Q&A: Inherited Roth IRA distributions

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question about whether someone should use a Roth IRA to pay off a mortgage. In your answer, you mentioned the requirement to take minimum distributions from the account. One of the huge advantages of a Roth, besides tax-free distributions, is that there are no required minimum withdrawals. Did I miss something?

Answer: You did. You missed the word “inherited.”

The letter writer was asking whether to use an inherited Roth IRA to pay off the mortgage. (Specifically, an inherited non-spousal Roth IRA.) Although the original Roth IRA owner was not required to take distributions, the heirs must. Money can’t be kept in tax-deferred retirement accounts indefinitely.

Q&A: Why this widow can’t get her late husband’s Social Security benefit

Dear Liz: My husband passed away 10 years ago at age 66. I called then to see if I could collect Social Security, because he was receiving benefits when he died. Our daughter was still a minor, so she was able to collect survivor benefits until she turned 18. I was told I couldn’t collect benefits as I made too much money. (I asked what too much money was and they said around $14,000 annually.)

I am now thinking about retiring at age 66 or 67. I am a mid-career public school teacher, so I’ve been told the “windfall elimination provision” will wipe out my Social Security benefit. I had my own business and worked previously but am told I can’t receive the Social Security benefits that my husband earned, nor will I most likely receive much, if anything, from the Social Security contributions I made. My friends tell me this can’t possibly be right.

Answer: The information you received about Social Security was generally entirely correct.

Let’s start with the windfall elimination provision. If you receive a pension from a job that didn’t pay into Social Security, any Social Security benefit you get may be reduced but not eliminated. You can read more about how the windfall elimination provision works and why it was created at the Social Security Administration website, www.ssa.gov.

A related provision, the government pension offset, can wipe out any spousal or survivor benefit you might have otherwise received.

Before those provisions were enacted, people who had generous government pensions from jobs that didn’t pay into Social Security could get the same or larger benefits than people who had paid into the system throughout their lives. Critics of the provisions, however, say they can leave some low-wage government workers worse off.

Another provision that can reduce or wipe out Social Security benefits is called the earnings test. Before full retirement age, which is currently 66, any Social Security check you receive would be reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over a certain amount ($17,640 in 2019). The amount was $14,100 from 2009 to 2011 and $14,640 in 2012, so that may have been why you remember the number $14,000.

So technically, you may have been eligible for a survivor’s benefit. Widows and widowers are eligible for survivor’s benefits starting at age 60, or age 50 if they’re disabled, or at any age if they’re caring for the dead person’s child who is under 16 or disabled. But it sounds as if any benefit you received would have been wiped out because of the earnings test.

Your situation is a perfect example of how complicated Social Security can get and how hard it can be to navigate the system without expert help. But even people with more straightforward situations can benefit from advice about how and when to file for benefits. Two of the better do-it-yourself options include Maximize My Social Security ($40) and Social Security Solutions ($19.95 for a basic version or $49.95 for one that allows you to compare scenarios). Or you can consult with a fee-only financial planner who has access to similar software and who can give you personalized advice.

Thursday’s need-to-know money news

Today’s top story: Wake up to the truth about ‘dream schools.’ Also in the news: 4 things to stop doing online immediately, recognizing the signs of financial abuse, and why carrying a balance won’t boost your credit score.

Wake Up to the Truth About ‘Dream Schools’
Thinking beyond the elites.

Stop Doing These 4 Things Online — Immediately
It’s National Cybersecurity Awareness Month.

Don’t Ignore the Signs of Financial Abuse
Nearly 70% of millennial women have experienced financial abuse.

Carrying a Balance Won’t Boost Your Credit Score
Busting a myth.

Wednesday’s need-to-know money news

Today’s top story: Understanding the differences between Medicare and Medicaid. Also in the news: How hungry college students can get help, Robinhood takes another shot at cash management accounts, and a new scam that asks for your bank PIN on the phone.

Hunger on Campus: How College Students Can Get Help

What Is the Difference Between Medicare and Medicaid?
Understanding the government-run health care plans.

Robinhood Takes Another Shot at Cash Management Accounts
This time with FDIC backup.

Beware a New Scam That Asks for Your Bank PIN on the Phone
This is a particularly savvy scam.

Wake up to the truth about ‘dream schools’

The college admissions scandal — which recently led to a 14-day prison sentence for actress Felicity Huffman — exposed a group of wealthy parents’ obsession with getting their kids into the “right” school. Prosecutors say the families paid bribes, faked test results and pretended their kids were athletes to get them into selective colleges.

