Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Liz Weston

Q&A: Revocable vs. irrevocable trusts

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: What is the difference between a revocable trust and an irrevocable trust? Which one is better? I am a widow with two sons who will inherit my estate. My net worth is $1.4 million, including a mortgage-free house.

Answer: The two types of trusts serve different functions, so neither is inherently better than the other.

Revocable trusts can be changed as long as the trust creator — that would be you — is still alive. You retain control over the assets in the trust and can sell or dispose of them as you wish. The most common revocable trust is a living trust, which allows estates to avoid the court process known as probate.

Irrevocable trusts typically can’t be changed. They are often used to protect assets or reduce an estate for tax purposes. The trust creator generally loses control over what happens to the assets in the trust. Irrevocable trusts are typically more complicated to set up and to administer, and may require a separate tax return.

An estate planning attorney can review your situation and advise which kind of trust, if any, might be best for your situation.

Q&A: Your credit card was unfairly canceled? Here’s how to fight back

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: For decades I owned two credit cards that earned airline miles with all my expenditures. I always paid the bills in full on time and never missed a payment. Earlier this year, I mailed in checks to cover the balance as I always do. But then I noticed the checks had not cleared my account after three weeks. I assumed the payment was lost in the mail, so I stopped payment on the checks and paid the amount I owed in full online. But then the checks came through to the bank. Since the checks had been stopped, they were returned, and even though I had paid my bill in full, both of my cards were canceled.

I called the customer service number several times and spoke to supervisors and they all said I had a great case, but then I received letters back rejecting my requests to get my cards restored. I tried to apply for a new card and that too was rejected. My credit rating is very high, and this seems very unfair to me as a longtime loyal customer. I have other credit cards but these were the most important to me for the accumulation of miles as I travel a lot. Is there anything that can be done to reverse the decision?

Answer: You need to attract the attention of a human being with the power to override this credit card issuer’s automated systems and that’s no easy task.

You did the right thing by calling the customer service number several times, since phone reps can vary considerably in their ability to solve problems. You might have to cycle through several reps before you find one with enough savvy, training and interest to actually help you.

Since you washed out with the phone reps, your next step should be contacting the office of the bank’s chief executive. That may just earn you a form letter, or you may catch the attention of someone who realizes how unfair the cancellations were and who is motivated to help.

In the past, a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau often prodded banks and other companies to do the right thing by their customers. The current administration’s attempts to kill the bureau are being challenged in court, and the agency is currently accepting complaints again, but it’s unclear how much help you can expect to get.

Even if you can’t get the bank to reconsider, you should resolve to stop sending checks through the mail. Mail theft and check fraud are soaring, while electronic payments continue to be a safer and more secure way to pay.

Also, you don’t have to give up accumulating miles for your favorite airline. Other credit card issuers offer general travel rewards that allow you to transfer miles to airlines (and hotels and other travel providers). While airline-branded cards can help you earn elite status and come with other perks, general travel rewards cards offer the flexibility to book with a number of different carriers.

Q&A: Approaching retirement? Don’t count on rules of thumb

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I have a few questions about my income taxes during my upcoming retirement. I would like to know if doing a Roth IRA conversion will be worth it for me since I might be in a higher tax bracket when I retire. Is there a rule of thumb in regards to doing this conversion? I’m also getting considerable income from my tax-free municipal bond and money market fund. Will that income be taxable when I retire and will it count toward how the government calculates my Medicare premiums?

Answer: Rules of thumb can be incredibly helpful in many areas of personal finance. Guidelines such as “spend less than you earn” and “pay yourself first” apply to virtually everyone. Even more specific recommendations, such as the 50/30/20 budget, can apply to many if not most situations. (The 50/30/20 budget recommends limiting “must have” expenses to 50% of after-tax income, leaving 30% for wants and 20% for savings and extra debt repayment.)

As you enter retirement, though, you’ll be making decisions that may be irreversible. It can be much harder to rebound from mistakes and you’ll have fewer years to do so. That’s why it’s important to get individualized advice from pros you can trust.

Converting a regular retirement account to a Roth IRA can make sense if you expect to be in a higher tax bracket in retirement and can pay the taxes on the conversion without raiding the account. But the conversion also can trigger higher Medicare premiums.

The same is true for municipal bond interest. Muni bond interest typically avoids income tax, but will be included in Medicare premium calculations and may cause more of your Social Security benefit to be taxable as well.

