Poll: Which of these is unethical?

[gerntz]

LTC insurance is very difficult to get nowadays

Not so much difficult to get as it's difficult to afford. Insurance companies finally figured out consumers of LTC weren't behaving as the companies expected - to the companies' financial detriment - & so have now priced it 3x or so higher than previously.

 

[gerntz]

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

But that doesn't have anything to do with government benefits manipulation that I can see.
which is what I thought this thread was focused on.

 

[gerntz]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Big_Hitter]

Not so much difficult to get as it's difficult to afford. Insurance companies finally figured out consumers of LTC weren't behaving as the companies expected - to the companies' financial detriment - & so have now priced it 3x or so higher than previously.

it's difficult to get - do you know anyone that has submitted an application within the last year or two?

 

[pb4uski]

But that doesn't have anything to do with government benefits manipulation that I can see.
which is what I thought this thread was focused on.

If you read some of the early posts you will see that there were many who viewed that if something was legal then by default it must be ethical and the post was in response to that notion.

 

[marko]

My town has a deal for retired town employees: If you come down with a (ahem) "disability" within 6 years of retiring, the town must pick up your Federal taxes on your COLA'd pension for the rest of your life. The disability can be as unspecific as tinnitus, a bad back or minor skin cancer.
Naturally, very few are not 'disabled' and with a typical pension of about $70K get a nice raise soon after getting that gold watch.

With stuff like that (only one example), it's easy to feel that you're the only one who is paying full freight and not in the game; easy to want to look for your own errrrr....opportunities.

I don't begrudge anyone for getting what they can.

 

[foxfirev5]

Great day for an ethics discussion. I went with my gut and voted that the Medicaid LTC and unemployment issues are clearly unethical.

The Roth conversions are a pay me now pay me later proposition regarding taxes. While do them I'm not certain the outcome based on future developments. Likewise w/ SS. Theoretically the govt. doesn't even care when you take it. However I found a new reason to take it at 62. Rather than trying to manipulate the system I'm taking the high road and just accepting a lower payout rather than optimizing my benefits (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

I really struggle with the ACA issue. My feelings are pretty strong that everyone in the worlds richest country should have adequate healthcare. Since I'm one of the fortunate one's that have retiree medical at a reasonable cost, I am not directly involved (at least not this year). My gut tells me to treat it as any other tax credit. Anyone who is restricting their lifestyle to minimize income for a credit is also paying an additional price.

Not to go all high and mighty here but DW and I are approaching our 40th anniversary. We've never collected welfare, although we qualified in 1978, never collected unemployment, we just got another job. When DW was near the end of her career as a nurse she was diagnosed with several ruptured discs and serious spinal degeneration. Several DR's told her to go on disability. Instead she took a job as a research nurse at a major university for a couple of years.

Both of us have been very fortunate so I have a hard time passing judgement. However cheating on unemployment or getting Grandma on Medicaid by shuffling assets is just wrong.

 

[Moemg]

You forgot manipulating income to avoid student loan repayment .

 

[REWahoo]

You also forgot failure to pay sales tax on online purchases.

 

[Luck_Club]

This is a very interesting debate, and could be the founding papers for a better society.

On the one side you have those who believe that the rules are the rules, and you should maximize the rules to your personal advantage.

In the other camp you have a group that believes people should through confiscation policies force society to take care of others, and taking advantage of certain rules is ok when it applies to their needs, but taking advantage of others is deplorable.

The one thing missing from the debate, and I would believe we aren't that far apart, is should we take care of others who can't take care of themselves, and if we should what is the best way to accomplish that goal.

Though I believe the rules are the rules. As such under the current society, I fundamentally believe that redistribution policies encourages as opposed to discourages unethical albeit legal behavior. In other words "I'm stupid not to get mine when all around me people are getting money for nothing".

Being a landlord, I can personally testify to the unintended consequences run a muck under the current rules with regard to section 8 housing, WIC, and other welfare programs. As a result, I'm of the mindset I'd prefer the government to over correct on stopping the redistribution policies. With that being said I don't want to see the elderly, children and handicapped begging in the street either.

My theory is that if the government would get out of the charity business, society would step in to fill the need. You would see a resurgence of fraternal, churches and community organizations. Along with more extended family support.

 

[pb4uski]

.... My theory is that if the government would get out of the charity business, society would step in to fill the need. You would see a resurgence of fraternal, churches and community organizations. Along with more extended family support.

An interesting point... and I think you might be right. I think that fraternal, religious and community organizations may be better positoned to ferret out those legitimately deserving of assistance versus those who are milking the system for all it is worth because they are the grass roots and the people needing help are people that they know and understand than some bureaucrats.

 

[gayl]

In the other camp you have a group that believes people should through confiscation policies force society to take care of othersome .... My theory is that if the government would get out of the charity business, society would step in to fill the need. You would see a resurgence of fraternal, churches and community organizations. Along with more extended family support.

All for families taking care of their own but that statement on taxes as

confiscation policies

deserves an oh snap LOL

 

[mamadogmamacat]

I chose what turned out to be the two most popular because I believe they both require you, when applying to state either your intention to look for work or that you have no other assets or something like that. For most of the people I know through Church who get medicaid, they have very little, so it is appropriate for them to get it IMHO. Anything that requires lying I believe is unethical, and also Medicaid is underfunded so those who take from it when they still have assets are essentially stealing form those least able to fend for themselves.

I may not always like the way ACA is structured but it is legal and therefore to my mind no more unethical than any other legal tax mgmt process. Since i have a ridiculously expensive retiree medical plan, I don't play in ACA world, which admittedly annoys me some, but cant really see it as unethical, just a tad jealousy inducing

 

[rodi]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.