February 24, 2020 By

Q&A: To build credit, try this set-it-and-forget-it trick

Dear Liz: I have little credit history and my Experian credit score is about 620. My wife has no credit history. We are in the process of increasing our creditworthiness. I have an unsecured credit card from my credit union. She will be getting a secured credit card. We will use these lightly and regularly, paying them off each month. Does using my credit card to pay a utility bill each month work for building credit?

Answer: Absolutely. As long as your credit cards report to all three credit bureaus, your on-time payments will build your scores.

To make things easier, you could set up a recurring charge and automatic payment. Utilities typically allow customers to pay their bills automatically with credit cards, and credit cards usually offer the option of paying automatically each month. You’re normally given three options: paying only the minimum, paying in full or paying a set dollar amount.

Recurring charges ensure your card shows regular activity, while automatic payment should eliminate the risk of missing a payment. A single skipped payment could be a significant blow to your credit scores.

Another option to consider is a credit builder loan, which many credit unions and community banks offer. Typically, the amount you borrow is placed into a savings account or certificate of deposit while you make payments.

When you’ve paid the loan in full, usually after 12 months, you claim the cash. The payments help build your credit, and the cash could be the start of an emergency fund.

Filed Under: Credit Scoring, Q&A Tagged With: , , ,
February 24, 2020 By

Q&A: Delaying Social Security benefits

Dear Liz: My wife is a retired schoolteacher who has a pension. Because she is subject to the government pension offset, she will not be eligible for my Social Security benefit when I pass. My plan was to wait until 70 to file to maximize my benefit. This usually has the advantage of also increasing the survivor benefit that a spouse would receive.

Considering the government pension offset would eliminate any benefit to her, is waiting until 70 still the best strategy? Do I view it as longevity insurance with the understanding that I, or my wife, may never receive a nickel from Social Security if I die before claiming?

Answer: As you know, it’s usually advisable for the higher earner in a couple to delay starting Social Security as long as possible, because that increases the survivor benefit one spouse will get after the other dies.

Waiting until 70, when your benefit maxes out, can still make sense. Most people will live past the “break even” age when the larger checks more than offset the forgone benefits. The average life expectancy for a 65-year-old male is another 18 years. If you’re well educated, higher income or have longevity in your family, your life expectancy is probably even longer.

Delaying Social Security also can help minimize the “tax torpedo.” This is a surge in marginal tax rates that affects middle-income households caused by the unique way Social Security benefits are taxed. Drawing from retirement accounts first and then starting Social Security at 70 can result in considerable tax savings.

Also, in today’s low-rate environment, there’s no other investment that promises a guaranteed 8% annual return, which is what you get by delaying Social Security after your full retirement age.

To see which claiming strategy makes sense, consider using a Social Security claiming calculator that can include government pension offset situations such as Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions.

Filed Under: Q&A, Social Security Tagged With: , ,
February 24, 2020 By

Q&A: An emergency kit document hack

Dear Liz: Thanks for answering my question about storing hard copies of financial services records for emergency preparedness. My wife and I finally reached a compromise: We printed out our account numbers, but we attached code names to them that only we would recognize. Now both of us are comfortable that even though someone might have our account numbers, they’ll never know which financial institution to contact.

Answer: That’s a terrific compromise that keeps your important financial information accessible to you but not to an identity thief.

Filed Under: Identity Theft, Q&A, The Basics Tagged With: , , ,
February 17, 2020 By

Q&A: Handling money after marriage can be complicated. Mom and Dad should butt out

Dear Liz: My son just married. He and his wife are keeping totally separate finances, though he makes much more than she does. She is spending way more than she should on household items and services. Is this the new norm for relationships? What kind of professional do we contact that could help them with merging their finances?

Answer: You don’t contact any kind of professional. Your son and his wife can find help on their own. If your son starts complaining about his wife’s spending again, you might gently suggest that before changing the subject.

In answer to your first question, though, separate accounts aren’t the norm but they’re quite common. A 2018 Bank of America study found 28% of millennial couples kept their finances separate. Many prefer the sense of control and privacy that separate accounts offer.

