how much actual support there is for it
The D7 can be a pain depending. It's been teetering because people keep moving to a small area of the country leading to horrible housing crisis. I was originally going to move there but changed it.
I'm currently looking into the retirement visa in Belize. $2000/month in a bank is required but $2000/month is $4000/month Belizean. The property taxes are also 1%. The retirement visa only requires you to be 45 and be in the country 30 consecutive days a year.
The other interesting thing is the rate of exchange is in the constitution so it's stable and they speak English as a national language. So no need to learn a new language.
I have a place in Florida as well so It's only a small flight back to the U.S. if needed.
If it happens then I’ll figure something out, just like millions of other people. Till then I can’t spend my life worrying about something that might happen.
Funding for Social Security has to be addressed (increased) to maintain the current payment structure. Or benefits have to be cut. Depending upon your age, I would factor the possibility of a cut in planned benefits - regardless of the administration in power and save accordingly.
Politicians find it career limiting to advocate tax increases for their constituents. Which is why you only hear about raising taxes on the "rich" (look in the mirror FIRE people). In reality, to keep benefits the same, a broad tax increase that affects everyone will be required.
For me Social Security is a hedge against inflation. For most it is a lifeline in their retirement.
The fix for it is ridiculously simple. Raise the cap on FICA wages.
Yeah we hear that all the time. “Lower taxes and revenue will increase.” Except that has never actually happened.
Spoiler alert: wealth doesn’t trickle down either.
Instead we have cut taxes for the billionaires and then spent the social security trust on non SS expenditures. That’s why the fed owes nearly $3T to the trust fund.
The middle class is paying for those billionaire’s yachts.
Above a certain point, yes, concentrated wealth just gets hoarded, and not plowed back into the economy. It has no velocity. A dollar hoarded does a lot less good for the economy than a dollar spent and circulated with a multiplier effect in the economy. Hoarded wealth doesn't hire people or contribute to corporate earnings. Even buying private jets employs people and contributes to economic output.
I agree with you about FICA.
If billionaires would just quit making things people want to buy, we could get rid of the billionaires and it would be a much more equitable economy. :/
Worrying about billionaire’s yachts seems like the least of our country’s financial problems.
Hey, I’m a capitalist. I made my money in business. And that’s when I found out business owners don’t have access to the tax cuts that billionaires do.
Trump paid $750 bucks in taxes in years I was paying 100s of thousands in taxes.
My beef is this compulsion by the GOP in giving trillions in tax cuts to people who could never spend the amount of money they already have and putting the resultant tab on my bill, my kids bill, and my grandchildren’s bill.
This is one of my biggest beefs, that huge corporations that can afford to pay for their own infrastructure get massive tax breaks for expanding or relocating their operations that smaller local competitors, already at a disadvantage, won't get. We can advocate for higher taxes or lower taxes, but in the end, I believe the tax system has to fairly apply to all, and not just those who can afford to buy votes.
And salary people like myself don’t have access to the tax breaks business owners have.
Peter Thiel stashed a bunch of worthless startup stocks in a Roth and it’s worth $5B. Good for him. I wish I had the risk taking appetite of a business owner or billionaire.
Musk worked for $0 - 100% stock. Not my bag.
Two key political realities to ground your understanding:
1. The will to get rid of, or **significantly** cut benefits for, Social Security will never, ever happen. Neither major party will have the willpower or incentive to do so.
2. Any changes will happen as close to the fund running out of money as possible; there is no political incentive to change it proactively, so this will all happen last minute (likely within a year of the fund running out), which will be in the early-mid 2030s it looks like.
The most likely outcomes:
* Increasing the limit on W2 income that's subject to SS taxes (currently only \~$169K is taxable in 2024).
* I'd expect part of the fix is that limit is increased for everyone slightly (so maybe in 2024 dollars that limit goes up to \~$180K-$200K instead of \~$169K). This will also reduce benefits for everyone slightly over time, as the benefits you're paid are based on the % of the maximum contribution you hit each year of earning. The benefit reductions will be very small for those who have already worked a significant number of years (they can't change the % of max for past years, only future), and gradually increase the younger you are/more working years you have ahead of you (if you're already RE, there would be no impact though).
* The second part, which feels even more likely, is that there will be a surcharge on higher incomes, which do not translate to any extra benefits in retirement (currently, if you contribute the max you get higher benefits in retirement).
* This would probably look something like:
* First $200K income is taxable for everyone, and that is the maximum that counts for your benefits.
* No SS tax on income from $200K-$400K
* SS tax on income above $400K, indefinitely, which does NOT translate to extra benefits earned
* There will be no explicit "benefits are cut by X amount", but they will raise the retirement age (which is a de facto benefit cut).
* Most likely is increasing the minimum age with which you can withdraw from 62 to 64/65
* They also could raise full retirement age of 67 by a year or two.
* And finally, they could increase the age at which you have to start taking benefits by (70)/at which you get the maximum payout.
* Between 62 & 64, among those who are still alive at 62, 3.3% of men and 2.1% of women will die; between 70 & 72, it's 4.6% of men and 3.2% of women ([per Actuarial tables](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html)).
* This means that the fund saves from paying millions of people a single dime by every few years they delay the retirement age (and among those who survive, they get 2 fewer years of benefits as well, so it's not just those who die during the period).
* They will however almost certainly grandfather in those who are close to retirement age (following the precedent from the reforms in the 1980s). It's hard to know where exactly they'll draw the line, but it's almost certain they won't change the ages for anyone within a decade of them.
* That means, if you're currently in your mid-late forties or older (meaning you'll be 55+ when these changes happen), you really don't have to worry about this in my opinion.
* Those in their late thirties or early 40s today will be more of an unknown (they'll be around 50 when these changes happen).
* And everyone younger than 35 today will almost certainly have a higher retirement age than you currently see.
It’s important to realize that any change in the law will have to pass the House and the Senate. Even if the GOP takes both of them, a lot of those people will have won election in purple and even blue states and you shouldn’t just assume that those people will agree with whatever extreme policy you see in the news.
You saw the same thing with Democrats a few years ago. They had the House and Senate and so on paper it looked like anything goes. But in reality, any changes had to get past people like Manchin and Sinema, who were not ready to sign on to every policy. Maybe that’s good or bad depending on your politics, but my point is that it’s just very difficult to pass significant legislation under our system.
I hear you. The issue though is that the Supreme Court recently gave the President unbounded immunity for acts committed in office. I know nobody is openly saying this but hypothetically, the President is now able to suspend Congress and could order the military to arrest the Supreme Court justices and shut the court down so no one can challenge him.
This is what happens in autocracies elsewhere in the world. I don’t think the Supreme Court really thought the presidential immunity ruling through. They’ve basically put their own jobs and personal safety at risk talk less of constitutional democracy as we know it. Trust me, this is not alarmist, I have lived in an autocratic country.
The strongest case that the ACA won’t be repealed is that Republicans couldn’t do it last time they controlled all three branches. It still could happen but it’s not even the political flashpoint or priority that it was in the late 2010s
Seriously, McCain saved the ACA. Without him, say hello to getting denied healthcare due to preexisting conditions, lifetime coverage limits, etc.
Chevron deference is gone, too, so prepare for corpo challenges on every legal interpretation. I think I'll buy leaps on sp500 because corpos will be able to squeeze americans for every last penny.
I'm adding an extra "E" to FIRE, for expat where I can get reasonable healthcare and standard of living.
No, it wasn't the only thing. Republicans had a 2 seat advantage, and if there was a tie then Mike Pence would have cast the deciding vote against the ACA. The GOP could only afford to have 2 of theirs against it at max, and the other two voting against it were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. While McCain was the last one to switch sides and oppose it he wasn't the only member of the GOP to do so.
And 40 states have already expanded Medicaid under it, with another roughly half dozen actively attempting to do so. ACA isn't going anywhere at this point, it's far too popular.
Rule 1/Civility - Civility is required of everyone at all times. If someone else is uncivil, then please report them and let the mods handle it without escalation. Please see our rules (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/about/rules/) and reach out via modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
Correct. ACA helps voters on both sides and the GOP would have to explain to their voter base why they are pulling their insurance. And replacing it would take a HUGE lift and cause more work/money than it's worth.
Honestly, I think that the GOP's biggest problem with ACA is that people call it "Obama Care". I'd vote to call it "Romney Care" if it stops ACA from being a political football...
Giving a quick shoutout to our friendly neighborhood mod and user, u/Zphr.
Some of yall really struggle to have open discussions.
Edit: Zphr, you sure you’re still FIRE’d after moderating this? Seems like a lot of work to me!
Eh, people get passionate about politics. It's nothing new to me. Not only did I used to work in the field, but I'm old and I have four teenagers and I live in a county that transitions between the hard blue and hard red areas of Texas.
I'm used to hearing fervent and well-intentioned advocacy from both the left and right.
It will screw everyone. Only pharmaceutical companies and Insurance companies will benefit being able to deny coverage and charge whatever they want for profit (people will die, get bankrupted, etc)
And those poor fools will still vote Republican year after year because they'd rather die than vote for a liberal even if it's against their interests.
You better believe it. I once saw some guy somewhere in the Deep South being interviewed and informed that his life saving medication was made possible by ACA, and he sure sounded like he believed it.
And then the shocker(or not really), he told the reporter he’s voting for Republicans anyway.
I wouldn't modify your plans much. If you feel you need to, it may be a sign your plan isn't as robust as it needs to be. Change will happen, governments will government, corps will corp, politicians will politician. Your plans need to manage all risks, including those thunderbolts from the sky type risks. We have liability insurance and flood insurance in case a low probability but catastrophic event happens.
You have a few options, if you are concerned. First would be ensure you are maintaining your relevant skills and network so you can always hop back into employment, even if for health coverage. Or maintain a part-time gig which provides health benefits. Additionally, you can ensure you have sufficient guaranteed income (via fixed income instruments or cash savings) to bridge between your current age and when you qualify for Medicare. You will likely need ongoing income to cover the private-insurance pieces of Medicare coverage anyhow, so this is good practice. Effectively, what's your bridge between today and state-sponsored health and retirement coverage?
