Poll: Which of these is unethical?

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cessna152 .... The law happens to be very specific about these being legal. The ethics were supposed to be determined by consensus prior to them becoming law. Therefore to the extent they are legal they are ethical. ....

While you make a good point it is also like a dog chasing its tail.... a law or regulations are created to prevent a particular practice that is viewed as unethical so it is made illegal.... after the law or regulation is put in place some people find loopholes to continue the practice in some way, shape or form... then lawmakers recognize it and close the loophole (or give up), rinse and repeat.

I'm actually a bit flabbergasted that so many posters link legality with ethicality and believe that if something is legal then it is ethical. If that were true then there would be no need to create any more laws than we have now.

When I was born it was legal to discriminate against people of color but that didn't mean that it was ethical.

The unemployment benefit item was a last minute addition... it wasn't part of our discussion on the other thread but I recalled that it has periodically come up in the past and there were different views on whether it was right or not.

[scrabbler1]

I voted only for the unemployment choice for the same reason Kcowan, Flintnational, and others stated.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Taking unemployment with no intent to seek work is legal? I thought seeking work was a requirement in all states. I was surprised to see that structuring assets to qualify for Medicaid gets a lot of negative response. I thought that was one that Medicaid Services suggests (spend down and you will qualify). They have a five year look-back to make sure you haven't transferred assets. Edit: I only just now saw the irrevocable living trust thread so I understand the antipathy to Medicaid restructuring.

Yes the difference is between those close to impoverished spending down assets to qualify ... although a short time of private pay in a nursing home will easily take care of that... and those of substantial means who create irrevocable trusts or other manuevers to qualify for Medicaid LTC benefits so they can pass their wealth on to their children.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer This is a very interesting and thought provoking poll. Along with a "None of the above", an "All of the above" Also could be an option. Also, what is considered ethical or moral by one person may be considered not by another. Kind of like plaiying to win all all costs vs how you play the game. Thought provoking!

One can chose more than one so "All of the above" was unnecessary since one could just check all other than "None of the above".

[gerntz]

Unless you're actually violating a law, there's no such thing as being unethical wrt government interactions. It makes laws/regs/rules, then you work within them as suits you best w/o violating them. Besides, how can you be unethical with something that isn't inherently ethical?

[pb4uski]

An interesting video on legal vs ethics. I was particularly struck by the example of wh fere some people protested at the funeral of a fallen soldier... IMO clearly unethical but also clearly legal because of the first amendment... a great example that legal is not necessarily ethical.

https://youtu.be/CNarucwXMtE

[NoiseBoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Taking unemployment with no intent to seek work is legal? I thought seeking work was a requirement in all states.

My chief complaint about unemployment benefits is that they can be used by seasonal workers to bridge the winter, or off-season, months. This scenario plays out best in two income households where one spouse has a 12 month job that provides HI benefits. It is unethical because the seasonal worker is collecting unemployment benefits, but has no intention of finding a new job and is only waiting to be re-hired by his/her seasonal employer.

I have also heard of workers who get "laid off" just before retiring so they can collect UI benefits.

Regarding using a trust to hide assets in order to qualify for Medicaid, in my city there is only one decent supportive living facility that accepts Medicaid patients, so I don't think that strategy would play too well here. The best assisted living / skilled nursing / memory care facilities in my community are all 100% private pay.

[pb4uski]

Another interesting revelation of this poll is that with 75 responses, none think that Roth conversions or timing when to begin SS are unethical... I agree... but a couple folks in the other thread that spawned this poll were arguing that it was as unethical as sheltering assets to qualify for Medicaid LTC benefits.

The percentage thus far for none of the above is surprising but a lot of that probably are folks who believe that if something is legal then it is ethical (or moral).

[FIREmenow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski An interesting video on legal vs ethics. I was particularly struck by the example of wh fere some people protested at the funeral of a fallen soldier... IMO clearly unethical but also clearly legal because of the first amendment... a great example that legal is not necessarily ethical. https://youtu.be/CNarucwXMtE

While I wholeheartedly agree that this is clearly wrong, I don't consider it unethical. Maybe immoral......

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Quote:

Ethics vs. Morals. ... While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong.

[pb4uski]

Good point... I was probably more thinking immoral when I titled the poll but I wrote ethical.... though I don't view them as being that different... I have a hard time thinking of something that would be immoral but ethical or unethical but moral.

