Hussman funds https://www.hussmanfunds.com/ paid their dividends on 12/2/22 for HSAFX but no announcement about other funds.

MAGI calculation for IRMAA includes only the taxable portion of Social Security. The entire amount of SS is included in other MAGI calculations, e.g. for Medicaid. Below is the major part (but not all) of a table from a Congressional Research Report showing MAGI calculations for IRMAA and other health related programs.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43861.pdf
Reducing income to just what one needs is letting the tail wag the dog. If I have $1M in cash, which is better:
- Buying 3 month T-bills generating $30K (annualized) in taxable income and increasing my Medicare Part B premium by less than $1K, or
- reducing this unneeded income to zero (and saving with lower income taxes and lower Medicare premiums) by keeping that cash in a non-interest-bearing checking account?
Note that I've taken risk out of the equation by using short term Treasuries.
Just as one optimizes taxes by smoothing income before retirement (e.g. by shifting deductions such as contributions and property taxes from one year to the subsequent or previous year), the idea in retirement is to smooth income in retirement, rather than reduce it. That's where incremental Roth conversions help.
Optimal in many circumstances can be putting money, to the extent allowed, into HSAs. Unlike Roth contributions, HSA contributions are not taxable. With the exception of a few states, earnings while in HSA accounts are not taxed.
SS income is included for IRMMA calc. So, if a surviving spouse claims SS based on higher benefits earned by deceased spouse, that could increase Part B premiums.
The effect is the same regardless of whether the higher benefits come from the deceased spouse or from the surviving spouse. Pre-death, the taxes don't depend on which spouse had the higher benefits (assuming MFJ - income is combined). Post death, the surviving spouse receives the higher benefit regardless of whether that comes from the deceased spouse or the surviving spouse.
Moving from a higher State income tax to a no to low State income tax State in retirement is another good way to keep more of what you worked so hard for during your working life.
Often not. There's much more to the calculation than state income tax rates. An excellent, very long piece on the Kitces site (I've read much but not all of it) discusses several different factors and how the situation depends not only on income tax rates, but on the mix of income sources, on the level of income, etc.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/state-income-tax-retirees-top-marginal-rates-social-security-pension-income-age-exemptions/
One example from that page to illustrate this:

Example 4: James and Dolly Madison anticipate that they will each receive $18,000 of Social Security income and $19,500 of qualified-plan income during retirement, for a combined total income of $75,000 each year.
With their retirement income mix, the Madisons would have an estimated $0 state tax bill in 24 states! Notably, this list includes Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, states commonly thought of as high-tax states.

M* classifies HSGFX as long-short equity, which from the portfolio, it is. He's basically short the broad market and long his specific picks. If his picks do better than the indices, like this year, it works: up ~ 15% ytd. HSAFX is for sure less volatile, but it's gone nowhere this year, and it's also not available at some brokerages, e.g., Fidelity.
But the redemption fee on top of a transaction fee limits the attractiveness of HSGFX, even in the rare year it works. IMHO, trend-following managed futures funds and inverse funds are a better deal in wipeouts like this year, and there are plenty of options in those categories (OEFs and ETFs) these days.

Are PSTIX and PQTIX similar funds to HSGFX?

M* classifies HSGFX as long-short equity, which from the portfolio, it is. He's basically short the broad market and long his specific picks. If his picks do better than the indices, like this year, it works: up ~ 15% ytd. HSAFX is for sure less volatile, but it's gone nowhere this year, and it's also not available at some brokerages, e.g., Fidelity.
But the redemption fee on top of a transaction fee limits the attractiveness of HSGFX, even in the rare year it works. IMHO, trend-following managed futures funds and inverse funds are a better deal in wipeouts like this year, and there are plenty of options in those categories (OEFs and ETFs) these days.

Regarding AKREX, I do think funds that are highly concentrated in a few stocks even when they manage risk reasonably well can be suspect in general simply because it's always a question whether the magic can be repeated once the top picks have run their course. With 100 stocks if one drops off and has to be sold, there are still 99 ones left that can drive returns, and you know managers managed to find more than a few good ones instead of perhaps "The One" that makes the manager famous. That said, it does take courage to stick with one's convictions when there are just a handful of names.
Regarding HSGFX, I think the better option is HSAFX--a much smoother ride.