You can also plan on departing for another country with universal health coverage, but this will require sufficient planning as well as partial clairvoyance to ensure a) universal health coverage will exist in said country when you plan on arriving and b) your plans align with future changes to immigration paths within said country.
Finally, you can identify states which are most likely to continue providing health coverage at the state level, and determine which states have the budgeting wherewithal to legitimately continue to offer these benefits. Some states are carrying hefty pension obligations and are operating at ongoing deficits, you will need to determine where you feel each of these states will be when you wish to fully retire.
At the end of the day, you may wake up tomorrow unable to move your lower extremities, and your plans will go out the window. Or a long-lost relative may leave you $20 billion because one time you watched their cat for the weekend. I will say: planning is good, but worrying over what may happen is likely going to hasten the need for health insurance (i.e. stress has been linked to health issues). So I would advise channeling any worry into making sure your plan is robust, then rest easy while you execute the plan.
It’s very much a crystal ball type of question, in regards to social security all I can say is that my current projections don’t even factor it in. I won’t likely retire for another 20-25 years or so and don’t see it being a viable source of my income. Unfortunately that’s just what it is at this moment in time.
It's unfortunately almost impossible for a topic like this to produce meaningful discussion on reddit. Any replies with a hint of nuance about the situation will get downvoted and browbeaten; and pretty much the only thing that rises to the top are comments which reconfirm that the end of days is on the horizon.
If you're hoping to assuage your worries in any way, this really isn't the place to attempt that. It's just going to make them worse.
We've been Fire for many years. Last year, I decided to retire because I was eligible for free healthcare benefits for the remainder of my life. This covers my wife. That is quite liberating in this context.
The Republican nominee has openly stated his second term intention to cut the payroll tax . This is the revenue stream for Medicare and Social Security. If you are Fire, this should work from an income standpoint. Corporate profits will skyrocket and the market will grow. Our portfolio will increase and offset the loss of SS and Medicare.
It is the masses who depend on these programs who will be negatively impacted. My mother-in-law is a hard right voter. She relies on Medicare, and Social Security is 75% of her income. I asked her what she would do if SS and Medicare went away. Her response was "I'd have to move in with you." Do you see the irony here?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/08/trump-payroll-tax-cut/
Rule 1/Civility - Civility is required of everyone at all times. If someone else is uncivil, then please report them and let the mods handle it without escalation. Please see our rules (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/about/rules/) and reach out via modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
There's always going to be political risk. If Democrats won every seat there's a risk of a wealth tax or something. Probably wouldn't hit most of us but you never know.
Your plans have to be robust enough to handle it, or maybe you'll have to go work again. That's all there is to say.
If my options are to be reliant on SS or be SO wealthy I qualify for a wealth tax I know which I would choose, and I wouldn’t really have a problem with it.
To be fair, there are several countries in europe with wealth taxes which hit at level that would affect people who are pretty lean. I seriously doubt that even a democratic landslide with policy driven by AOC and company would result in wealth taxes that start at less than the 2 million range or get steep sooner than 8 or 9 figures, meaning it could have major but not insurmountable implications for fatFIRE, but not touch leaners and be fairly minor or no issue for the middle. Something like Warren's modest proposal, for instance, would not even have touched anyone who wasn't filthy rich and somethign like that is probably what you're thinking about here.
All that said, that's just my *opinion* about our politics which is clearly worth fuck all given what's happened and is happening in recent elections. Clearly other comparable countries have seen fit to establish wealth taxes that would have major implications for *anyone* trying to FIRE (or just retire comfortably at any age!). So it's hardly impossible it could happen here, just very unlikely (even more unlikely than the blue landslide that would be required to implement it.)
Let's be clear, I *still* would favor a wealth tax, even one that hit at normal middle class retiree levels of wealth, to dumping ACA, medicare and SS (or even just major cuts to them).
But if we were to implement a wealth tax similar to that in norway, for instance, (1% on net assets over ~150k€) that would make it harder for *anyone* to FIRE, and would increase taxes for almost everyone in this sub who's been saving for a while. It's not just a situation of "if I'm so wealthy to qualify for a wealth tax" if that happens. It would be a drag on anybody with substantial savings, well before you even got to FI levels of wealth.
Dems had a trifecta for 2 years and no wealth tax plan even made it out of committee (and the ones that have been proposed have limits of like 50M NW, way way beyond the vast majority of us). There’s only one side that’s an actual threat.
Dems also want to expand the ACA which would greatly benefit most of us here. As I'm sure I'm not the only one who has to save more and longer to cover health insurance.
Social safety nets on general are likely to all be a meet positive for this community given they all help mitigate risk.
Trying to get all Democrats on the same page has historically been like herding cats. Also, there is still a place for moderates in the Democratic Party. And as far as the ACA was made, all progress came to a halt when Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts. That's when (IIRC) the Senate had to just vote for the passed House plan exactly as it passed in the House, so it wouldn't be subject to a filibuster that way.
Any wealth tax is going to be looking at 8+ figure NW's or huge incomes. I know we feel wealthy around here but 7 figures is not what they think of when they talk about the "wealthy."
In terms of what's been proposed by anybody here, that's true, but in terms of what is actual tax law in similar countries it is not. If people ever really got on the wealth tax bandwagon, it's not completely implausible that we could see a wealth tax similar to what you see in norway (where you pay 1% on everything over
~150k€ in NW).
I'm not saying I think that's likely. It seems *much* less likely to me than one that starts in the 8 figures or at least 7 figures US, but I don't think you can completely ignore the possibility conditional on something like a wealth tax ever actually being implemented here.
People have been fervently stating this same thing during every election cycle for generations. When was the last time you heard someone in power during an election cycle say that voting for either side was reasonable and that things would mostly work out regardless?
https://youtu.be/jrnRU3ocIH4?si=VDupvhj_qbmAxEqi
Here you go. You might be interested to learn that politics used to actually be about trying to do well for the country and respect between politicians. Trump and the current state of the Republican party is a different beast that needs to be shut down if we want to unify as a whole.
I worked professionally with both parties for several years, along with many of their supporting NGOs and affiliated entities. I assure you I don't need excerpts of political product to be informed about how the system and parties work.
Then why did you come on here and spout information that was easily able to be proven false?
When in relatively recent history we had a contentious, but respectful battle for the white house between 2 men who showed their respect for one another and the country directly to the faces of those who couldn't, instead of fanning the flames and using dog whistles at every opportunity.
Certainly if you worked professionally with them for so long you'd have remembered such a thing happened instead of getting on here and pulling the same rhetoric as the "both sides are the same" crowd.
I work as a video editor and can tell you that a large reason why people feel like things are worse is because that's all you're allowed to see. The people running know hate is better for memory than non hate, so it works out for them too. Don't be fooled. The candidates want this. The news wants this. People want this. Don't get sucked into the fear vortex just because it's hypnotic
I worked for them both for years and yes, they are both largely the same in my opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, nor am I offering to explain, but merely presenting my opinion. Everyone is free to think of it as they will.
If it pleases you to think the parties are actually markedly different, then do so. Most folks who are more than marginally aligned with either side like to think that is the case. That's a critical part of how modern two-party politics works and is a feature, not a bug.
Blanket statements about either party that devolve into accusations of things like hate are inherently uncivil to huge swaths of the population. Again, you can make your points without calling names or casting insults. Or don't, in which case please make those points in other subs.
Except the dems have had majorities in both houses and the White House during Clinton, Obama and Biden but wealth tax has never been on the table.. in fact they all expanded corporate subsidies and Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts… the wealth tax was on the same list as codifying abortion, closing Gitmo, prosecuting Bush admin for war crimes, minimum wage, college affordability, reinstating the financial and environmental regulations Clinton did away with etc…
I think you are focusing or worrying about the wrong issue. FIRE will be irrelevant if capitalism and democracy as we know it cease to exist. The concept of FIRE is only possible in western economies. No other part of the world has a robust capitalist and free economies that allow for FIRE.
I think you should worry about whether democracy as we know it today will exist in America in the next 5 to 10 years. This is not an alarmist thought. I really hope I am wrong for many reasons including obviously my ability to quit my job wherever I want. Many people elsewhere in the world don’t have such a luxury.
Remember when we were told Biden was going to push the green new deal and he'd be coming for our cheeseburgers? He would come take my guns and crash the stock market? Guess what? After nearly a full term I still eat all the cheeseburgers I want, my gun collection is safe and I am bordering on becoming wealthy!
It will be okay. Save money, stay diversified. No changes required.
As for your finale question regarding policy, who knows? Right policies may boost the economy and returns. They could limit access to tax breaks for those who are not truly poor. They could overheat the economy and bring inflation back.
Just stay the course. When you can live your chosen lifestyle with a little less than 4% withdrawals, you are free. Same is it ever was....
We may be there, too. My wife is 56, and our plan is for her to work until 60 in her current capacity so she can retire with eligibility to keep her health insurance at somewhat reduced rates. After that, she may go part time since the health benefits will be secured.
This is what I wish my parents understood. They are very one sided based off nothing but I'm welthy and I want to stay that way but explaining that she shouldn't need to worry about herself but instead me and my generation and the kids she keeps begging for me to have. Like congrats you'll be fine for the next 20- 30 years bc you are retiring at the top. I am not and I am scared of what will happen to my SS and my retirement and my economy in the next 20 years.
You can opt out. Move out of the US, renounce your citizenship and tada, you don't have to do anything to support your fellow American anymore. For many senior citizens, it's the one thing keeping them off the streets. With taxes, you might personally never see the money. But Social Security means you pay in, you get something and someone less well off gets something too. Seems like a win win actually.
We have a $34T debt and a $2T deficit. We NEED to cut back and go through some minor discomfort now or we’re going to have another Great Depression and hyperinflation for years.
Pretty sure you, or someone like you, probably made this same argument 20 years ago. SS can be fixed--made solvent permanently--by removing the income cap. Until Democrats actually have the genitals to do so, the program will continue to sputter along, and longer than most think as they are always revising upward by a year or two due to the excellent US economy every few years.
