ncbill
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
My example assumes a 10% total return from the portfolio in both scenarios. The $$s to cover the expenses shown ($60K) are coming from a totally different source (in my case, a second cash/CD portfolio that generates income). That's the whole point of the example. The example is PURELY to show that if you spend down from the investment portfolio, the investment portfolio value will be less than if you do not spend from it - regardless if the market goes up, down, or stays level.
The key point I was attempting to make is that there's no shortcut to figuring out if keeping income < 4X FPL is a "better" option than maximizing income and foregoing the subsidy. FOR US, maximizing income and foregoing the subsidy netted a larger balance on BOTH portfolios (investments and cash/CDs) than keeping our income < 4X FPL and taking the subsidies. That's because staying under 4X FPL meant that we would not be generating enough income to pay the bills, and instead would have to pull from one or the other portfolio to do so.
I'd still suggest OP model out both scenarios year by year through remaining life expectancy to see which option yields a better end result. You can't look at it in the context of only one year and instead need to see the impact that the decision to limit income to get subsidies will have on your end result by looking at portfolio growth, income stream and expenses on a year by year basis, through age 95 or whatever age you choose to model through.
But that's not a valid assumption for the OP.
As long as the OP can live with a mAGI less than the 4x cliff they can also enjoy a few thousand after-tax dollars worth of ACA subsidies.
Last edited: