I think it would also be a glaring error to assume these are retirees. What evidence do you have that they are retirees and not 30 year olds that are purposely holding back productivity because of the incentive the government is now giving to not work?
Uh, what? The government isn't really giving an incentive at all. If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people.
You also have to consider the small business case. I can't tell you how many technology workers I know who have health issues and would otherwise be building a startup or working as a consultant, but before the ACA they could never dream of getting or keeping health insurance. I mean I'm a relatively healthy 20-something and was denied health insurance several times, and when I was approved, was paying ridiculous amounts per month because I was 10 pounds overweight.
Putting those prices back in line for most people and not tying health insurance to a full-time job is the whole point. I fail to see how this is government offering an incentive of any sort, unless that's what you meant and it was poorly phrased?
If I were young and didn't have a lifestyle that required a full-time salary, I certainly wouldn't be shackled to a full-time job just to keep insurance. I think that's the case for a ton of people.
So you are saying you might produce less as a result of subsidies given to you if you choose not to have a full time job? You are agreeing with 300bps.
What I'm saying is if, for example, my spouse and I could work enough to pay our bills without working full-time jobs I absolutely would. And that would not require taking advantage of a government subsidy. If I worked 10 hours a week as a consultant at $120/hour, that's over $60k, well out of the realm of any real "subsidy" from the government for insurance.
The government isn't really giving an incentive at all
This statement is incredibly naive and shows a complete lack of knowledge of economics. When the government gives incentives for making less money, then they are giving an incentive to make less money. It's that simple, but let me explain.
To get a bronze family plan on healthcare.gov, I was quoted $12,000 per year with a $12,700 deductible. Basically, I'd be paying $24,000 per year for healthcare.
That's the list price, which is what I have to pay if my wife and I make more than $96,000 per year (1/4 of the income goes toward healthcare). The cost goes down the less I make below $96,000. This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.
* This is government giving me an incentive to make less money.*
Or at least report less income. I bet a lot of people will move into the shadow economy, and get paid in cash. Instead of getting a W2 with 50k on it, I can work a part time job and report 20k, and do some off books work for 30k. I would qualify for the subsidy, and get a chunk of cash that I don't pay taxes on.
"[...] under Obama the average annual number of tax crime prosecutions sought by the Justice Department has been 1,568, versus 1,303 under Bush."
Doesn't sound like that's going to strike fear in the hearts of many. Plus I suspect detecting small fry like in byoung2's example is rather difficult.
That's a seriously narrow definition of "incentive." It's only an incentive if the amount they're offering you is more than the difference in income, which you and I both know it isn't.
And I have no clue what state you live in or your age obviously, but in Florida, which (previously) had some of the highest health care costs in the country, a family Bronze plan is only like $4k a year. I could get a Platinum plan with $0 deductible for about 30% than the price you're quoting. So, let's not act like those are normative numbers.
Incentive has a very specific meaning, and you don't understand what it means. If I offer you $1 to prance around like a monkey, then I've offered you an incentive to prance around like a monkey. It doesn't matter if you could make $2 slithering around like a snake. I've still given you an incentive to change your behavior, and many people will prefer the offer I am giving and thereby change their behavior.
And beyond that, you have no idea what you're talking about. I just put in my exact family situation into healthcare.gov for Broward County in FL and it is $987 per month with a $12,000 deductible for every Bronze plan. I'm guessing you're entering a ridiculously low income and taking the subsidies into account. Or you're looking at the catastrophic plans and thinking it's bronze, which it's not.
This will be my last response; you are an incredibly naive person and it is not my job to educate you.
I do get what you are saying, I just think it is a weak incentive. If you were making $96k would you forego part of your income in order to get a subsidy?
You need to look at the marginal cost on making that next dollar.
It's a big problem for our official poor, where there are wide ranges of income that cost them more in government benefits than they get in highly repressively taxed income.
And look at the results of supply side tax rate cuts, JFK's from 91%, Reagan's from 50% and 75% as I remember ("earned" and "unearned" (passive) income). Those had major effects, and while I'd gone to college a year before the latter's election I noticed how it changed my parent's economic behavior in ways that were good for the economy.
Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you w/r/t policies outside of the ACA, but weren't we talking about health insurance and a guy that makes $96k? In looking at the tables for Health Insurance Marketplace subsidies, I just don't see the major impact here.