Most people's FIRE savings aren't going to do ANYTHING by the time they retire. I'm much more focused on moving out of the country, than waiting around for Christian fascists to ruin this country.
This is hilarious timing.
My wife and I are considering moving to Canada some way or how. Looking at Alberta province.
We both have chronic conditions and work remotely. Trying to explore what to do...all our meds are covered there, and the 15% reduction in expenses is awesome.
Killing SS isn't going to happen. Way too large a voting block. Means testing? Maybe. Increasing FRA? Maybe. But seriously cutting it? Isn't going to happen.
With ACA, the only thing real likely to go away is the subsidies based on income level. I could see something like means testing there where subsidies are based off net worth and not income, so that someone with $3M in an IRA can't take subsidies but people living at poverty level can.
You're worried about nothing. These two items are way down on the list of things that could kill a FIRE plan. Tanking the economy is a far greater danger.
> way too large a voting block
I could very well see younger voters getting cut out. They could gradually defund the program so older conservative voters get their piece, while the younger voters who are paying in (and voting left) don't get a dime.
This is always a risk with ponzi scheme structures. With lowering population growth, we have to cut other programs to keep it afloat. Or find new tax revenue streams. With certain people in power, they will do something like defunding SS instead.
IMO, never worth factoring SS for an early retirement. Anything more than a decade away from paying out is off the plan. ACA could be the real loss. Not that ACA is any good, but not having it at all would be near catastrophic
I'm in my 50s and I've been hearing that alarm bell (SS isn't going to be around) for at least 15 years. Best bet is to plan on it being gone, but counting it as a nice bonus if it's still there. The people that truly need SS will always be covered. I have a neighbor that has it as a sole source of income. I can't imagine the government cutting that off.
As for ACA, my guess is the subsidies will go away but the open market place will remain. Honestly that was the best change the ACA brought around anyway. I don't have an issue with people paying full boat for their insurance if they're FIREing.
Without reform, the trust fund will exhaust its reserves in 2035 and result in a 20% benefit cut. [trustees report](https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/tr2024.pdf)
It’s going to scramble a lot of politics to make any reform possible. Rs will never raise the payroll tax and Ds will never countenance benefit cuts so we’re kind of fucked.
I think a combination or eliminating the payroll tax cap and means testing social security at a super high level could help kick the can down the road a bit, so that’s a more likely outcome to me.
We only need to kick the can long enough for the boomers to die. Once that bulge in demographics is no longer collecting benefits, then the budget gets easier. So 1964+75=2039. We just need to make it to 2039 without a complete collapse in the program. The years 2030-2039 will be rough.
Wrong. Millennials are bigger as a generation in the US than Boomers. We are unique in the first world in that regard. Millennials are an even bigger problem for social security than the Boomers...
Subsidies ending will be the effective end of private ACA plans, except for younger people who have lowish premiums already and very wealthy people. Nomally the Republicans take thier cues from the business communty, and I think for several reasons getting rid of ACA subsidies is not at the top of their wish list.
We FIREd last year... if the subsidies are repealed our current ACA Gold premium will go from something like $300/month to $2000/month. We can afford that but I suspect a lot of FIRE folks can't.
You’re assuming voting will still matter. With a president immune from any wrongdoing for official acts…. There will be no reason to care about getting votes. With control of airwaves, eradicating the department of education, and cronyism in government posts it won’t take long to subdue the populace to go along with whatever. The government will just redirect any unhappiness on scapegoated groups. Whoever is complaining about those in power will become one of those targeted groups.
If you look at proposals that *almost* passed in 2017, there was one that changed subsidies in a way that would be bad for the poor (and many would have dropped off and had no insurance), and potentially *good* for many better off people.
There was also one that passed the house came within a vote or two of passing the senate that would have removed promises of essential benefits and guaranteed issue with no pre-existing condition exceptions. That really would have basically sunk health insurance for any potential early retirees with problematic health conditions -- either self-insure, stay working, or find some unicorn baristaFIRE job where you can get employer health insurance part time. Maybe be able to get some small business small group insurance either by hiring somebody, or being part of a self-employed association group. in some way. But probably have to be doing some kind of substantial economic activity (i.e. working, if part time) to make those happen too.
I think it's unlikely that it will go through, but I absolutely don't think it's anywhere near "not gonna happen". It very nearly did 7 years ago.
Killing SS I agree is massively unlikely, and probably medicare too, but significant cuts to both, especially if they can be sold as necessary and/or can be made somewhat invisible, seems well within the realm of possibility.
Also killing medicaid expansions seems pretty plausible and that would affect a TON of people, if not be that big a deal for people in the FIRE community.
Unless you're prepared to self-insure through death and accept zero tax supports, then pretty much everyone is dependent on gov policy handouts. Medicare, tax-advantaged retirement accounts, subsidized treatment of cap gains, tax supports for employer-sponsored benefits, tax supports for small biz and real estate, and such are all government programs.
This is not true. Many early retirements rely on ACA to get insurance. Without the protections it gives some people would be unable to get insurance and would be unable to retire.
The individual insurance market before the ACA was in bad shape. If you had preexisting conditions, it was prohibitively expensive. If you failed to declare a preexisting condition, an insurer could kick you off insurance just when you need it, so you had to declare every medical issue you've ever had when enrolling, and who can remember all that?
The ACA is what made RE possible to do safely in the US, to a first order.
I had individual insurance before ACA was enacted. I have insurance through my employer now, but have shopped around, if anything it's **much** more expensive.
Ending the preexisting condition clause was a great step forward, but other than that health care has gotten even more prohibitively expensive and people get denied for all sorts of other reasons (loopholes).
I appreciate what ACA attempted to do, but if anything it really didn't do enough to address insurance companies leaching off of American's need for healthcare. They are still making money hand over fist.
The reason individual insurance got more expensive is *because* of the preexisting condition clauses going away.
Before the ACA, any non-group insurer could just kick you off or inform you that a preexisting condition would not be covered at a renewal date if they decided you were too expensive. You could sign up for insurance, but if you actually *needed* it in a big way, you wouldn't be able to *keep* it, because it was very hard to find any guaranteed renewable policies, and the ones you *could* find, were about as expensive as ACA plans are now or more so, adjusted for overall health inflation.
Most people had individual plans that were great as long as all they had to cover were a few doctor appointments. And they'd be fine if you had an acute hospital condition too, but if you had long term complications or otherwise acquired a *chronic* condition that was expensive to treat, you'd get bounced at the next renewal and then not be able to get any but very expensive insurance if you could get any at all.
In all seriousness, we are looking at property in another country specifically because of Project 2025. I mean we are flying there next month. Project 2025 is very very clear in their intent to take us back to an America that our family is not welcome in.
Before the ACA, you could get sick, lose your insurance because of some BS red tape (often, the insurer alleges you forgot to disclose a preexisting condition), and then to re-enroll on insurance you'd have to pay many thousands a month due to now being sick.
Or else go back to work full time, if you can, to get on employer sponsored care.
It was dismal. This is exactly the sort of negative financial shock that insurance is supposed to cover, to protect you. The old individual market was dysfunctional and often failed to provide that protection.
I don't think it's right to suggest people should save enough to weather any storm, out of savings, self-insured. Most of us would need to save 2-3x more than we actually probably need, just to cover those tail risks. That doesn't seem efficient -- it seems distortive, in aggregate, that model would encourage people to work too long, save too much, and retire too late.
Here is link to the full Project 2025.
All 922 pages pulled from Heritage Foundation. Not summary talking points from liberals being passed around on social media.
Open up and use search to look for references to ACA and social security. Please cite the page number where ACA and social security is being eliminated.
[Project 2025 Full Text](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf)
Page 450 (written page number, not pdf page) Goal #2 talks about how health insurance should be “market based” and needs to be deregulated. It doesn’t explicitly say that ACA needs to be removed. I don’t see anything about Social Security reform which is surprising.
There's some interesting stuff in there. Searching for "repeal" turns up that they want to repeal mandatory food labeling standards. Yikes.
Anyway, there is "Separate the subsidized ACA exchange market from the non-subsidized insurance market." on page 469. This terse section proposes to deregulate most of the individual insurance market, without specifying which regulations they would remove. That sounds like a very large change, which if they're serious deserves more than a paragraph.
Reading between the lines, I would guess this section is a compromise. Several people wrote this document. Probably some of them haven't given up on repealing the ACA, and some of them don't think it's a winning issue. Some of them probably even understand why the regulations are helpful and necessary for the market to function economically. So they settled on this wordsmithed paragraph.
The optimistic view is that ACA repeal isn't a top priority for Republicans anymore, the pessimistic view is that this paragraph is promising to kneecap it quietly. I can't really tell what we're getting in this package. Do we need Nutrition Facts for political platforms?
They want to repeal the GMO labeling mandate, not all food labeling. From page 307:
>Despite the importance of agricultural biotechnology, in 2016, Congress passed a federal mandate to label genetically engineered food. This legislation was arguably just a means to try to provide a negative connotation to GE food. There are other challenges as well for agricultural biotechnology. For example, Mexico plans to ban the importation of U.S. genetically modified yellow corn. The next Administration should:
>Counter scare tactics and remove obstacles. The USDA should strongly counter scare tactics regarding agricultural biotechnology and adopt policies to remove unnecessary barriers to approvals and the adoption of biotechnology.
>Repeal the federal labeling mandate. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal the federal labeling law, while maintaining federal preemption, and stress that voluntary labeling is allowed.
You don’t need to read 1000 pages. Open up and use search. Look for references to “ACA” and “Social Security”. Can be done in less than two minutes to get your answer.
The risk is real regardless of Project 2025 though. Repealing the ACA was one of the major legislative initiatives during the 2016-2020 term. They didn't have the votes back then but the Republican voting block has consolidated much more tightly around Trump since then.
No one will ever touch social security to the degree where it will affect people even remotely close to retirement age today.
It’s political suicide regardless of party.
I hope you are right, but feel that you are wrong. Doing nothing and blaming the other party while benefits get automatically cut I "feel" is what we are likely going to see.
People FIRE long before ACA was a thing and they will continue to FIRE with or without ACA.