@MrRuffles,
My Insurance plan is a government subsidized (due to my low income) HDHP ($6500 deduction) plan and is an HSA qualified Plan. Not all HSA owners are upper income.
My question is pertinent to low income, young, healthy individuals who have an HSA as an option. The Saver's Credit is directed at the low income.

But the ability to invest an HSA for the long-term as an investment vehicle for retirement only works if either: (1) you have little need for healthcare throughout your adult life or (2) you have enough disposable income to pay for your healthcare expenses out-of-pocket and don’t need to tap your HSA.
HSA’s were sold as a means to lower the cost of health insurance through HDHP’s but give a tax break for medical expenses for people who couldn’t afford higher premiums. Of course, like everything else in our assbackwards US healthcare system, it turned into a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I often refer questions to Ed Slott's discussion board for IRA questions.
https://irahelp.com/phpBB
A login is required to ask questions. They are very responsive and helpful.
Received this from their forum today:

No. HSAs are not defined as retirement savings. HSAs are established under section 223 of the tax code which is not one of the sections included in the section 25B definition of a qualified retirement savings contribution.
HSAs and IRAs are never treated as one. An HSA is not an IRA despite some of the rules for HSAs referencing IRA rules.

I have a primer on HSA. I will update it once we have a firm confirmation of this.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/258/hsa-health-savings-accounts

@yogibearbull,
Thanks for chiming in. Interestingly too, one does not need earned income to make an HSA contribution which also makes it a different duck.

Form 8880 is used to claim Saver's Credit. On this form or instructions, I don't see any mention of HSA, but only T-IRA, R-IRA, ABLE, 401k/403b/TSP.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8880.pdf
I have also searched the web and articles on HSA don't mention Saver's Credit, and articles on Saver's Credit don't mention HSA.
My guess is that one cannot claim Saver's Credit for HSA.

@MrRuffles,
My Insurance plan is a government subsidized (due to my low income) HDHP ($6500 deduction) plan and is an HSA qualified Plan. Not all HSA owners are upper income.
My question is pertinent to low income, young, healthy individuals who have an HSA as an option. The Saver's Credit is directed at the low income.

@Orage
-Contributions are tax deductible much like a IRA,
-Has yearly contribution limits much like an IRA,
-Non-HSA withdrawals are treated like tax deferred withdrawal after age 65 much like a TIRA
-Oftened mentioned together with other retirement accounts:

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are very interesting from a tax perspective. Compared to well-known retirement account types (for example – 401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc.)

can-hsa-retirement-account
Quacks like a duck..walks like a duck...

Why would you think it might? The link you provide shows the five types of contributions that are allowed and HSAs don't appear on that list.
• contributions you make to a traditional or Roth IRA,
• elective salary deferral contributions to a 401(k), 403(b), governmental 457(b), SARSEP, or SIMPLE plan,
• voluntary after-tax employee contributions made to a qualified retirement plan (including the federal Thrift Savings Plan) or 403(b) plan,
• contributions to a 501(c)(18)(D) plan, or
• contributions made to an ABLE account for which you are the designated beneficiary (beginning in 2018).

I can't seem to find any information on whether an HSA qualifies for the IRS Tax "Saver's Credit".
Retirement Savings Contributions Credit (Saver’s Credit):
IRS Website:
retirement-savings-contributions-savers-credit

The CNBC columnist (Sara O'Brien) has apparently taken to recycling old(?) material. A "new" column appears today. The only new material I see is a single sentence giving the number of projected HSA accounts at the end of 2024 to be 38M, with assets of $150B.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/19/you-cant-save-in-hsa-on-medicare-a-bill-to-change-that-has-tradeoffs.html
To add a little new material to this thread, here's a question I have not been able to answer about Medicare premiums being eligible medical expenses:
- An HSA owner may use the HSA to pay qualified medical expenses incurred by one's spouse. So one spouse may take tax free withdrawals from his or her HSA to pay for doctor visits incurred now or in the past by the other spouse (so long as the expenses weren't deducted, paid for out of another HSA, etc.).
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p969#en_US_2021_publink1000204083
- One cannot use an HSA to pay Medicare premiums before one turns age 65. This is a very rigid rule: someone age 62 cannot use an HSA to pay for a 65 year old spouse's Medicare premiums.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p969#en_US_2021_publink1000204086
- If a spouse is the beneficiary of an HSA, then the HSA become's the spouse's, much as a surviving spouse may elect to treat an inherited IRA as one's own.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p969#en_US_2021_publink1000204097
Now, what happens with Medicare premiums paid by the deceased spouse? Suppose spouse A, deceased, had paid premiums at age 65 (qualified expenses) before the surviving spouse B turned 65?
Had A withdrawn money from the HSA prior to death, the withdrawals would have been tax-free based on the premiums paid. But now that the HSA is owned by spouse B and the same payments were not qualified expenses for spouse B.
Is there an exception that allows the Medicare premiums to be considered qualified expenses for surviving spouse B? Or, what I suspect, does death transform these formerly qualified medicare expenses into unqualified expenses?
It's different if the beneficiary isn't the spouse. Then the estate has a year to take withdrawals as if the deceased were still alive.

