Maybe there have been posts by somebody saying they find no value in giving to charity and would only do it to reduce MAGI. Which still technically could work, if you could closely enough predict MAGI to make a QCD that put you under an IRMAA threshold whose after tax cost was smaller than the extra IRMAA charge of going over that threshold. Practically that's unlikely of course, income is usually too hard to predict to that level of accuracy. But the vast majority of references here to how QCD's affect MAGI, to my recollection, have been in context of making a QCD *instead* of a contribution of cash or appreciated taxable assets, or that the perceived value of giving to charity isn't enough to justify it with the normal tax advantage, but is enough once you add in the advantage of dodging an IRMAA level. I agree if somebody perceives zero inherent benefit to giving to charity but would QCD $10k (maybe $7k after tax cost) to make sure they ended below an IRMAA threshold and saved less than half that much in Medicare costs (for a couple even): irrational. But I doubt it's the actual aim of more than a small % of posts talking about IRMAA v QCD.lstone19 wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 9:04 pmYes indeed. But I’ve seen a recurring theme here with some posters who are so opposed to paying taxes (and related like IRMAA) that they’d rather pay even more to avoid them. I’ve seen suggestions such as disclaim an inherited IRA or make QCDs* both of which are effectively 100% taxes in order to avoid paying taxes to the government.
* while we all arguably should be making charitable donations, some of these suggestions to make QCDs seem to be made strictly for the purpose of avoiding paying taxes.
Likewise if somebody suggests retiring at an earlier age because of higher taxes due to higher income/assets, this is part of the basic economics of taxation. People at the margin *will* decide to work and earn less due to taxes on what they earn than if those taxes were lower. Most people see work, set aside from pay, as a net negative and pay as the offsetting positive that makes it worthwhile ('I love this job so much I'd do it for free' is rarely literally true). And the only pay that counts is the pay after tax, including secondary and tertiary taxes on that income (taxes on investment returns on already taxed income and potential third round, estate tax). The public policy debate about that, which we can't get into here, is the trade off between subjectively determined 'necessary' tax revenue and the disincentive to produce caused by taxes. But on an individual basis it's altogether rational for some people to decide to work less than they would if taxes were lower. Their decision wouldn't necessarily be the right one for somebody else though. Some people are less sensitive to tax rates in their work decisions, ie closer to 'I'd do this for free' than others are.