People FIRE when college cost was an after thought and they continue to FIRE when college costs almost as much a house.
I believe that it’s only the matter of time before ACA requirement takes everything into account rather than just MAGI. Manipulating MAGI to get subsidized health care is a loophole.
I'm mostly with you, probably 95%, on the ACA looking at assets rather than just MAGI. It seems appropriate to me but I'm interested in hearing, from a sane person, why it should be kept as is. Maybe I'll make a post on that.
However, FIRE before the ACA was more difficult not because of the subsidies. Trying to get private healthcare was a shitshow and you could be denied/dropped for just about any definition of a preexisting condition that the insurance provider could come up with. I support the general framework of the ACA as I think it was an improvement on our previous healthcare system.
Project 2025 is deeply unpopular which is why Trump pulled out his 10ft pole recently. There is nothing unique about Project 2025, it’s a political organization like the Tea Party movement and it’ll flame out just as fast
Really? He has lots of staffers involved in project 2025. His distancing is just another lie.
None of this strikes me as good for the economy or the markets.
The Project seeks to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid,[19][20] and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care.[21][22]
The Project states that life begins at conception,[19] and seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act[19] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and recieve contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide.[22][23]
The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[6] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[24] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[24][25] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[3][25] as well as affirmative action[26] by instead having the DOJ prosecute "anti-white racism."[27]
The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by using the military to capture and place them in internment camps.[28][29] The Insurrection Act of 1807 would be used to allow the military to engage in domestic policing and assist capturing undocumented immigrants.[30][31] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[32]
Some things I'm doing, getting older and nearer to Medicare. If I have to pay full price it will be for a limited number of years. Have a second passport, I can fly in and get instant coverage for a few years if I have to.
Honestly the country is over if a dictator takes power.
Primary source here. There's an executive summary on the first 15 pages.
https://www.project2025.org/playbook/
Main points:
1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”
That’s the propaganda part. The part of what they will do is what’s scary.
“The Project seeks to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid,[19][20] and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care.[21][22]
The Project states that life begins at conception,[19] and seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act[19] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and recieve contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide.[22][23]
The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[6] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[24] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[24][25] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[3][25] as well as affirmative action[26] by instead having the DOJ prosecute "anti-white racism."[27]
The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by using the military to capture and place them in internment camps.[28][29] The Insurrection Act of 1807 would be used to allow the military to engage in domestic policing and assist capturing undocumented immigrants.[30][31] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[32]”
It’s basically authoritarian fascism. The market will not react kindly to that.
More. Especially for the 20 million Americans who didn’t have coverage without it, and the millions upon millions more who couldn’t get any coverage that wasn’t employer based because of pre existing conditions.
I'm so sick of hearing about this like it's actually going to come to fruition and isn't some sort of democrat fear porn. Congress can't even pass the most basic of laws and you expect this to get jammed thru? Let me sum it up for you. If Biden gets in he'll play on some identity politics to appeal to his base while funding big pharma and the military industrial complex and his own pockets with debt. If trump gets in he'll play on some identity politics, fund big pharma and the military industrial complex and his own pockets, also with debt. This shit is at this point so boring.
It's a presidential election year. The vast majority of all threats and promises made in relation to politics at any time are never going to come to fruition, but this is even more true during election years. This has been true in every election cycle for longer than any of us has been alive.
It's a lot less beneficial for both fundraising/turnout/engagement/advertising to tell people that the status quo will mostly continue regardless of who wins, but that's always the default outcome given the immense inertia in our culture/government and how resistant our system is to major change. Change obviously does happen, but it's slow and steady and driven more by the people than by our politicians, who are merely representatives of our collective will.
Millions of women in multiple states have lost their right for bodily autonomy. Women are dying and being forced to carry dying babies. The majority of people support abortion rights. That is not the status quo from almost 50 years prior and just one example of real harm Trump as already caused and it was quite quick in the grand scheme of things. The current Supreme Court is terrifying and will be in power for decades. If Trump stacks it even more, their ability to tear down so many things will continue even longer.
Every thread about Project2025, I am truly baffled at which posts are downvoted (including this post).
It truly seems like people enjoy the fear mongering, and anyone who makes a well-balanced and sober post gets downvoted.
We cannot continue on this trajectory. Tough choices must be made. some sort of austerity half measures must be implemented now or else very draconian measures will be forced on us later on.
we either let putin have ukraine, and let xi have taiwan, or we make real cuts to our non military spending now…not just cuts to the increases but real cuts.
age 68 for full retirement
increase from 10 years to 15 years for SS vestment
increase ACA premiums for early retirees
lean on NATO and force them to pay up more
no student loan forgiveness
no bailouts
raise the cap on FICA tax
stop giving IRS refunds to people in excess of their total tax paid for the year
Include SNAP and EBT and tuition pell gants and section8 benefits, and other such federal financial aid in the calculation for SS benefits as reductions to their SS payments, or increased taxes on the SS benefits.
Then we let individual liberties die a slow death. china and russia will own the world. The ancient greek democratic concept of disbursed decentralized government power (except in times of war) will be gone forever.
Presidents have a lot of power over trade, immigration, and war. I would focus on those more than domestic policy. Those alone are serious inflationary political risks. I believe diversifying internationally should help mitigate this risk slightly. And I think it’s a reason to invest broad market instead of picking stocks or even overweighting in some direction. But, you can only mitigate this risk a little if it’s happening everywhere around the world at once.
Politics is fine, but not partisan sniping or proselytizing. If you can't treat people with opposing views with some minimal respect and courtesy, then consider yourself individually exempt from being able to discuss politics in this sub. OP - please change the "MAGAcracy" bit or I'm deleting this. Edit: Fair warning for those that actually like this sub and want to continue being able to participate in here. There's no get out of jail free card about politics. If you're an asshole over politics, then you get banned just the same as being an asshole about anything else. So watch yourselves unless you don't mind having your account silenced. Edit2: This post has thrown off enough reports that I'm going to lock it overnight to prevent problems. I'll unlock it in the morning for continued commentary. Edit3: This post has run its course. Thank you to everyone who remained civil. For everyone who did not, thank you for helping us more finely calibrate how future political posts will be handled.
Don't worry. The ACA is going to be replaced by a plan that's better than anyone has ever seen before. You'll have amazing medical care at a level never seen before in history. All the bigliest doctors. And we'll see the detailed plans in just two more weeks...
You mean once Elon gets appointed Inventor In Chief of Slick Doodads
New Tesla RoboDoctors are 90% cheaper than human doctors and 30% patient mortality rate within acceptable parameters
Not to mention that if you get a good night’s sleep on your MyPillow, you wont even need one of those robodoctors in the first place
How the fuck was the my pillow guy on the stage with the president during Covid debriefs. Wtf was that shit
Or in the Oval Office after the election discussing martial law…
lol.
People are saying it’s the best healthcare in the history of the world.
I’ll probably FIRE to a lower cost country for good quality, cheaper healthcare.
Where is that exactly?
Costa rica, Thailand, Philippines
I can’t speak to Costa Rica, but with friends and family in Thailand and the Philippines, you have to be in dense urban centers and while general care is more affordable and excellent, I would say that some of the advanced care isn’t as good as the US.
Costa Rica has some great medical facilities, medical tourism is huge
Yeah I know someone whose fam was in Costa Rica, her dad had to get emergency heart surgery. Care was so good that it was a big catalyst to them buying a place and spending half of each the year down there now. It’s become expensive but still much better than Canada/US.
The American Hospital in Bangkok is excellent
As someone in the provinces of the Philippines why exactly do I need to be in the dense urban center?
I assume it’s because rural areas often lag behind urban areas when it comes to availability of medical care.
Costa Rica, Panama, Spain, Portugal, maybe even return to the UK.
Portugal.
It's a big reason why I still have a greencard after 30+ years in the US, to keep my Japanese citizenship.
The real threat is taking away the Fed’s independence.
Can you elaborate on that please?
You can choose to agree or disagree with the following statement and that the Fed is independent if you choose to do so. But, if the Fed were to become a bunch of the current administration, they would be tasked with doing the most beneficial thing to help get their "boss" reelected. This would create horrific incentives to value short term gains over long term sustainability and security. Doesn't that sound familiar...
Argentina-ization. Literally the central bank was printing money to pay off governing party’s political supporters, and the government threatened all the actual economic experts and prevented them from reporting accurate inflation metrics. Great for soccer, horrible for economics. This is exactly the type of plan for “destroying the administrative state”, by which they mean all functions are designed exclusively to support the political goals of the top by any means necessary and all experts will be fired or prosecuted or worse. Likely absolute literal looting of Treasury to a hijacked or new political party. Possibly Social Security and Medicare will be discretionary at the whims of the political parties which can put people on or off lists as they feel. This means lots of inflation, and TIPS will not help you as it is adjusted according to official statistics which may be lies if it gets as bad as Argentina. The value of international diversification will have proven itself as US equity market and bonds plummet. German euro bonds will be the new risk free asset.
You mean like crash the economy then “stabilize” it while enriching the bankers in time for an election?
They are already doing that… ie the heralding of the “sept rate cut” even though it’s not justified by economics. The Fed def bends to political winds
Yeah but there’s a big difference between going Argentina or Turkey here. Bends to political winds =/= the big guy making you spread your cheeks at will
Look at what erdogan was doing in Turkey with rates
Please vote friends 🙏
What will happen when a greedy autocrat takes power with an administration full of yes men with a roadmap that involves replacing civil service professionals with lackeys??? More than just the ACA is at risk.
Share the same concerns. I'm counting on ACA so this and Medicare are definitely issues I'm going to fight for (My elderly parents benefited from the reduction in prescription costs. It was a game changer for their limited fixed income).
My plan to mitigate these risks is to have a passport, and know how to travel internationally. Have some destinations in mind to migrate to, even just temporarily, if need be. And, know that you don’t get to stay wherever you want for as long as you want without following each countries’ rules.
I am considering this but am not at the stage of FIRE where I can live independently without an income. If you are in a similar situation, do you have a plan for what you would do for work? That’s my biggest issue I’m figuring out as I plan for this contingency.