But of course it’s still important for couples to work out budgets and joint goals together. That can take time, a lot of discussion and the willingness to compromise. It wouldn’t be fair for your son to dictate what they spend just because he makes more, just as it wouldn’t be fair for your daughter-in-law to purchase whatever she wants and assume he’ll chip in.

Again, however: It’s not your business, it’s theirs, and it will be better for all concerned if you keep out of it.

Filed Under: Couples & Money, Q&A Tagged With: ,
February 17, 2020 By

Q&A: IRMAA is not your friend

Dear Liz: My wife and I retired in 2019 and ran into IRMAA — Medicare’s income-related monthly adjustment amount, which increased our monthly premiums. I thought I’d done such a good job budgeting for retirement but missed this. A lot of couples have their best income years at the end of their career and then get blindsided by the cost of Medicare and the adjustment based on their previous income. I will say that the folks at the local Social Security office were very helpful, and they supplied us with forms for an exception based on our new income.

Answer: IRMAA can boost premiums substantially for singles with yearly income above $87,000 and married couples with incomes above $174,000. The increases for Medicare Part B, which covers doctor’s visits, range from $57.80 to $347 a person per month. The surcharges for Part D, which pays for prescription drugs, start at $12.20 and top out at $76.40 a person per month.

The adjustments are based on your income two years prior (so 2018 income determines 2020 premiums). You can appeal the increase if you’ve experienced a life-changing event. Retirement with a subsequent drop in income can be one such event. So can other work stoppages or reductions, marriage or divorce, the death of a spouse, loss of income-producing property or loss of pension income.

Even without IRMAA, healthcare costs can catch many newly retired people by surprise, especially if they previously had generous employer-subsidized coverage. Medicare doesn’t cover everything; it has deductibles and co-pays in addition to premiums, and excludes most vision, hearing and dental expenses.

How much you pay out of pocket depends on your health, where you live and what supplemental coverage you buy. A study by Vanguard and Mercer Health and Benefits estimated that a typical 65-year-old woman in 2018 could expect to pay $5,200, but her costs could range from $3,000 to $26,200. (The researchers say a 65-year-old man’s costs are typically about 3% lower.)

Filed Under: Medicare, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , ,
February 17, 2020 By

Q&A: Tax tips for hybrid owners

Dear Liz: Not a question, but a tip for your readers. I bought a plug-in hybrid in 2018. I couldn’t take advantage of the $7,500 federal tax credit because my income was too low to pay much in federal taxes. So I converted $30,000 of my IRA to a Roth IRA, which added that money to my income for 2018, allowing me to take full advantage of the credit. Hey, I even got some money back. I can’t touch that Roth account for five years, or else the income it generates won’t be tax-free, but when the time comes for my mandatory withdrawals, I’ll tap into the remainder of my regular IRA. This might be of help to some of your readers.

Answer: Normally conversions from a regular IRA to a Roth trigger a hefty tax bill, but your credit allowed you to convert tax-free. Leasing is another option to consider with hybrids and other cars that offer a federal tax credit. The value of the credit typically is built into the deal, so you benefit even if you don’t have a federal tax bill to offset.

Filed Under: Q&A, Taxes Tagged With: , ,
February 10, 2020 By

Q&A: Here’s what early retirees need to know about Roth IRA and 401(k) taxes and penalties

Dear Liz: I have been contributing to a Roth 401(k) and a Roth IRA for several years. I plan to retire early. Am I able to withdraw any of my Roth contributions without penalty before I reach age 60?

Answer: Your contributions to a Roth IRA can always be withdrawn tax free, at any time and at any age, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. Once you’ve withdrawn an amount equal to your contributions, though, the rest of your money — your earnings — may be subject to taxes and penalties. To avoid those, you generally must be at least 59½ and the account must be at least five years old.

The rules are somewhat different for Roth 401(k)s. Early withdrawals from these accounts are considered a mix of contributions and earnings, so any distributions before age 59½ typically incur taxes and penalties. Even after 59½, the withdrawals could be taxed and penalized if you haven’t been contributing to the account for at least five years.

