Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: An aging relative is spending her nest egg on round-the-clock care. What happens when the money runs out?

By

Dear Liz: A family member is 90 and lives by herself at home. She has around-the-clock caregivers paid for by her investment accounts. Her teacher pension pays for all everyday expenses. She is high maintenance and unwilling to accept she will one day run out of money for caregivers. What would you suggest?

Answer: That depends on how much money she has, and why you’re asking.

In-home, round-the-clock care can be mind-bogglingly expensive. The median cost nationally for 24/7 at-home caretaking was about $24,000 a month in 2023, according to Genworth’s latest “Cost of Care” survey. By contrast, the median cost for a private room in a nursing home was closer to $10,000 a month.

Not many people could pay for around-the-clock care for long, but your relative may be one of the exceptions. If she has enough savings to pay for care for a few years, then perhaps she’s making the calculated gamble that she’ll run out of breath before she runs out of cash. (And if she’s the suspicious type, she may be convinced your concern is more for your potential inheritance than her well-being.)

Once her resources are depleted, though, her situation could become pretty bleak. Her income may be too high to qualify for Medicaid, the government program that otherwise might pay for nursing home care. (In California, the program is known as Medi-Cal.) Perhaps her home could be sold to pay her care. If not, she might have to turn to relatives for financial help.

If you’re one of the relatives she would turn to, then you can certainly let her know how much help you could afford to give her, if any. But first, suggest a session with an elder law attorney who can review her situation, calculate how long her resources might last and offer suggestions for managing her care bills. She may be more willing to listen to a professional third party than to her family. You can get referrals from the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys at www.naela.org.

Q&A: Beware foreign transaction fees when using credit cards abroad

By

Dear Liz: I have a question regarding the use of credit cards for foreign transactions. Are the card companies required to use a certain exchange rate? I’ve used two different cards, and the one that charges a fee used a better exchange rate. The total cost to me, including the fee, was less than the other card. How can I find out what exchange rates are used?

Answer: You can always ask. Credit card companies may use a number of different exchange rates. Often they use the ones set by their payment networks, such as Visa or Mastercard, or by their issuing banks.

Keep in mind that exchange rates are constantly changing. Unless you used the two cards within a relatively short period, it would be hard to draw conclusions about which got the better rate. Also, you will get a much worse deal if you ever agree to a “dynamic currency conversion” that charges the transaction in U.S. dollars rather than the prevailing currency. When offered the choice, opt for the charge to be in the local currency.

Most travelers find they’re better off using a credit card that doesn’t charge foreign transaction fees. These fees are typically just another profit center for the issuing banks.

Q&A: A follow-up question about payable on death accounts

By

Dear Liz: I’ve worked for various broker dealers for 33 years and have never heard of a “payable on death” account. Did you mean transfer on death (TOD) in your previous column?

Answer: I did not.

Payable on death accounts are similar to transfer on death accounts since both allow owners to designate beneficiaries and avoid probate, the court process that otherwise follows death. But the two accounts are meant for different types of assets. Bank accounts use the payable on death designation, while investment accounts are transfer on death. Some states have transfer on death registration for vehicles and transfer on death deeds for real estate.

Q&A: You can’t spend it when you’re gone, but delaying Social Security payments makes sense

By

Dear Liz: I’m a single person with no children. I worked for one private employer for 36 years, retired from there at 54 and am now 57. My home is paid off. I receive a pension of $2,400. I’ve been working a nearly full-time job averaging $3,800 a month with 8% going into a 401(k) and 4% being matched. I have observed many fellow workers wait till 65 to collect Social Security and then die a few years later. I also volunteer at my local VFW and listen to people complain about the lack of money they have, especially the women, who unfortunately relied on their dead husbands. So would it be bad for me to start collecting my Social Security at 63?

I am a very healthy person and longevity is in the family.

Answer: Some people do die shortly after retiring. Most, though, live well past the “break-even” age, when the smaller checks they give up by delaying Social Security are more than made up for by the larger checks they receive by waiting.

And the ones who die early … well, they’re dead. They no longer care about Social Security checks. The ones who care intensely about how much they’re getting are those who survive and run through their savings. Perhaps some of the women at the VFW had husbands who started their retirement benefits early, thus stunting the survivors’ checks their wives are getting. A few years’ delay could have made a huge difference to these women, who may have to live for years or even decades on a too-small benefit.

That’s why it’s so important for the higher earner in a couple to delay starting Social Security as long as possible, preferably to age 70, when their benefit maxes out. That’s also good advice for single folks who haven’t been previously married and don’t have another person’s benefit to supplement their own.

Plus, starting Social Security before your full retirement age of 67 means you’re subject to the earnings test. That test reduces your check by $1 for every $2 you make over a certain amount, which in 2024 is $22,320.

Your good health and family longevity don’t guarantee a long life, but they certainly make it more likely. Maximizing your Social Security benefit is a powerful way to ensure you don’t run short of money in your old age.

Q&A: Using retirement savings to pay down debt is risky business. Do this instead

By

Dear Liz: I’m way behind on retirement funds. I did get pension funds from my employer after 25 years of service but used a large portion to pay debt that was crushing me. I’m widowed, age 62 and work full time as a nurse. I rent my place. How do I catch up? I have $200,000 in an IRA.

Answer: This answer comes too late for you but may help others who are overwhelmed by debt as they approach their retirement years.

People understandably want to pay what they owe, but bankruptcy is sometimes the best of bad options. This is particularly true as you approach the end of your working years and don’t have enough time to replenish your savings. The typical bankruptcy filing can erase debt while protecting the retirement funds you’ll need for the future. Before using your lump sum pension payout to pay debts, you should have discussed your situation with a bankruptcy attorney.

At this point, your best options may be to work as long as possible, save as much as you can and figure out a smart Social Security strategy. As a widow, you may qualify for Social Security survivor benefits as well as your own retirement benefit. You can’t receive both simultaneously, but you would be allowed to switch between benefits. For example, you could start survivor benefits and then switch to your own when it maxes out at age 70, if that amount is higher. Typically you would want to wait until at least your full retirement age to start benefits, because otherwise you’ll face the earnings test that reduces your benefits by $1 for every $2 you earn over a certain amount, which in 2024 is $22,320. Paid services such as Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions can help you determine the best approach.

Q&A: The fine print on deducting medical expenses

By

Dear Liz: I take $5,000 per month out of my brokerage account (and the $1,400 in taxes when I withdraw the money) for my husband’s Alzheimer care facility where he now lives 24/7. Can I only claim that on my taxes under medical expenses if I itemize my deductions on my taxes? I don’t have any other deductions.

Answer: Your husband’s expenses may be enough to justify itemizing even if you don’t have other deductions.

The standard deduction for married couples in 2024 is $29,200. To itemize, your deductions would need to be higher than that amount. Furthermore, medical expenses must exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income to be deductible, notes Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

If your husband meets certain criteria, however, the deduction can include the expenses related to meals and lodging at the facility as well as the medical care portion, Luscombe says.

A licensed healthcare professional must certify annually that your husband is chronically ill and living in the care facility due to medical necessity, he says. A tax pro or the facility itself can provide further details.