I don’t have a plan for working internationally, but if you have about $800 a month, you could figure it out while in Southeast Asia. If you can, do some test trips out of the country to get used to the process.
Vote y’all
Frankly, if the ACA gets repealed I'm screwed for early retirement because I have a pre-existing condition. The financial portion of health insurance is low on my concern list as I could not even get it before the ACA was passed. Everyone please vote for the party that isn't trying to repeal one of the few advances we have made in healthcare in the last 20 years. Thanks.
Just my 2 cents but if the GOP really wanted to repeal it they would’ve in Trumps first 2 years. The reality is it is working. The ACA is Obama’s legacy piece of legislation. No Republican can say it was a good piece of legislation.
They tried to in 2017. It missed passing by a 51-49 vote with 3 Republicans voting with the Democrats to keep it. If 2024 gives them a couple seats, it is gone.
I remember the audible shock from senate Democrats when Senator McCain voted nay on repealing the ACA. Edit: realized I typed "neigh" instead of "nay", as if Senator McCain was a horse.
Vote.
Is there a list of republicans that openly support project 2025? Isn’t it something that a private conservative group created? I’d be curious to see how much actual support there is for it
John oliver has a whole episode on this recently. Last week tonight - John Oliver.
Look at the authors and driving force behind it. Many former Trump officials. It is 100% the plan
If you’re not on the crazy train you’re under it these days
Unless they're outwardly opposed, they are for it. So, all of them.
Portugal’s D7 visa only requires $894/month in passive income.
The D7 can be a pain depending. It's been teetering because people keep moving to a small area of the country leading to horrible housing crisis. I was originally going to move there but changed it. I'm currently looking into the retirement visa in Belize. $2000/month in a bank is required but $2000/month is $4000/month Belizean. The property taxes are also 1%. The retirement visa only requires you to be 45 and be in the country 30 consecutive days a year. The other interesting thing is the rate of exchange is in the constitution so it's stable and they speak English as a national language. So no need to learn a new language. I have a place in Florida as well so It's only a small flight back to the U.S. if needed.
If it happens then I’ll figure something out, just like millions of other people. Till then I can’t spend my life worrying about something that might happen.
Completely agree. There’s a point at which Reddit is just an anxiety machine and it makes current life not worth living while we wait for future life.
Funding for Social Security has to be addressed (increased) to maintain the current payment structure. Or benefits have to be cut. Depending upon your age, I would factor the possibility of a cut in planned benefits - regardless of the administration in power and save accordingly. Politicians find it career limiting to advocate tax increases for their constituents. Which is why you only hear about raising taxes on the "rich" (look in the mirror FIRE people). In reality, to keep benefits the same, a broad tax increase that affects everyone will be required.
For me Social Security is a hedge against inflation. For most it is a lifeline in their retirement. The fix for it is ridiculously simple. Raise the cap on FICA wages.
The cap on FICA wages seems like the lowest fuss way to bring in more tax revenue.
Yeah we hear that all the time. “Lower taxes and revenue will increase.” Except that has never actually happened. Spoiler alert: wealth doesn’t trickle down either. Instead we have cut taxes for the billionaires and then spent the social security trust on non SS expenditures. That’s why the fed owes nearly $3T to the trust fund. The middle class is paying for those billionaire’s yachts.
Above a certain point, yes, concentrated wealth just gets hoarded, and not plowed back into the economy. It has no velocity. A dollar hoarded does a lot less good for the economy than a dollar spent and circulated with a multiplier effect in the economy. Hoarded wealth doesn't hire people or contribute to corporate earnings. Even buying private jets employs people and contributes to economic output.
I agree with you about FICA. If billionaires would just quit making things people want to buy, we could get rid of the billionaires and it would be a much more equitable economy. :/ Worrying about billionaire’s yachts seems like the least of our country’s financial problems.
Hey, I’m a capitalist. I made my money in business. And that’s when I found out business owners don’t have access to the tax cuts that billionaires do. Trump paid $750 bucks in taxes in years I was paying 100s of thousands in taxes. My beef is this compulsion by the GOP in giving trillions in tax cuts to people who could never spend the amount of money they already have and putting the resultant tab on my bill, my kids bill, and my grandchildren’s bill.
This is one of my biggest beefs, that huge corporations that can afford to pay for their own infrastructure get massive tax breaks for expanding or relocating their operations that smaller local competitors, already at a disadvantage, won't get. We can advocate for higher taxes or lower taxes, but in the end, I believe the tax system has to fairly apply to all, and not just those who can afford to buy votes.
And salary people like myself don’t have access to the tax breaks business owners have. Peter Thiel stashed a bunch of worthless startup stocks in a Roth and it’s worth $5B. Good for him. I wish I had the risk taking appetite of a business owner or billionaire. Musk worked for $0 - 100% stock. Not my bag.
Two key political realities to ground your understanding: 1. The will to get rid of, or **significantly** cut benefits for, Social Security will never, ever happen. Neither major party will have the willpower or incentive to do so. 2. Any changes will happen as close to the fund running out of money as possible; there is no political incentive to change it proactively, so this will all happen last minute (likely within a year of the fund running out), which will be in the early-mid 2030s it looks like. The most likely outcomes: * Increasing the limit on W2 income that's subject to SS taxes (currently only \~$169K is taxable in 2024). * I'd expect part of the fix is that limit is increased for everyone slightly (so maybe in 2024 dollars that limit goes up to \~$180K-$200K instead of \~$169K). This will also reduce benefits for everyone slightly over time, as the benefits you're paid are based on the % of the maximum contribution you hit each year of earning. The benefit reductions will be very small for those who have already worked a significant number of years (they can't change the % of max for past years, only future), and gradually increase the younger you are/more working years you have ahead of you (if you're already RE, there would be no impact though). * The second part, which feels even more likely, is that there will be a surcharge on higher incomes, which do not translate to any extra benefits in retirement (currently, if you contribute the max you get higher benefits in retirement). * This would probably look something like: * First $200K income is taxable for everyone, and that is the maximum that counts for your benefits. * No SS tax on income from $200K-$400K * SS tax on income above $400K, indefinitely, which does NOT translate to extra benefits earned * There will be no explicit "benefits are cut by X amount", but they will raise the retirement age (which is a de facto benefit cut). * Most likely is increasing the minimum age with which you can withdraw from 62 to 64/65 * They also could raise full retirement age of 67 by a year or two. * And finally, they could increase the age at which you have to start taking benefits by (70)/at which you get the maximum payout. * Between 62 & 64, among those who are still alive at 62, 3.3% of men and 2.1% of women will die; between 70 & 72, it's 4.6% of men and 3.2% of women ([per Actuarial tables](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html)). * This means that the fund saves from paying millions of people a single dime by every few years they delay the retirement age (and among those who survive, they get 2 fewer years of benefits as well, so it's not just those who die during the period). * They will however almost certainly grandfather in those who are close to retirement age (following the precedent from the reforms in the 1980s). It's hard to know where exactly they'll draw the line, but it's almost certain they won't change the ages for anyone within a decade of them. * That means, if you're currently in your mid-late forties or older (meaning you'll be 55+ when these changes happen), you really don't have to worry about this in my opinion. * Those in their late thirties or early 40s today will be more of an unknown (they'll be around 50 when these changes happen). * And everyone younger than 35 today will almost certainly have a higher retirement age than you currently see.
This all makes sense to me.
Helpful analysis. Thank you.
Yeah no. I’m not paying more. I’ll go to the casino and spend it all before I give another dime. Not adding more, probs going to get banned if I do.
If you want to be able to retire in the US, vote.
It’s important to realize that any change in the law will have to pass the House and the Senate. Even if the GOP takes both of them, a lot of those people will have won election in purple and even blue states and you shouldn’t just assume that those people will agree with whatever extreme policy you see in the news. You saw the same thing with Democrats a few years ago. They had the House and Senate and so on paper it looked like anything goes. But in reality, any changes had to get past people like Manchin and Sinema, who were not ready to sign on to every policy. Maybe that’s good or bad depending on your politics, but my point is that it’s just very difficult to pass significant legislation under our system.
I hear you. The issue though is that the Supreme Court recently gave the President unbounded immunity for acts committed in office. I know nobody is openly saying this but hypothetically, the President is now able to suspend Congress and could order the military to arrest the Supreme Court justices and shut the court down so no one can challenge him. This is what happens in autocracies elsewhere in the world. I don’t think the Supreme Court really thought the presidential immunity ruling through. They’ve basically put their own jobs and personal safety at risk talk less of constitutional democracy as we know it. Trust me, this is not alarmist, I have lived in an autocratic country.
Not sure if you’ve read the constitution but the President has no authority to suspend Congress so that’s not an official duty…
[удалено]
The strongest case that the ACA won’t be repealed is that Republicans couldn’t do it last time they controlled all three branches. It still could happen but it’s not even the political flashpoint or priority that it was in the late 2010s
[удалено]
Seriously, McCain saved the ACA. Without him, say hello to getting denied healthcare due to preexisting conditions, lifetime coverage limits, etc. Chevron deference is gone, too, so prepare for corpo challenges on every legal interpretation. I think I'll buy leaps on sp500 because corpos will be able to squeeze americans for every last penny. I'm adding an extra "E" to FIRE, for expat where I can get reasonable healthcare and standard of living.
This Chevron issue is huge and very troublesome.
No, it wasn't the only thing. Republicans had a 2 seat advantage, and if there was a tie then Mike Pence would have cast the deciding vote against the ACA. The GOP could only afford to have 2 of theirs against it at max, and the other two voting against it were Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. While McCain was the last one to switch sides and oppose it he wasn't the only member of the GOP to do so.
Edit, removed statement that they represented ranked choice states, because at that time, they did not.
I don't think RCV was in place in Maine when this vote was taken, and I know it wasn't yet law in Alaska.
It wss on a razors edge with one guy breaking ranks… no one like McCain is left in the elected Republican Party.
McCain was the last true Republican, and the last time I’ll ever vote R.
Yes but even that came down to a single vote and that person isn’t with us anymore.
