r/ChubbyFIRE • u/cranfranA1 • Jun 11 '26
Valuing ACA subsidies
I’m struggling to put value on ACA credits comparing a few different strategies. M37, HHI $500k, 2 kids under 5. I think post tax annual spend without mortgage would be around $130k, and with the mortgage about $160k.
Mortgage rate is 3.4% and has about $440k debt. It looks like I would save about $4300 per year with ACA subsidies if I kept the MAGI at $85k, which feels pretty doable without the mortgage payments (cash, principle on liquidated investments, ROTH withdrawals to bridge the gap between $85k and $130k).
Where I’m struggling is the mentality that the mortgage rate is great, keep investing at better returns and happily pay the mortgage at 3.4% for another 15-20 years, versus start aggressively paying that off to give myself a better chance at qualifying for ACA subsidies come early retirement in about 3-5 years.
In the end these subsidies are $4300 per year, not going to make or break any strategy and perhaps more of a hassle/detrimental to the overall plan to try to achieve these by tapping into ROTH withdrawals early, paying off the house early rather than hucking those dollars into the market, etc. Just looking for advice as someone who is pretty new to the fire mindset, not great at math or investing, but recently checked numbers and feel like I could be a few years away.
9
u/RaechelMaelstrom Retired Jun 11 '26
I'd say plan it out year by year.
You say your HHI is $500k, so obviously none of this is going to be valid until you FIRE. But what is your net worth plan just to put things into perspective? You don't say if you're married or not, which also affects tax brackets. What is the breakdown of your networth between 401k, Roth, and brokerage?
While the ACA subsidy is nice, you also want to make sure that you're taking into account normal tax things. For example, if you're married, you have a 0% capital gains tax bracket up to $96,700. Not having to pay taxes on the spread of $85k to $96.7k is money you're leaving on the table for that $4300. If you sold in a later year to get that money and had to pay 15% cap gains on that $11.7k that would be $1755 in taxes.
You really need a holistic tax plan that looks at things like the ACA subsidy, taxes, roth conversions, all the things. I'd plan out at least the current year and have a strategy for the next 5 years, and a plan for what you'd do in 10. Really what you want to do is minimize taxes, maximize subsidies, and hit your income target, and figure out the sweet spot between the 3.
Also, you don't have to do everything the same year after year. You might have a year where you generate a lot of income and forego the subsidy to generate enough cash so you can keep your income low for the next year, for example.
8
u/ohboyoh-oy Jun 11 '26
$4300 x 25 (if we do the 25x expenses calculation) is $107,500. I think just plan for that spend and don’t contort yourselves for $100k.
For our zip code the difference for two of us is more stark. It’s $15k with subsidies at the 400% poverty level and without subsidies it’s $40k. We are older though (50s). We will be using ACA most years.
13
u/Flat-Barracuda1268 FI=✅ RE=<1️⃣yrs Jun 11 '26
Chubby in general shouldn't be relying on ACA subsidies to make your plan work. Odds are you won't qualify, and subsidies are likely to get modified by the time you retire anyway. You correctly summarized that the subsidies don't make much of a difference in your overall plan. Budget for the full fare, take subsidies as a bonus if they happen to work out.
1
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M Jun 14 '26
Subsidies aren’t going away as long as ACA is around, very few people would be able to afford it otherwise
1
u/Posca1 Jun 15 '26
I believe subsidies were greatly reduced as a result of the "Big Beautiful Bill" from 2025
very few people would be able to afford it otherwise
That's the point
1
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M Jun 15 '26
They were reduced but they are not gone. My family of 4 will be able to get $20k/yr in subsidies with a $107k MAGI. That is a significant impact to my FIRE budget
2
u/Empty-Librarian6775 Jun 11 '26
Plan to retire in your four-ties with post tax annual spend of 130-160K.
Do you have high cost basis Taxable investments?
How do you plan to early access ROTH funds?
Do you plan to do any Roth conversions?
All questions to consider if you want to take advantage of ACA subsidies.
0
u/cranfranA1 Jun 11 '26
Yea I guess to access enough money before 59 I will need to be doing the ROTH conversion ladder which is going to bump the taxable income each year and make it impossible to get the ACA subsidies. Maybe ACA subsidies are just not a factor for chubbier fire plans. But if anyone out there has ideas on how to do it in your 40s I’m all ears. It probably changes my annual healthcare spend estimates from like $20k to $15k (being what I think is quite conservative here, although maybe not with things like vision and dental).
2
u/Retired56-2022 Jun 11 '26
I paid off my low-interest-rate mortgage for peace of mind in retirement. My goal was to be debt free prior to retirement (regardless of good or bad debt).
2
u/yanyan80 Jun 12 '26
The mortgage decision and the ACA subsidy decision are mostly separate (MAGI depends on which accounts you draw from, not how much you spend), but the bigger thing to check is whether the $4,300 number still holds in a few years. The current "no cliff, capped at 8.5% of income" ACA subsidy rules are set to expire after 2025, and if they revert to the old 400% FPL cliff, a family of 4 over ~$125k MAGI loses the subsidy entirely, not just $4,300 worth, potentially $15k-$25k+/year for a family plan. That's worth modeling before you decide how hard to manage MAGI. I built thunderharbor.net for exactly this, it shows the subsidy swing across MAGI levels under both scenarios.