Roth 401(k)s are also subject to rules that require minimum distributions to start at age 72. Many people who retire with Roth 401(k)s roll the money into Roth IRAs to avoid these restrictions.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , ,
February 10, 2020 By

Q&A: New rules for required distributions

Dear Liz: I cannot find when the SECURE Act takes effect. My wife, who turns 69 this summer, has a traditional Roth IRA worth about $150,000, all in a single large-company growth mutual fund. Obviously we don’t want to see it depreciate during a certain-to-come down market and then have to begin withdrawals before the market recovers. Would it be wise to move from the mutual fund into certificates of deposit or bonds, within the same IRA?

Answer: There’s really no such thing as a “traditional Roth IRA.” Since you’re asking about the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, which pushed back the age at which required minimum distributions have to begin from 70½ to 72, we’ll assume she has a traditional IRA subject to those RMD rules. (Roth IRAs are not subject to required minimum distributions.)

According to the IRS, people who reached 70½ in 2019 are subject to the prior rule and must take their first RMD by April 1 of this year. Those who reach 70½ this year or later must take their first RMD by April 1 of the year they turn 72.

That means your wife has some time to find an asset allocation that protects her somewhat from market drops while still allowing some growth. A fee-only financial planner could help her customize a portfolio, or she could consider a target date retirement fund (with a target date of 2015 or 2020, to benefit from a more conservative asset allocation). Moving everything to CDs or bonds would be trying to time the market, which rarely works, but having at least a portion of her money in safer investments could be smart.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , ,
February 10, 2020 By

Q&A: Storing documents in emergency kits

Dear Liz: I have appreciated your advice over the years, but I strongly disagree with your information about relying on electronic media during a disaster. If a really big disaster happens in this country, there will be no internet or Wi-Fi available. When the Loma Prieta earthquake hit in 1989, everything was offline for days, including gas pumps, banks and grocery stores.

Answer: Natural disasters are obviously quite disruptive, which is why it’s important to keep cash on hand, your gas tank at least half full and a couple weeks’ worth of meals in the pantry. But it’s important to note that quite a few things have changed since 1989, including the prevalence of identity theft.

The original question was specifically about storing copies of driver’s licenses, credit cards and financial records, including bank and brokerage documents, in a disaster kit. A copy of a driver’s license does little to help you prove your identity, since copies can be counterfeited, but it could provide an identity thief with enough valuable information to successfully impersonate you. The same is true of hard copies of credit cards and financial records — the benefit of having them in the kit is outweighed by the risks.

Instead, security expert Avivah Litan suggests storing only the account numbers in the kit, and keeping your driver’s license or other original identifying document with you at all times. She also recommended scanning important documents and storing them in a secure online account.

The providers of these accounts typically have backup systems and alternate power supplies to keep them up and running. The same is true of your financial institutions, which also store electronic records of your accounts. Chances are those servers and backup servers also are located far from where you live, so they probably would not be affected by any disaster that hits you.

Should we have a disaster big enough to knock everyone offline permanently, then all the documents in the world are unlikely to be of much use.

Filed Under: Q&A Tagged With: , , ,
February 3, 2020 By

Q&A: Required distributions and charity

Dear Liz: In a recent column, you mentioned that after age 70½, one can donate up to $100,000 to a charity directly from an IRA. Can one still take that as a charitable donation on income tax forms? If I have a required minimum distribution of $10,000, but make a $10,000 donation to a charity, does that take care of the required minimum distribution for that year?

Answer: The $10,000 charitable contribution would count as your required minimum distribution for the year and the money would not be included in your income, but you can’t also deduct the contribution. That would be double dipping.

As a refresher: Money doesn’t get to stay in retirement accounts forever. At some point, withdrawals must begin and those withdrawals are typically taxed as income. Congress recently changed the rules so that required minimum distributions now start at age 72 (they used to start at age 70½). But so-called qualified charitable distributions — donations made directly from a retirement account to charity — can still begin at 70½.

Before you make a qualified charitable distribution or any other withdrawal from a retirement account, consult with a tax pro to make sure you understand the rules that apply to your situation. Penalties for mistakes can be high, so it pays to get expert help.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement, Saving Money Tagged With: , , ,