Q&A

Q&A: Windfall elimination provision explained

November 22, 2021 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I understand your explanation of the windfall elimination provision that reduces Social Security benefits if someone is receiving a pension from a job that didn’t pay into Social Security. I am a teacher with such a pension who also worked more than 10 years in the private sector. I’d accept the explanation and the reduction if the WEP were applied in all 50 states. As you know, it is not. How is this reduction justifiable in any way?

Answer: The idea that WEP doesn’t apply in all states is a myth. WEP applies regardless of where you live. What matters is whether you’re getting a pension from a job that didn’t pay into Social Security. Some states provide such pensions while others don’t.

“If a state doesn’t provide its workers with their own pension and instead has them join Social Security, then exempting them from the windfall elimination provision is fully appropriate,” says economist Laurence Kotlikoff, president of Economic Security Planning Inc., which offers Social Security claiming software at MaximizeMySocialSecurity.com.

As mentioned earlier, WEP is not designed to take away from you a benefit that others get. Rather, the provision is designed to keep those who receive pensions from jobs that didn’t pay into Social Security from getting significantly higher benefits than workers who paid into the system their entire working lives.

That can happen because of the progressive nature of Social Security benefits, which are meant to replace a higher percentage of a lower-earner’s income than that of a higher earner.

People who don’t pay into the system for many years can appear to be much lower earners than they actually are. Without adjustments, they would get bigger benefit checks than people in the private sector with the same income who paid much more in Social Security taxes.

Q&A: Windfall elimination provision

November 15, 2021 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I just read your answer regarding the windfall elimination provision question. I receive a pension after having retired from law enforcement. I was fortunate to be able to retire at 46. Then I landed a great job with excellent pay. I expect to pay into Social Security for a total of 17 years and I’ve been contributing the maximum for the last six. How will this affect my benefits? Will I still be penalized?

Answer: The only way the windfall elimination provision wouldn’t affect you is if you paid into Social Security for 30 years or more. If you pay Social Security taxes for 20 years or less, you’ll face the full impact of this provision, which affects those who get pensions from jobs that didn’t pay into Social Security. Starting at year 21, the effect begins to lessen until it disappears at year 30.

You can learn more about what to expect on Social Security’s site. Some of the paid Social Security claiming strategy sites, including Maximize My Social Security and Social Security Solutions, can incorporate the windfall elimination provision into their calculations if you want to model how different retirement dates might affect your benefits.

Q&A: Getting a small estate transferred

November 15, 2021 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: My brother passed away three years ago leaving no will. All of his bills have been paid. I am unable to transfer his stocks and retirement account to my name. I have repeatedly checked the unclaimed properties list to no avail. No probate was required because the estate was too small. Will you please assist me with the steps I need to file to make this transaction occur?

Answer: Each state has its own laws for small estates and how to transfer assets, said Jennifer Sawday, an estate planning attorney in Long Beach.

In California, for example, a small estate is one with $166,250 or less in assets. If your brother’s estate was under this amount, you can complete a form that’s commonly referred to as a small estate affidavit and present it to the financial institutions or a stock transfer agent to start the transfer process. You can search online for a sample form or ask an attorney for help.

Q&A: Lump sum or monthly payout?

November 15, 2021 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I need advice on choosing between a lump sum retirement benefit and a monthly payout till death (with a cost of living adjustment). The monthly payout option also includes health insurance benefits but the lump sum option does not.

Answer: It’s hard to imagine a better option than a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted stream of income for life — particularly if that option includes retiree health insurance benefits, which are increasingly rare.

If you take the lump sum, you’ll be responsible for investing the money with no guarantees that you’ll get as much as if you’d picked the payment option. A bad market or bad investments could dramatically reduce your nest egg, as could fraud or improvident spending.

Even if you’re a good investor now, there’s no guarantee you’ll remain so. Our financial decision-making abilities tend to decline with age, although our confidence in those abilities often remains high — a truly scary combination.

The devil’s always in the details, though, so take the paperwork describing these options to a fee-only, fiduciary financial planner so you can get customized advice based on your situation.

You can get referrals to fiduciary financial planners from the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors, the Alliance of Comprehensive Planners, the Garrett Planning Network and the XY Planning Network. The Garrett network represents advisors willing to charge by the hour; XY Planning Network advisors offer the option of paying a retainer fee.

Be absolutely sure you’re dealing with a fiduciary financial planner — one who agrees, in writing, to put your best interests first.

Most advisors are held to a lower “suitability” standard that allows them to recommend investments and strategies that pay them more, rather than those that may be the best fit for you. An advisor held to this lower standard may urge you to take the lump sum not because it’s in your best interest but because they can earn commissions by selling you various investments.

Q&A: Gift taxes vs. estate taxes

November 8, 2021 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: A reader recently asked about passing a $500,000 inheritance to their children. You mentioned the option of disclaiming, or refusing the inheritance so that it would go to their kids. You wrote, “If you decide not to disclaim and later give the entire $500,000 to your kids, you wouldn’t have to pay gift taxes until you gave away considerably more. Plus, gifts are tax free to the recipients.” Are you possibly mixing up gifting and inheriting? As I understand it, gifting to your kids is limited to something like $15,000 per parent per kid. Unless you have a huge family, that’s not going to add up to $500,000 of tax-free giving.

Answer: Many people get confused about how gift taxes work. The gift and estate tax systems are intertwined, causing further confusion.

There’s no limit on how much you can give away during your lifetime: You can give as much money as you want to as many people as you want. If you give more than $15,000 to any one recipient in a given year, however, you’re required to file a gift tax return. That doesn’t mean you owe gift taxes.

The amounts over $15,000 count against your lifetime estate and gift tax exemption, which is currently $11.7 million per person. So if you give someone $20,000, the extra $5,000 would be deducted from your $11.7-million lifetime exemption. Only after you exhausted that lifetime exemption would you owe gift taxes.