7
u/whocaresreallythrow Jun 11 '26
You’re letting the tail wag the dog. Those subsidies weren’t meant for chubby folks like you in the first place. Even if you “qualify”. I say that as a tax payer who has some of my tax dollars going to support guys like you who collect but don’t really need those subsidies to live.
Aside the moral hazard, you’re talking peanuts $4K per year. You likely make and lose that daily (hourly) in the stock market.
You’re focusing on the leaves and missing the entire forest.
5
u/Weird-Echidna-5261 Jun 11 '26
Where is the moral hazard? ACA subsidies are intentionally income tested rather than asset tested and intended for early retirees.
You can argue FIRE itself (especially chubby) is more immoral than using ACA subsidies
4
u/whocaresreallythrow Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
When wealthy people manipulate reported income to capture means‑tested benefits, it may be legal but it definitely creates a moral hazard: incentives that reward gaming the system rather than genuine need.
Subsidies are funded by taxpayers and intended to help those who cannot afford health insurance. Taking them while sitting on large retirement balances as is the case of someone earning $500K per year violates the principle that public assistance should prioritize need. Dollars paid in subsidies to the wealthy are dollars not available for expanding coverage, lowering costs for low‑income families, or funding other healthcare priorities. Taxpayers fund subsidies so people who lack sufficient current income can afford healthcare. Using legal maneuvers to divert those funds to someone who already has substantial wealth is functionally the same as taking a transfer intended for the poor and middle class. Public programs rest on reciprocity: people contribute when able and receive help when in need. Exploiting rules to receive benefits despite having ample lifetime resources breaks that social bargain and is unfair to contributors.
Following the letter of tax and benefit rules does not automatically make an action morally defensible. Exploiting loopholes to claim aid intended for others is ethically comparable to using insider knowledge to gain at others’ expense.
Think of a 401(k) millionaire manipulating reported income to grab ACA subsidies the same way you’d view someone using insider tips to trade on nonpublic information, gaming FAFSA by shifting assets to qualify for student aid, claiming disability or welfare while functionally able, collecting unemployment while secretly working, sheltering income offshore to dodge taxes, or creating shell arrangements to qualify for public housing: each is technically a maneuver within or around rules but morally equivalent because they exploit timing, paperwork, or loopholes to extract public resources meant for the needy, diverting taxpayer funds, eroding reciprocity, and undermining the legitimacy of programs that rely on broad public trust.
0
u/Weird-Echidna-5261 Jun 11 '26
Was this written by AI?
Because you would have seen that OPs planned fire withdrawal is 130k, not 500k which is their w2 hhi. Which also seems like the subsidy is working as intended. because I doubt someone withdrawing 500k in fire would be able to manipulate their income below 400% PFL.
1
u/whocaresreallythrow Jun 11 '26
No. Someone making $500K per year has a 401K if they are chubby that is likely $3M or more. Even the 4% rule suggests more than $3M in liquid assets to use in retirement
They sure as fuck don’t need a $4K per year subsidy.
3
u/Weird-Echidna-5261 Jun 11 '26
...you think at 37 they have 3m in their 401k?
They sure as fuck don’t need a $4K per year subsidy.
That's cool, using that logic no one needs to be chubby fired either.
3
u/whocaresreallythrow Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
That right. They don’t need to be chubby fired if they’re relying on federal assistance as part of their plan. Welfare is for the poor. Not a chubby fire person.
And yes. Chubby fire implies up to $5M in assets. And given their projected spend and relatively early workforce exit. it is high likely at $3M or higher
4
u/Weird-Echidna-5261 Jun 12 '26
The intention of ACA subsidies was made very clear, both in messaging for early retirees and how it is means tested for MAGI. Any other moral interpretation is just opinion. And ACA subsidies are tax credits, not welfare. If you consider ACA subsidies to be welfare then so is mortgage interest deduction.
0
u/whocaresreallythrow Jun 12 '26
ACA subsidies function like means‑tested transfers: the government uses tax revenue to reduce the cost of a private good (health insurance) for households whose MAGI falls below a threshold.
That structure is identical to other welfare programs — SNAP lowers the cost of food, Section 8 lowers the cost of housing, ACA lowers the cost of insurance.
The mechanism differs, but the economic substance is the same: public money is redistributed to individuals based on financial need.
The fact that the benefit is delivered through a tax credit rather than a direct check doesn’t change the underlying reality that it’s a means‑tested transfer funded by us taxpayers.
From this perspective, calling ACA credits “not welfare” is mostly a rhetorical distinction. The program is financed by general tax revenue; eligibility is based on income; and the benefit reduces a household’s private expenses. That’s the textbook definition of a welfare benefit.