A tax pro can advise you about these issues and offer strategies to lower your lifetime tax bills.

Q&A: What to do if you don’t trust your trustee?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I own several properties. I have a living trust that names my two minor children as beneficiaries. I’ve told my attorney that I want to transfer the properties to my children using the county form. This will give my children who are under 10 years of age ownership as tenants in common with the right of survivorship. I believe this avoids any tax consequences. I will still keep my living trust and make some adjustments per this change. My attorney states I will lose the step-up in tax basis if I do this. As I see it, this may not be a concern as my primary goal is to give my children these properties in the event of my passing. I do not trust anyone whom I name as trustee to my living trust. I do not care about the step-in-basis as doing it this way avoids delays, assures ownership and avoids possible fraud. The trustee could sell the properties and spend the money. Keep in mind my children are minors as of this date. Sure, they could file a lawsuit, but you need money to file an action and once the money is long gone, good luck in getting it back. This way it gives immediate ownership to my children, and I avoid these problems that may occur.

Answer: If you really don’t know anyone you can trust to look after your children’s interests, then you’ve got quite a dilemma.

Your children are too young to legally own real estate in their own names, so some kind of guardian or trustee would need to be involved in managing the property, notes Jennifer Sawday, an estate planning attorney in Long Beach. Plus, you have no idea now whether your kids will be able to responsibly handle such an inheritance once they’re legally allowed to take over at 18 or 21 (depending on the age of majority in your state). Few people that age are ready for such a big responsibility. If a child develops an addiction or spendthrift tendencies, they could quickly waste their inheritance.

Plus, transferring property can have huge tax consequences, including the loss of step-up in tax basis that your attorney mentioned as well as property tax reassessments. (In California, such transfers avoid reassessment only when a primary residence is transferred and the child continues to live in the home. Commercial property, rental property and vacation homes get reassessed upon transfer.)

If you have no friends or relatives who are ethical, honest and trustworthy, then you’ll need to consider hiring a professional fiduciary or trustee. Your attorney can discuss your options.

Q&A: Why Social Security imposes an earnings test

By 1 Comment

Dear Liz: I am under full retirement age, collecting Social Security and working part-time. I just received a letter from Social Security telling me I earned over the $22,320 limit and now have to pay back some of my Social Security. I was aware of the limit, so the letter was not unexpected. What I’m curious about though is what is the rationale behind the earnings limit? Once you’re eligible for Social Security, why do they care how much you earn? Are they trying to discourage applying before full retirement age? Also, and more importantly, I think I read that somewhere down the line, I will get back what I had to pay back. Can you clarify that for me?

Answer: Social Security was designed as insurance for those who could no longer work, and a retirement earnings test has been a part of the system from its creation in 1935. Back then, the test was all-or-nothing: Any earned income would preclude your getting a benefit.

Over time, the test was modified so that people could earn some income without losing all their benefits. The age at which the earnings test no longer applies has changed as well. In the 1950s, it was set at 75. In the 1960s, the age was lowered to 65. In the 1980s, it was adjusted so that the current “full retirement age,” when the test no longer applies, is 67.

The current test withholds $1 for every $2 earned over a certain limit, which in 2025 is $23,400. Once you reach full retirement age, the withheld amounts will be added back into your benefit.

What you won’t get back, however, is the larger benefit you could have earned by delaying your initial application. Most people are better off waiting at least until full retirement age to collect Social Security, if they possibly can.

Q&A: Should you keep more than $250,000 in one bank?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: You recently wrote that it’s easier to have one bank than many, but I worry about FDIC insurance limits because I have more than $250,000 in savings.

Answer: You may be able to get more coverage at one bank than you think. FDIC insurance is per depositor, per ownership category, per bank. Ownership categories include single accounts, joint accounts, certain retirement accounts such as IRAs and trust accounts, among others.

If you’re married, for example, a joint account would be covered up to $500,000, or $250,000 for each owner. If each of you had single accounts, your total coverage for the three accounts would be $1 million ($500,000 for the joint account, plus $250,000 for each individual account). If you each had an IRA as well, you could have up to $1.5 million in coverage at a single institution.

Adding beneficiaries to your accounts turns either joint or single accounts into trust accounts, for FDIC insurance purposes. Each owner of a trust account is covered up to $250,000 per beneficiary, to a maximum of $1.25 million for five or more beneficiaries.