And 40 states have already expanded Medicaid under it, with another roughly half dozen actively attempting to do so. ACA isn't going anywhere at this point, it's far too popular.
[удалено]
Rule 1/Civility - Civility is required of everyone at all times. If someone else is uncivil, then please report them and let the mods handle it without escalation. Please see our rules (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/about/rules/) and reach out via modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
Correct. ACA helps voters on both sides and the GOP would have to explain to their voter base why they are pulling their insurance. And replacing it would take a HUGE lift and cause more work/money than it's worth. Honestly, I think that the GOP's biggest problem with ACA is that people call it "Obama Care". I'd vote to call it "Romney Care" if it stops ACA from being a political football...
Nuance in a political discussion on Reddit?!?!
Giving a quick shoutout to our friendly neighborhood mod and user, u/Zphr. Some of yall really struggle to have open discussions. Edit: Zphr, you sure you’re still FIRE’d after moderating this? Seems like a lot of work to me!
Eh, people get passionate about politics. It's nothing new to me. Not only did I used to work in the field, but I'm old and I have four teenagers and I live in a county that transitions between the hard blue and hard red areas of Texas. I'm used to hearing fervent and well-intentioned advocacy from both the left and right.
Grateful for your service on this sub, Zphr!
If they repeal ACA, it will screw all of the poor red states. Talk about biting your nose to spite your face.
It will screw everyone. Only pharmaceutical companies and Insurance companies will benefit being able to deny coverage and charge whatever they want for profit (people will die, get bankrupted, etc)
And those poor fools will still vote Republican year after year because they'd rather die than vote for a liberal even if it's against their interests.
You better believe it. I once saw some guy somewhere in the Deep South being interviewed and informed that his life saving medication was made possible by ACA, and he sure sounded like he believed it. And then the shocker(or not really), he told the reporter he’s voting for Republicans anyway.
I wouldn't modify your plans much. If you feel you need to, it may be a sign your plan isn't as robust as it needs to be. Change will happen, governments will government, corps will corp, politicians will politician. Your plans need to manage all risks, including those thunderbolts from the sky type risks. We have liability insurance and flood insurance in case a low probability but catastrophic event happens. You have a few options, if you are concerned. First would be ensure you are maintaining your relevant skills and network so you can always hop back into employment, even if for health coverage. Or maintain a part-time gig which provides health benefits. Additionally, you can ensure you have sufficient guaranteed income (via fixed income instruments or cash savings) to bridge between your current age and when you qualify for Medicare. You will likely need ongoing income to cover the private-insurance pieces of Medicare coverage anyhow, so this is good practice. Effectively, what's your bridge between today and state-sponsored health and retirement coverage? You can also plan on departing for another country with universal health coverage, but this will require sufficient planning as well as partial clairvoyance to ensure a) universal health coverage will exist in said country when you plan on arriving and b) your plans align with future changes to immigration paths within said country. Finally, you can identify states which are most likely to continue providing health coverage at the state level, and determine which states have the budgeting wherewithal to legitimately continue to offer these benefits. Some states are carrying hefty pension obligations and are operating at ongoing deficits, you will need to determine where you feel each of these states will be when you wish to fully retire. At the end of the day, you may wake up tomorrow unable to move your lower extremities, and your plans will go out the window. Or a long-lost relative may leave you $20 billion because one time you watched their cat for the weekend. I will say: planning is good, but worrying over what may happen is likely going to hasten the need for health insurance (i.e. stress has been linked to health issues). So I would advise channeling any worry into making sure your plan is robust, then rest easy while you execute the plan.
It’s very much a crystal ball type of question, in regards to social security all I can say is that my current projections don’t even factor it in. I won’t likely retire for another 20-25 years or so and don’t see it being a viable source of my income. Unfortunately that’s just what it is at this moment in time.
It's unfortunately almost impossible for a topic like this to produce meaningful discussion on reddit. Any replies with a hint of nuance about the situation will get downvoted and browbeaten; and pretty much the only thing that rises to the top are comments which reconfirm that the end of days is on the horizon. If you're hoping to assuage your worries in any way, this really isn't the place to attempt that. It's just going to make them worse.
Mod is doing an awewjob in fact...it's a good read so far.
I doubt OP’s post was in good faith to begin with.
I have the feeling there is going to be pretty much endless pot stirring for the next 4 months.
I’ve noticed a lot of very nonpolitical subreddits fear mongering about Project 2025… I hope Reddit doesn’t turn into 4chan
Fear mongering? Just read the fucking thing
You’re right… most conspiracy theories/propaganda usually include very reasonable, non-fear mongering talking points…. Just like Qanon and Pizza Gate…
It's interesting how it's ramped up to an extreme in the past week. You almost cannot find a subreddit that does not mention it.
They’ve been on social security ever since it became law. It’s not going anywhere, even if Emperor Cheese Puff comes back.
We've been Fire for many years. Last year, I decided to retire because I was eligible for free healthcare benefits for the remainder of my life. This covers my wife. That is quite liberating in this context. The Republican nominee has openly stated his second term intention to cut the payroll tax. This is the revenue stream for Medicare and Social Security. If you are Fire, this should work from an income standpoint. Corporate profits will skyrocket and the market will grow. Our portfolio will increase and offset the loss of SS and Medicare.
It is the masses who depend on these programs who will be negatively impacted. My mother-in-law is a hard right voter. She relies on Medicare, and Social Security is 75% of her income. I asked her what she would do if SS and Medicare went away. Her response was "I'd have to move in with you." Do you see the irony here?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/08/trump-payroll-tax-cut/
[удалено]
Rule 1/Civility - Civility is required of everyone at all times. If someone else is uncivil, then please report them and let the mods handle it without escalation. Please see our rules (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fire/about/rules/) and reach out via modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
There's always going to be political risk. If Democrats won every seat there's a risk of a wealth tax or something. Probably wouldn't hit most of us but you never know. Your plans have to be robust enough to handle it, or maybe you'll have to go work again. That's all there is to say.
If my options are to be reliant on SS or be SO wealthy I qualify for a wealth tax I know which I would choose, and I wouldn’t really have a problem with it.
Right. Republican and Democrat policies being compared as if they have equal harm "just in a different direction" is always amusing to me.
To be fair, there are several countries in europe with wealth taxes which hit at level that would affect people who are pretty lean. I seriously doubt that even a democratic landslide with policy driven by AOC and company would result in wealth taxes that start at less than the 2 million range or get steep sooner than 8 or 9 figures, meaning it could have major but not insurmountable implications for fatFIRE, but not touch leaners and be fairly minor or no issue for the middle. Something like Warren's modest proposal, for instance, would not even have touched anyone who wasn't filthy rich and somethign like that is probably what you're thinking about here. All that said, that's just my *opinion* about our politics which is clearly worth fuck all given what's happened and is happening in recent elections. Clearly other comparable countries have seen fit to establish wealth taxes that would have major implications for *anyone* trying to FIRE (or just retire comfortably at any age!). So it's hardly impossible it could happen here, just very unlikely (even more unlikely than the blue landslide that would be required to implement it.) Let's be clear, I *still* would favor a wealth tax, even one that hit at normal middle class retiree levels of wealth, to dumping ACA, medicare and SS (or even just major cuts to them). But if we were to implement a wealth tax similar to that in norway, for instance, (1% on net assets over ~150k€) that would make it harder for *anyone* to FIRE, and would increase taxes for almost everyone in this sub who's been saving for a while. It's not just a situation of "if I'm so wealthy to qualify for a wealth tax" if that happens. It would be a drag on anybody with substantial savings, well before you even got to FI levels of wealth.
Dems had a trifecta for 2 years and no wealth tax plan even made it out of committee (and the ones that have been proposed have limits of like 50M NW, way way beyond the vast majority of us). There’s only one side that’s an actual threat.
Dems also want to expand the ACA which would greatly benefit most of us here. As I'm sure I'm not the only one who has to save more and longer to cover health insurance. Social safety nets on general are likely to all be a meet positive for this community given they all help mitigate risk.
Trying to get all Democrats on the same page has historically been like herding cats. Also, there is still a place for moderates in the Democratic Party. And as far as the ACA was made, all progress came to a halt when Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts. That's when (IIRC) the Senate had to just vote for the passed House plan exactly as it passed in the House, so it wouldn't be subject to a filibuster that way.
Well considering they all need DNC pac money for reelections… if dem leadership really wanted to get stuff done they could probably find a way…
Any wealth tax is going to be looking at 8+ figure NW's or huge incomes. I know we feel wealthy around here but 7 figures is not what they think of when they talk about the "wealthy."
In terms of what's been proposed by anybody here, that's true, but in terms of what is actual tax law in similar countries it is not. If people ever really got on the wealth tax bandwagon, it's not completely implausible that we could see a wealth tax similar to what you see in norway (where you pay 1% on everything over ~150k€ in NW). I'm not saying I think that's likely. It seems *much* less likely to me than one that starts in the 8 figures or at least 7 figures US, but I don't think you can completely ignore the possibility conditional on something like a wealth tax ever actually being implemented here.
I’d agree with you if we were having this conversation 20 years ago. These aren’t normal times.
People have been fervently stating this same thing during every election cycle for generations. When was the last time you heard someone in power during an election cycle say that voting for either side was reasonable and that things would mostly work out regardless?
https://youtu.be/jrnRU3ocIH4?si=VDupvhj_qbmAxEqi Here you go. You might be interested to learn that politics used to actually be about trying to do well for the country and respect between politicians. Trump and the current state of the Republican party is a different beast that needs to be shut down if we want to unify as a whole.
I worked professionally with both parties for several years, along with many of their supporting NGOs and affiliated entities. I assure you I don't need excerpts of political product to be informed about how the system and parties work.
Then why did you come on here and spout information that was easily able to be proven false? When in relatively recent history we had a contentious, but respectful battle for the white house between 2 men who showed their respect for one another and the country directly to the faces of those who couldn't, instead of fanning the flames and using dog whistles at every opportunity. Certainly if you worked professionally with them for so long you'd have remembered such a thing happened instead of getting on here and pulling the same rhetoric as the "both sides are the same" crowd.
