Best no-income investments?

[Rustic23]

If you want to look at every subsidy from the government to justify living of the public dole, that's fine with me. Just call it for what it is.

FIRE,for me, means one saved, planned and accomplished financial independence that then allowed one to retire early. If it means for you, that with government subsidies you can quit working, OK.

But lets be clear about it, those that find ways to minimize their current income so as to increase a government subsidy are living off the hard work of others. For me that is no different than the welfare recipient that is more than capable of working but chooses to live off the system instead.

If you want to turn this into weather other government subsidies should be abolished, you will find me in the corner of abolishing most, if not all. I have never thought the tax system should be used for social engineering of to allow your and my elected official stay to in office.

 

[travelover]

If you want to look at every subsidy from the government to justify living of the public dole, that's fine with me. Just call it for what it is. .............

Everyone that has less money than me is just too lazy to work hard like I did. Everyone that has more money than me either stole it or inherited it (as if there is a difference).

 

[Rustic23]

Now there's a point we can agree on

 

[sengsational]

Marijuana business, where legal.

All transactions are cash, in those businesses you can't even open a bank account to put it in. You run cash.

I have a friend who invested in one, he gets a FedEx package every month with his return on investment.

I am not sure how you go about investing in one.

If you get money, you owe taxes on it...all cash or not.

So this would not qualify as a good option for the OP unless both the investor and the dispensary decide to evade federal tax law.

In other words, being all cash simply makes it easier to break the law without getting caught, but you'd still be breaking the law if you didn't report it.

 

[jim584672]

Subsidies, I thought, were for people that could not afford health care. Why not go all the way, Food stamps, public housing, there are lots of things designed for those less fortunate. IMHO, subsidies were not designed to make it easier for people could stop working.

Actually they were fully aware that some would retire early due to the law. But the writers of the law said that the number that could do this was very small, and in the grand scheme of things it was much better to have an income only test due to simplicity and uniform application, instead of a complex asset/income test, which would be unduly complex, and unwieldy.

So they made a decision that the few that "get over" was worth it.

 

[Rustic23]

There was a time in this country where taking charity/welfare was looked down on. Now people are actually proud they are able to, and ask others to help them qualify. For me, that is just wrong. It is because 'the government' is doing it, and not your next door neighbor. If the same people had to go next door and ask for someone to subsidise their health care, most would never do it. And before the onslaught of 'well evil corporations do it' comes, it makes it no better. When there largess is exposed most will shrink into the woodwork, and some have even refused. Yet, not often enough. As stated in a 1945 Columbia Law Review article "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". It was true then and is now. Somebody pays.

Don't tax you, Don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree!

 

[steelyman]

I view it as "take care of each other".

 

[EastWest Gal]

If you have cash income, you need to report the income. Has nothing to do with laundering money.

 

[Chuckanut]

I'll go along with abolishing most government subsidizes assuming its fair and equitable. Bit, you might have problems getting Boeing and Tesla, to name a few others, to go along with the idea.

In the case of the ACA, I think there was already a problem with people not being able to retire or being locked into a job because of medical insurance issues. I know people who get little or no subsidy but were able to retire before 65 because the pre-existing condition exclusions are now gone. Overall, I think that is good for the economy and the younger workers in particular.

 

[marko]

There was a time in this country where taking charity/welfare was looked down on. Now people are actually proud they are able to, and ask others to help them qualify.

A lot has changed culturally in this country over the decades. "Ask not what your country can do for you" has morphed into "where's mine?" and one where, after seeing handout after handout, you start to wonder why you're not getting in line yourself.

As such, I see no problem with the ACA subsidies. IIRC they were consciously designed to include those with 'job lock', early retirees and those who just wanted to quit their job and 'follow their passion'.

 

[Chuckanut]

I believe we were already subsidizing many people. It was just hidden away.

 

[photoguy]

It seems these discussions always get side-tracked into whether taking the ACA subsidy is an ethical thing to do. While I find this a fascinating topic, perhaps it would be better to split into a different thread where people can have at it.