Not so sure I agree with you now... when I went to look up the opposite of immoral in the dictionary it says the antonym of immoral is .... you guessed it... ethical.

[Mdlerth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Another Reader I don't like subsidizing healthcare for wealthy people...

I don't like subsidizing healthcare for anybody, regardless of their finances. Same goes for their groceries, or their housing, or their drug rehab, or anything else. People who are assumed to be competent enough to vote should be considered competent enough to provide for themselves.

I have a well-rehearsed rant about subsidies and supply-demand and price-volume and slippery slopes and societal decay and man's inhumanity to man. But I'll spare the forum from having to read it; God knows DW has heard it often enough!

[FIREmenow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Good point... I was probably more thinking immoral when I titled the poll but I was thinking immoral.... though I don't view them as being that different... I have a hard time thinking of something that would be immoral but ethical or unethical but moral. Not so sure I agee with you now... when I went to look up the opposite of immoral the dictionary says the antonym of immoral is .... you guessed it... ethical.

LOL!! How thin is that hair?

[truenorth418]

Our elected leaders work hard to design and implement tax policy. If they did not want to make these various exclusions available, they would have written the laws differently.

While it is both immoral and illegal to break these laws, there is nothing immoral about following them.

[pb4uski]

I guess that you have never heard of the term "unintended consequences"?

If there were perfect ways to prevent abuse then you might have a point. For example, I think that most people would agree that it was not the intent of lawmakers to subsidize health insurance for people with substantial wealth, yet that is what happended in some circumstances with Obamacare subsidies since they are based on income rather than wealth. OTOH, it probably would have been very complicated and an administrative nightmare to design the process to exclude that small subset so at the end of the day it was judged as better to keep things simple even though some situations may fall through the cracks

[aaronc879]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski scrabbler1, I agree with you but it is a help. Senator.... a single person can get the child tax credit.... all they need to do is have a qualifying child. Seriously, I understand your frustration.. but OTOH with a declining population in the US we need to increase birth rates for the long term benefit of the country and the child tax credit helps young families so I don't have much of an issue with it.

US Population by Year

The US population has continued to climb every year. We don't need any incentive to increase it even more. With life expectancies increasing we will be getting overcrowded soon enough.

[FIREmenow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by truenorth418 Our elected leaders work hard to design and implement tax policy. If they did not want to make these various exclusions available, they would have written the laws differently.

Probably not your intent, but unfortunately I think your words are accurate (my emphasis), and based on lobbying, not the will of the people.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronc879 US Population by Year The US population has continued to climb every year. We don't need any incentive to increase it even more. With life expectancies increasing we will be getting overcrowded soon enough.

You are correct... I was referring to declining population growth... and neglected to include that key word..... and I think that is a could be a problem.... who is going to take care of us old folks?

[PatrickA5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoiseBoy My chief complaint about unemployment benefits is that they can be used by seasonal workers to bridge the winter, or off-season, months. This scenario plays out best in two income households where one spouse has a 12 month job that provides HI benefits. It is unethical because the seasonal worker is collecting unemployment benefits, but has no intention of finding a new job and is only waiting to be re-hired by his/her seasonal employer. I have also heard of workers who get "laid off" just before retiring so they can collect UI benefits.

In my state, seasonal workers don't qualify for unemployment.

[marko]

On a broader base:
Maybe it's just me, but after working 40 years, paying my taxes, keeping my nose clean and seeing so much 'gimme for free' out there, I've sort of reached the point of saying "Where's mine?"

I wouldn't break any laws but I have no qualms about getting what I can get, be it SS, ACA, unemployment or whatever.

[Tadpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Maybe you should have added "Taking a child dependent deduction when a single person is unable to do it" I am more concerned with continually paying to support other peoples children than someone maximizing the tax code to avoid taxes.

That can be said of any deduction/exemption that doesn't distribute equally among taxpayers. I could say I don't want to support a church/religion or charity if I, myself, do not make sure I get an equal write-off. These sources of individual deductions are not, as far as I can see, constitutional protections. They are individual choices just like, in today's world, children.

If I don't take or don't qualify for any deductions and my tax cohort does, I, inevitably have a higher tax burden that, in a zero sum game, can be construed to be me taking on the additional tax burden of the cohort's forgiven tax burden. (Or construed as helping pay for stained glass windows of someone else's church/religion). However one wants to think about it.