I work as a video editor and can tell you that a large reason why people feel like things are worse is because that's all you're allowed to see. The people running know hate is better for memory than non hate, so it works out for them too. Don't be fooled. The candidates want this. The news wants this. People want this. Don't get sucked into the fear vortex just because it's hypnotic
I worked for them both for years and yes, they are both largely the same in my opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, nor am I offering to explain, but merely presenting my opinion. Everyone is free to think of it as they will. If it pleases you to think the parties are actually markedly different, then do so. Most folks who are more than marginally aligned with either side like to think that is the case. That's a critical part of how modern two-party politics works and is a feature, not a bug.
[удалено]
Blanket statements about either party that devolve into accusations of things like hate are inherently uncivil to huge swaths of the population. Again, you can make your points without calling names or casting insults. Or don't, in which case please make those points in other subs.
Except the dems have had majorities in both houses and the White House during Clinton, Obama and Biden but wealth tax has never been on the table.. in fact they all expanded corporate subsidies and Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts… the wealth tax was on the same list as codifying abortion, closing Gitmo, prosecuting Bush admin for war crimes, minimum wage, college affordability, reinstating the financial and environmental regulations Clinton did away with etc…
I think you are focusing or worrying about the wrong issue. FIRE will be irrelevant if capitalism and democracy as we know it cease to exist. The concept of FIRE is only possible in western economies. No other part of the world has a robust capitalist and free economies that allow for FIRE. I think you should worry about whether democracy as we know it today will exist in America in the next 5 to 10 years. This is not an alarmist thought. I really hope I am wrong for many reasons including obviously my ability to quit my job wherever I want. Many people elsewhere in the world don’t have such a luxury.
Remember when we were told Biden was going to push the green new deal and he'd be coming for our cheeseburgers? He would come take my guns and crash the stock market? Guess what? After nearly a full term I still eat all the cheeseburgers I want, my gun collection is safe and I am bordering on becoming wealthy! It will be okay. Save money, stay diversified. No changes required. As for your finale question regarding policy, who knows? Right policies may boost the economy and returns. They could limit access to tax breaks for those who are not truly poor. They could overheat the economy and bring inflation back. Just stay the course. When you can live your chosen lifestyle with a little less than 4% withdrawals, you are free. Same is it ever was....
[удалено]
[удалено]
We may be there, too. My wife is 56, and our plan is for her to work until 60 in her current capacity so she can retire with eligibility to keep her health insurance at somewhat reduced rates. After that, she may go part time since the health benefits will be secured.
This is what I wish my parents understood. They are very one sided based off nothing but I'm welthy and I want to stay that way but explaining that she shouldn't need to worry about herself but instead me and my generation and the kids she keeps begging for me to have. Like congrats you'll be fine for the next 20- 30 years bc you are retiring at the top. I am not and I am scared of what will happen to my SS and my retirement and my economy in the next 20 years.
If I could opt out of social security I would. It would be extremely difficult to invest that money and get a worse return that social security.
You can opt out. Move out of the US, renounce your citizenship and tada, you don't have to do anything to support your fellow American anymore. For many senior citizens, it's the one thing keeping them off the streets. With taxes, you might personally never see the money. But Social Security means you pay in, you get something and someone less well off gets something too. Seems like a win win actually.
We have a $34T debt and a $2T deficit. We NEED to cut back and go through some minor discomfort now or we’re going to have another Great Depression and hyperinflation for years.
Pretty sure you, or someone like you, probably made this same argument 20 years ago. SS can be fixed--made solvent permanently--by removing the income cap. Until Democrats actually have the genitals to do so, the program will continue to sputter along, and longer than most think as they are always revising upward by a year or two due to the excellent US economy every few years.
Most people's FIRE savings aren't going to do ANYTHING by the time they retire. I'm much more focused on moving out of the country, than waiting around for Christian fascists to ruin this country.
This is hilarious timing. My wife and I are considering moving to Canada some way or how. Looking at Alberta province. We both have chronic conditions and work remotely. Trying to explore what to do...all our meds are covered there, and the 15% reduction in expenses is awesome.
Killing SS isn't going to happen. Way too large a voting block. Means testing? Maybe. Increasing FRA? Maybe. But seriously cutting it? Isn't going to happen. With ACA, the only thing real likely to go away is the subsidies based on income level. I could see something like means testing there where subsidies are based off net worth and not income, so that someone with $3M in an IRA can't take subsidies but people living at poverty level can. You're worried about nothing. These two items are way down on the list of things that could kill a FIRE plan. Tanking the economy is a far greater danger.
> way too large a voting block I could very well see younger voters getting cut out. They could gradually defund the program so older conservative voters get their piece, while the younger voters who are paying in (and voting left) don't get a dime. This is always a risk with ponzi scheme structures. With lowering population growth, we have to cut other programs to keep it afloat. Or find new tax revenue streams. With certain people in power, they will do something like defunding SS instead. IMO, never worth factoring SS for an early retirement. Anything more than a decade away from paying out is off the plan. ACA could be the real loss. Not that ACA is any good, but not having it at all would be near catastrophic
I'm in my 50s and I've been hearing that alarm bell (SS isn't going to be around) for at least 15 years. Best bet is to plan on it being gone, but counting it as a nice bonus if it's still there. The people that truly need SS will always be covered. I have a neighbor that has it as a sole source of income. I can't imagine the government cutting that off. As for ACA, my guess is the subsidies will go away but the open market place will remain. Honestly that was the best change the ACA brought around anyway. I don't have an issue with people paying full boat for their insurance if they're FIREing.
Without reform, the trust fund will exhaust its reserves in 2035 and result in a 20% benefit cut. [trustees report](https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/tr2024.pdf) It’s going to scramble a lot of politics to make any reform possible. Rs will never raise the payroll tax and Ds will never countenance benefit cuts so we’re kind of fucked. I think a combination or eliminating the payroll tax cap and means testing social security at a super high level could help kick the can down the road a bit, so that’s a more likely outcome to me.
We only need to kick the can long enough for the boomers to die. Once that bulge in demographics is no longer collecting benefits, then the budget gets easier. So 1964+75=2039. We just need to make it to 2039 without a complete collapse in the program. The years 2030-2039 will be rough.
Wrong. Millennials are bigger as a generation in the US than Boomers. We are unique in the first world in that regard. Millennials are an even bigger problem for social security than the Boomers...
Subsidies ending will be the effective end of private ACA plans, except for younger people who have lowish premiums already and very wealthy people. Nomally the Republicans take thier cues from the business communty, and I think for several reasons getting rid of ACA subsidies is not at the top of their wish list.
We FIREd last year... if the subsidies are repealed our current ACA Gold premium will go from something like $300/month to $2000/month. We can afford that but I suspect a lot of FIRE folks can't.
Increasing FRA is cutting it. You’d get less at every age.
Project 2025 would tank the economy
And the environment.
Dictators don't need elections so why worry about doing unpopular things?
You’re assuming voting will still matter. With a president immune from any wrongdoing for official acts…. There will be no reason to care about getting votes. With control of airwaves, eradicating the department of education, and cronyism in government posts it won’t take long to subdue the populace to go along with whatever. The government will just redirect any unhappiness on scapegoated groups. Whoever is complaining about those in power will become one of those targeted groups.
If you look at proposals that *almost* passed in 2017, there was one that changed subsidies in a way that would be bad for the poor (and many would have dropped off and had no insurance), and potentially *good* for many better off people. There was also one that passed the house came within a vote or two of passing the senate that would have removed promises of essential benefits and guaranteed issue with no pre-existing condition exceptions. That really would have basically sunk health insurance for any potential early retirees with problematic health conditions -- either self-insure, stay working, or find some unicorn baristaFIRE job where you can get employer health insurance part time. Maybe be able to get some small business small group insurance either by hiring somebody, or being part of a self-employed association group. in some way. But probably have to be doing some kind of substantial economic activity (i.e. working, if part time) to make those happen too. I think it's unlikely that it will go through, but I absolutely don't think it's anywhere near "not gonna happen". It very nearly did 7 years ago. Killing SS I agree is massively unlikely, and probably medicare too, but significant cuts to both, especially if they can be sold as necessary and/or can be made somewhat invisible, seems well within the realm of possibility. Also killing medicaid expansions seems pretty plausible and that would affect a TON of people, if not be that big a deal for people in the FIRE community.
Everyone vote. So much is at risk this election.
You’re not FI if you’re dependent on any government program. They should always be looked at as ancillary to your plans.
Unless you're prepared to self-insure through death and accept zero tax supports, then pretty much everyone is dependent on gov policy handouts. Medicare, tax-advantaged retirement accounts, subsidized treatment of cap gains, tax supports for employer-sponsored benefits, tax supports for small biz and real estate, and such are all government programs.
This is not true. Many early retirements rely on ACA to get insurance. Without the protections it gives some people would be unable to get insurance and would be unable to retire.
The individual insurance market before the ACA was in bad shape. If you had preexisting conditions, it was prohibitively expensive. If you failed to declare a preexisting condition, an insurer could kick you off insurance just when you need it, so you had to declare every medical issue you've ever had when enrolling, and who can remember all that? The ACA is what made RE possible to do safely in the US, to a first order.
I had individual insurance before ACA was enacted. I have insurance through my employer now, but have shopped around, if anything it's **much** more expensive. Ending the preexisting condition clause was a great step forward, but other than that health care has gotten even more prohibitively expensive and people get denied for all sorts of other reasons (loopholes). I appreciate what ACA attempted to do, but if anything it really didn't do enough to address insurance companies leaching off of American's need for healthcare. They are still making money hand over fist.
The reason individual insurance got more expensive is *because* of the preexisting condition clauses going away. Before the ACA, any non-group insurer could just kick you off or inform you that a preexisting condition would not be covered at a renewal date if they decided you were too expensive. You could sign up for insurance, but if you actually *needed* it in a big way, you wouldn't be able to *keep* it, because it was very hard to find any guaranteed renewable policies, and the ones you *could* find, were about as expensive as ACA plans are now or more so, adjusted for overall health inflation. Most people had individual plans that were great as long as all they had to cover were a few doctor appointments. And they'd be fine if you had an acute hospital condition too, but if you had long term complications or otherwise acquired a *chronic* condition that was expensive to treat, you'd get bounced at the next renewal and then not be able to get any but very expensive insurance if you could get any at all.