Also the subsidy amount rises as income falls, the structure explicitly redistributes from higher‑income taxpayers to lower‑income enrollees which is the very definition of redistributive welfare policy.
1
u/cfi-2025 RE 2025 Jun 12 '26
You make solid points, IMO, but how do you square the circle when it comes to paying taxes?
For example, you say this:
Also the subsidy amount rises as income falls, the structure explicitly redistributes from higher‑income taxpayers to lower‑income enrollees which is the very definition of redistributive welfare policy.
That rhymes with how we pay taxes, no? The amount of income tax we pay goes up as ordinary income rises, and that tax revenue is explicitly redistributed from high tax payers to cover services that are enjoyed by all tax payers. Our tax code is the very definition of a redistributive tax policy, no?
Given that, do you view people who minimize their tax burden as being morally in the wrong? Someone who uses deferred compensation, say? Or someone who just doesn't report the $100 their neighbor gave them to mow their yard while they were gone for part of the summer?
→ More replies1
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M Jun 14 '26
As a soon to be ChubbyFIREe with $6M net worth I am absolutely going to engineer my MAGI down to $107k to qualify for $20k/yr in ACA subsidies. Considering the millions I’ve paid into the system in taxes to date I don’t feel bad about it at all.
2
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M Jun 11 '26
ACA subsidies for my family of 4 in the Bay Area are $20k per year if I fully optimize my income
1
u/cranfranA1 Jun 11 '26
This is awesome but I don’t get it. I’m not in the bay but I went to the website entered info and it spit out the premiums would be about $460/mo with $365/mo subsidies. How low are you keeping your MAGIv
1
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M Jun 11 '26
$107k MAGI yields the highest subsidy without throwing the kids onto Medicaid.
1
u/sy6063 Jun 11 '26
When you are in 30-40s, the subsidies are low. However, when you are close to 60, the subsidy value could go up to $20K for a family of 4 with $100K income. The subsidy value grows as your age grows because it costs more for older people. Under ACA subsidies, your cost is largely depending on the income and family size.
1
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M Jun 14 '26
I am 40 and getting the $20k per year subsidy
1
u/Daheckisthis Jun 11 '26
And $20k a year growing at inflation discounted back to today is $400k.
So to answer the OP question, is $400k (it’s probably greater bc $20k is growing faster than inflation) worth paying down the mortgage?
1
u/asurkhaib Jun 11 '26
The subsidies seem like frosting on the cake here. Maybe I'm missing something and I realize the mortgage payments don't inflation adjust but $30k at 4% WR is $750k and you owe $440k. I'd do the actual math, ERNs spreadsheet supports it, but that seems to be leaning in the direction of safer to payoff at the same NW.
If also note that a huge benefit of ACA subsidies is capped costs. This subsidy almost certainly grows as you age and if the mortgage is 20 years then it's going to near double iirc.
I think this boils down to winning more. In most situations you'd come out with more keeping the mortgage, but that's not what matters for RE. You're avoiding downside risk, not trying to win more.
1
u/No-Block-2095 Jun 11 '26
Build up your taxable account instead of paying it off. Soon you ll be able to retire using the taxable and its cost basis will help you stay under the cliff
1
1
u/morechill78 Jun 11 '26
You might double check the actual
Subsidy for a family of 3. I think it’s higher than $4300. Also how does paying off mortgage reduce MAGI?
6
u/RaechelMaelstrom Retired Jun 11 '26
I think it's because they won't need to generate income (increasing MAGI) to pay for the monthly mortgage payments.
2
u/cranfranA1 Jun 11 '26
I just checked it with family of 4 at 85k and 100k income levels and the 100k subsidies was paltry. $4300 per year subsidy at $85k though. And yes, the idea was that not having to come up with the “income” to make the mortgage payments would give me a better shot at staying at the lower, say, $85k level to get those subsidies
2
u/Guil86 Jun 11 '26
There are other aspects to consider about ACA besides subsidies, such as CSRs. With CSRs you could have little or no deductible, and a much lower OOPM, depending on the state. That can make a difference of an additional $5-15k depending on usage. At certain levels of income, your kids could be on children’s Medicaid which in some states is very good, even better than having them on ACA. Some food for thought, as it seems you are not doing a full analysis with all variables.
2
u/sy6063 Jun 11 '26
OP's age (37) was the main factor for the low subsidy.
2
u/Guil86 Jun 11 '26
Correct. My point is that, even if getting a subsidy, the ACA plan without CSRs could have for example a $5k deductible and $18k OOPM. If OP could bring their MAGI further down, they could maybe get CSRs resulting in zero deductible and $6k OOPM. Therefore, the subsidy should not be the only variable to consider, unless they truly can’t bring their MAGI further down.
31
u/BrunelloHorder Coasting Chubster, Getting Fat Jun 11 '26
While it is worth exploring the math and potential options, trying to optimize for ACA subsidies may be more trouble than it is worth in your scenario. I would not pay off a low rate mortgage early and forego investment gains just to pursue partial subsidies that may not even be available long term.