Just to be clear, my triple+ benefit of current HSA was for i) pre-tax contributions, ii) tax-deferral on earnings, iii) tax-free and penalty-free withdrawals for qualified medical use, and then "+" for penalty-free but taxable withdrawals for nonmedical use after 65. So, this proposal would make triple+ benefit of HSA just triple.

There has to be an escape clause for people putting too much money into HSAs. (Use it or lose it as with FSAs would have made HSAs toxic.) This was always a feature - and always one that came with taxes. Non-medical withdrawals were never triple tax free. The only change being made here is whether a withdrawal penalty is added.
It's not just Congress saying that IRAs were intended for retirement (though Congress did make that clear in its original legislation). It is the Supreme Court saying the same thing as well, in ruling that inherited IRAs are not retirement accounts deserving of bankruptcy protection.
In any case, changes involving stretch IRAs did not make formerly tax-free money taxable. They did affect the timing and arguably size of the tax - a quantitative, not qualitative change. Likewise adding a penalty to non-medical withdrawals from HSAs would not make formerly tax-free money taxable since the non-medical withdrawals were never tax-free.

I know people who would be very upset at Disallowed #2 as they also considered HSA as a supplemental IRA. Some who were sitting on the fence on the HSA were swayed by the allowed nonmedical use of funds after 65. If this proposal becomes serious, there may be some grandfathering exceptions. Or, the Congress may say that allowed nonmedical use after 65 was a defect or loophole in the HSA that had nothing to with the health intent. Afterall, the Congress took away the stretch-IRA for heirs by just saying that it didn't have much to do with the retirement intent of the IRA.

The current bill is HR 7435, introduced on April 7.
I don't expect this to go anywhere either. That said, IMHO it still has significant flaws.
As I understand it, HSAs were part of a package added to the Medicare expansion act in 2003 (that created Part D) in order to mollify thirteen conservative representatives. Without HSAs, high deductible health plans (HDHPs) leave many people with health coverage in name only - a complaint heard more recently including here about some ACA plans. HSAs make HDHPs, where people have more skin in the game, more palatable.
Medicare does not have high deductibles, nor is it a disliked program. So it doesn't need HSAs to spur participation. And to the extent that people want alternatives, there is already Medicare Advantage. So it seems that the main raisons d'etre for HSAs don't apply.
If the intent is simply to hand seniors who need extra help some money, one could target it better. For example, reduce premiums so that instead of covering 1/4 of costs, they cover 1/5 (that's a 20% reduction). Then increase IRMAA amounts to make up this difference. Revenue neutral, while providing Medicare assistance to those most in need instead of giving tax breaks that most benefit those who need it least.
There's another type of problem with this proposal. AFAIK, the government has not set up a program where people were promised tax-free earnings only to have them later taxed upon withdrawal. It would be as if the government said about Roths: sorry, we're taxing your earnings now.
I could see disallowing tax-free use of HSA contributions and earnings for premiums going forward, but disallowing the tax-free use of past contributions and earnings sets a dangerous precedent.

Watch proposed bipartisan changes to the HSA for seniors, called HSSA (Health Savings for Seniors Act), that will ALLOW contributions to the HSA when on Medicare, but DISALLOW (1) Using the HSA for Medicare premiums, (2) Eliminate penalty-free withdrawals after 65 for nonmedical use (the current Triple+ benefit will just become Triple). It revives a similar 2019 proposal that didn't go anywhere.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/18/medicare-enrollees-could-put-money-in-hsa-plans-under-house-bill.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/new-bill-would-let-seniors-save-for-medical-care-tax-free/ar-AAWoHsz
https://401kspecialistmag.com/bill-seeks-to-expand-hsas-to-seniors-covered-by-medicare/
https://bera.house.gov/sites/bera.house.gov/files/documents/BERA_030_xml.pdf