Unfortunately, many less affluent families also fall for the delusion that some schools offer golden tickets for their children’s futures, says Lynn O’Shaughnessy, author of “The College Solution.” Whether it’s an Ivy League college or a high-priced “dream school,” too many people believe certain educations are worth endless effort, stress — and debt.

In my latest for the Associated Press, the most important facts to know as you navigate the college admissions process and decide how much to spend.

Tuesday’s need-to-know money news

Today’s top story: How one family paid off $130,000 of debt in less than four years. Also in the news: The pros and cons of cash-out refinancing, the sneaky ways burnout hurts your bottom line, and how to not let your vet bill dog you forever.

How I Ditched Debt: Little Splurges on the Path to Freedom
One family’s story of paying off $130,000 in less than four years.

Cash-Out Refinance Pros and Cons
A good way to pay for home improvements.

Sneaky Ways Burnout Hurts Your Bottom Line
Millennials are struggling.

Don’t Let Your Vet Bill Dog You Forever
Taking care of your best pal.

Monday’s need-to-know money news

Today’s top story: SmartMoney podcast on how to pay off debt faster. Also in the news: What to expect when requesting a credit limit increase, why you should always pay in local currency when traveling, and 10 money mistakes millennials should avoid.

SmartMoney podcast: ‘How Can I Pay Off My Debt Faster?’
Tips from the experts.

Requesting a Credit Limit Increase? Here’s What to Expect
Question and answerr

Why You Should Always Pay in Local Currency When Traveling
Avoid markups and fees.

10 Money Mistakes Millennials Should Avoid (No. 10’s a Shocker)
These mistakes could come back to haunt you.

Q&A: Don’t keep a mortgage just for the tax deduction

Dear Liz: Does the new tax law, with its increased standard deduction, change the calculus of maintaining my mortgage? I owe about $250,000 at 3.25% on a 30-year mortgage. I no longer itemize, so I don’t get the benefit of the tax deduction for the interest. My payments are about $1,500 a month, but I could easily pay it off.

Answer: It never made much sense to keep a mortgage just for the tax deduction. The tax savings offset only a portion of the interest you pay. (If you’re in a 33% combined state and federal tax bracket, for example, you’d get at most 33 cents back for every $1 in mortgage interest you paid.)

A more compelling reason to keep a mortgage would be if you were able to get a better return on your money by investing it, or if you didn’t want to have a big chunk of your wealth tied up in a single, illiquid asset.

Q&A: If long-term care insurance costs too much, you have a choice to make

Dear Liz: We were told to buy long-term care insurance early because waiting too long would make it more expensive and perhaps unavailable. I bought mine when I was 55. At the time, it was $2,400 a year. Unfortunately, the premiums just kept going up. I am now 77, and the premium this year was $4,470. The letter informing me of this increase said that next year it will go up 6% to $4,738, and 6% again the following year to $5,022. It’s very clear to me that buying the insurance early was definitely not an advantage. The insurer will obviously keep raising the premium at will. Since I am, like most people my age, on a fixed income, the time will come when I simply cannot afford these premiums. I will then lose the insurance plus all I have paid into it all these years. People should be told that the premiums will continue to rise, and that the time may come when the cost is beyond what anyone on a fixed income can afford.

Answer: Many people are in the same unfortunate situation. They purchased policies because they thought it was the prudent thing to do, only to face the possibility of losing coverage as premiums continued to rise.

Companies that offered long-term care insurance starting in the 1980s and 1990s discovered they didn’t price the coverage accurately. Far fewer people dropped their policies than expected, while the costs of long-term care increased more than anticipated. Many insurers stopped offering the coverage, and massive premium increases were the norm for a while.

Insurers can’t raise premiums “at will,” by the way. The increases must be approved by regulators, who weigh the effects on customers against the possibility an insurer might go under and be unable to pay anyone.

The companies still selling long-term care coverage now offer less generous policies that probably won’t require huge premium increases. Still, many financial planners advise their clients who are buying coverage now to expect their premiums to increase 50% to 100% over their lifetimes.

It’s important to keep in mind that insurance is not like an investment or a savings account. You don’t buy homeowners insurance hoping your house will burn down someday so that you can get your money back. You buy it to protect your finances against catastrophic loss. So it’s not as if you received nothing in return for your long-term care premiums: You were protected against a potentially catastrophic cost that — fortunately — didn’t happen.

That doesn’t mean you were wrong to expect your premiums to remain affordable. Given your current reality, though, you’ll need to decide if you want to risk dropping coverage entirely or if reducing coverage might be an option. Many people in your situation have opted for longer waiting periods, lower inflation adjustments or a reduced benefit period to keep premiums affordable.