Cool so you’re going to give up social security and Medicare?
What the fuck happened to these threads? So sad
In all seriousness, we are looking at property in another country specifically because of Project 2025. I mean we are flying there next month. Project 2025 is very very clear in their intent to take us back to an America that our family is not welcome in.
I'm honestly not afriad. Truly having FIRE means you are prepared to weather any storm. That's what this group is all about right?
Before the ACA, you could get sick, lose your insurance because of some BS red tape (often, the insurer alleges you forgot to disclose a preexisting condition), and then to re-enroll on insurance you'd have to pay many thousands a month due to now being sick. Or else go back to work full time, if you can, to get on employer sponsored care. It was dismal. This is exactly the sort of negative financial shock that insurance is supposed to cover, to protect you. The old individual market was dysfunctional and often failed to provide that protection. I don't think it's right to suggest people should save enough to weather any storm, out of savings, self-insured. Most of us would need to save 2-3x more than we actually probably need, just to cover those tail risks. That doesn't seem efficient -- it seems distortive, in aggregate, that model would encourage people to work too long, save too much, and retire too late.
What if the stock market tanks ?
I recommend always having cash sitting in a HYSA so you can buy more of your favorite assets and ride the wave back up
Here is link to the full Project 2025. All 922 pages pulled from Heritage Foundation. Not summary talking points from liberals being passed around on social media. Open up and use search to look for references to ACA and social security. Please cite the page number where ACA and social security is being eliminated. [Project 2025 Full Text](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf)
Page 450 (written page number, not pdf page) Goal #2 talks about how health insurance should be “market based” and needs to be deregulated. It doesn’t explicitly say that ACA needs to be removed. I don’t see anything about Social Security reform which is surprising.
There's some interesting stuff in there. Searching for "repeal" turns up that they want to repeal mandatory food labeling standards. Yikes. Anyway, there is "Separate the subsidized ACA exchange market from the non-subsidized insurance market." on page 469. This terse section proposes to deregulate most of the individual insurance market, without specifying which regulations they would remove. That sounds like a very large change, which if they're serious deserves more than a paragraph. Reading between the lines, I would guess this section is a compromise. Several people wrote this document. Probably some of them haven't given up on repealing the ACA, and some of them don't think it's a winning issue. Some of them probably even understand why the regulations are helpful and necessary for the market to function economically. So they settled on this wordsmithed paragraph. The optimistic view is that ACA repeal isn't a top priority for Republicans anymore, the pessimistic view is that this paragraph is promising to kneecap it quietly. I can't really tell what we're getting in this package. Do we need Nutrition Facts for political platforms?
They want to repeal the GMO labeling mandate, not all food labeling. From page 307: >Despite the importance of agricultural biotechnology, in 2016, Congress passed a federal mandate to label genetically engineered food. This legislation was arguably just a means to try to provide a negative connotation to GE food. There are other challenges as well for agricultural biotechnology. For example, Mexico plans to ban the importation of U.S. genetically modified yellow corn. The next Administration should: >Counter scare tactics and remove obstacles. The USDA should strongly counter scare tactics regarding agricultural biotechnology and adopt policies to remove unnecessary barriers to approvals and the adoption of biotechnology. >Repeal the federal labeling mandate. The USDA should work with Congress to repeal the federal labeling law, while maintaining federal preemption, and stress that voluntary labeling is allowed.
I mean for those not willing to put aside time to read a thousand pages, can you share where popular opinion has it wrong and right?
You don’t need to read 1000 pages. Open up and use search. Look for references to “ACA” and “Social Security”. Can be done in less than two minutes to get your answer.
I mean I’m just more curious about what it is as opposed to what I’m being told about it —
The risk is real regardless of Project 2025 though. Repealing the ACA was one of the major legislative initiatives during the 2016-2020 term. They didn't have the votes back then but the Republican voting block has consolidated much more tightly around Trump since then.
No one will ever touch social security to the degree where it will affect people even remotely close to retirement age today. It’s political suicide regardless of party.
I hope you are right, but feel that you are wrong. Doing nothing and blaming the other party while benefits get automatically cut I "feel" is what we are likely going to see.
People FIRE long before ACA was a thing and they will continue to FIRE with or without ACA. People FIRE when college cost was an after thought and they continue to FIRE when college costs almost as much a house. I believe that it’s only the matter of time before ACA requirement takes everything into account rather than just MAGI. Manipulating MAGI to get subsidized health care is a loophole.
I'm mostly with you, probably 95%, on the ACA looking at assets rather than just MAGI. It seems appropriate to me but I'm interested in hearing, from a sane person, why it should be kept as is. Maybe I'll make a post on that. However, FIRE before the ACA was more difficult not because of the subsidies. Trying to get private healthcare was a shitshow and you could be denied/dropped for just about any definition of a preexisting condition that the insurance provider could come up with. I support the general framework of the ACA as I think it was an improvement on our previous healthcare system.
Won’t pass you should probably worry more about increases to capital gains taxes
Project 2025 is deeply unpopular which is why Trump pulled out his 10ft pole recently. There is nothing unique about Project 2025, it’s a political organization like the Tea Party movement and it’ll flame out just as fast
Really? He has lots of staffers involved in project 2025. His distancing is just another lie. None of this strikes me as good for the economy or the markets. The Project seeks to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid,[19][20] and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care.[21][22] The Project states that life begins at conception,[19] and seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act[19] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and recieve contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide.[22][23] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[6] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[24] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[24][25] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[3][25] as well as affirmative action[26] by instead having the DOJ prosecute "anti-white racism."[27] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by using the military to capture and place them in internment camps.[28][29] The Insurrection Act of 1807 would be used to allow the military to engage in domestic policing and assist capturing undocumented immigrants.[30][31] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[32]
Some things I'm doing, getting older and nearer to Medicare. If I have to pay full price it will be for a limited number of years. Have a second passport, I can fly in and get instant coverage for a few years if I have to. Honestly the country is over if a dictator takes power.
Primary source here. There's an executive summary on the first 15 pages. https://www.project2025.org/playbook/ Main points: 1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children. 2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people. 3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats. 4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”
That’s the propaganda part. The part of what they will do is what’s scary. “The Project seeks to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid,[19][20] and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care.[21][22] The Project states that life begins at conception,[19] and seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception under the Affordable Care Act[19] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and recieve contraceptives and abortion pills nationwide.[22][23] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[6] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[24] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[24][25] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[3][25] as well as affirmative action[26] by instead having the DOJ prosecute "anti-white racism."[27] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States by using the military to capture and place them in internment camps.[28][29] The Insurrection Act of 1807 would be used to allow the military to engage in domestic policing and assist capturing undocumented immigrants.[30][31] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[32]” It’s basically authoritarian fascism. The market will not react kindly to that.
Has the cost of healthcare become more or less affordable since the Affordable Care Act?
More. Especially for the 20 million Americans who didn’t have coverage without it, and the millions upon millions more who couldn’t get any coverage that wasn’t employer based because of pre existing conditions.
Republicans don't care about Climate Change. Why would you worry about retiring if our planet would become inhabitable in a matter of decades ?
I'm so sick of hearing about this like it's actually going to come to fruition and isn't some sort of democrat fear porn. Congress can't even pass the most basic of laws and you expect this to get jammed thru? Let me sum it up for you. If Biden gets in he'll play on some identity politics to appeal to his base while funding big pharma and the military industrial complex and his own pockets with debt. If trump gets in he'll play on some identity politics, fund big pharma and the military industrial complex and his own pockets, also with debt. This shit is at this point so boring.
If your FIRE plan is dependent on a specific government program, then perhaps you should consider bumping up your number a bit.
It's a presidential election year. The vast majority of all threats and promises made in relation to politics at any time are never going to come to fruition, but this is even more true during election years. This has been true in every election cycle for longer than any of us has been alive. It's a lot less beneficial for both fundraising/turnout/engagement/advertising to tell people that the status quo will mostly continue regardless of who wins, but that's always the default outcome given the immense inertia in our culture/government and how resistant our system is to major change. Change obviously does happen, but it's slow and steady and driven more by the people than by our politicians, who are merely representatives of our collective will.
Millions of women in multiple states have lost their right for bodily autonomy. Women are dying and being forced to carry dying babies. The majority of people support abortion rights. That is not the status quo from almost 50 years prior and just one example of real harm Trump as already caused and it was quite quick in the grand scheme of things. The current Supreme Court is terrifying and will be in power for decades. If Trump stacks it even more, their ability to tear down so many things will continue even longer.
Every thread about Project2025, I am truly baffled at which posts are downvoted (including this post). It truly seems like people enjoy the fear mongering, and anyone who makes a well-balanced and sober post gets downvoted.
We cannot continue on this trajectory. Tough choices must be made. some sort of austerity half measures must be implemented now or else very draconian measures will be forced on us later on. we either let putin have ukraine, and let xi have taiwan, or we make real cuts to our non military spending now…not just cuts to the increases but real cuts. age 68 for full retirement increase from 10 years to 15 years for SS vestment increase ACA premiums for early retirees lean on NATO and force them to pay up more no student loan forgiveness no bailouts raise the cap on FICA tax stop giving IRS refunds to people in excess of their total tax paid for the year Include SNAP and EBT and tuition pell gants and section8 benefits, and other such federal financial aid in the calculation for SS benefits as reductions to their SS payments, or increased taxes on the SS benefits.
Cut defense spending
Then we let individual liberties die a slow death. china and russia will own the world. The ancient greek democratic concept of disbursed decentralized government power (except in times of war) will be gone forever.
[удалено]
Presidents have a lot of power over trade, immigration, and war. I would focus on those more than domestic policy. Those alone are serious inflationary political risks. I believe diversifying internationally should help mitigate this risk slightly. And I think it’s a reason to invest broad market instead of picking stocks or even overweighting in some direction. But, you can only mitigate this risk a little if it’s happening everywhere around the world at once.