Q&A

Q&A: Planning philanthropy

January 13, 2020 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: You recently explained to a reader why it was better to make one donation of $1,000 rather than 10 donations of $100. I understand why you gave the response you did and you made some good points, especially about the importance of researching charities before you give. You also mentioned the costs each organization would incur in processing the smaller donations. As a longtime nonprofit executive, I think the social capital enjoyed by those organizations outweighs the costs. It often is helpful to the organization to be able to count that donor among their ranks to demonstrate that they have widespread support, for example, or to include that donor in future efforts to serve the community. My experience is that it’s not always just about the dollars and cents.

Answer: Thanks for adding your perspective. It’s understandable that a charity would prefer a small donation to no donation. The charity still gets some money, even after processing fees, and the opportunity to add another donor to their mailing lists.

Savvy givers, however, want as much of their money to benefit their favorite causes as possible. Giving larger donations to fewer charities is a good way to do that, since that approach minimizes processing costs as well as the volume of appeals for more donations. Also, adequately researching and monitoring 10 different charities is a tall order for most busy people. Winnowing the choices can help ensure we’re rewarding the best-run charities, rather than those that spend the bulk of their donations on fundraising and overhead.

Q&A: Your retirement plans require lots of decisions. Get help

January 13, 2020 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: We are a working couple in our late 50s. We live a comfortable lifestyle, have no mortgage, no debt, and we enjoy our careers. Through luck and diligence we have built a sizable net worth of $4.5 million (37% equity in our primary residence, 37% IRAs, 25% taxable equities). The investments are being managed by a family member. We plan to wait as long as possible before taking Social Security but would like to quit working within the next five years. As we look to retirement, we are undecided about where we’d like to live. We could stay in our current large house in Los Angeles, or we could move to a just-as-expensive nearby beach town and opt for a much smaller condominium.

I’d like to purchase the condo before retirement (paying cash, as we are debt-averse at this stage of our lives). This plan could improve our current lifestyle by providing a weekend retreat. Once retired, we might then have the luxury of deciding which home to keep and which to sell.

However, my partner is rightfully concerned about having too much exposure to real estate and missing out on the portfolio growth we’ve enjoyed by staying in the stock market as long as we have. What should we do?

Answer: It’s not a bad idea to test drive your planned retirement community before you give up your current home. But your partner is right to be concerned about having too much money tied up in real estate. Most people need to keep a substantial portion of their portfolios in stocks even in retirement. Plus, any money you pull from your investments could incur a rather substantial tax bill.

One solution could be to purchase the condo using a mortgage. Interest rates are quite low, and it sounds like your finances are in good-enough shape to pass the extra scrutiny lenders often give second-home purchases. If you eventually decide to sell your current home, the proceeds could be used to pay off the loan.

This would be a good time to hire a comprehensive financial planner who can help you figure out how this next phase of your life will work. The planner also could help you with all the other retirement issues you’ll face, such as picking a Medicare supplement plan, managing required minimum distributions and paying for long-term care.

You can get referrals to fee-only planners from a number of organizations, including the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors, the Garrett Planning Network, the XY Planning Network and the Alliance of Comprehensive Planners.

Q&A: This retiree got a big surprise: taxes

January 6, 2020 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I’m 76 and retired. During the decades I worked, I contributed to my IRA yearly using my tax refund or having money deducted from my paycheck. No one told me I would have to pay taxes on this when I turned 70. For the past six years, I have been required to withdraw a certain percentage of this IRA money and pay taxes on it. Is there ever going to be an end to this? Do I have to keep paying taxes on the same money every year? And what about when I pass away, do my children have to keep paying?

Answer: Ever heard the expression, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”?

You got tax deductions on the money you contributed to your IRA over the years, and the earnings were allowed to grow tax deferred. Those tax breaks are designed to encourage people to save, but eventually Uncle Sam wants his cut.

Also, you aren’t “paying taxes on the same money every year,” because the money you withdraw has never been taxed. Plus, you’re required to take out only a small portion of your IRA each year starting at 70½. The required minimum distribution starts at 3.65% and creeps up a bit every year, but even at age 100 it’s only 15.87% of the total. You can leave the bulk of your IRA alone so it can continue to grow and bequeath the balance to your children.

Your heirs won’t get the money tax free. They typically will be required to make withdrawals to empty the account within 10 years and pay income taxes on those withdrawals. Previously, they were allowed to spread required minimum distributions over their own lifetimes. Congress recently changed that to require faster payouts because the intent of IRA deductions was to encourage saving for retirement, not transfer large sums to heirs.

The Roth IRA is an exception to the above rules. There’s no tax deduction when you contribute the money, but the money can be withdrawn tax-free in retirement or left alone — there are no required minimum distributions. Your children would be required to start distributions, but wouldn’t owe taxes on those withdrawals.

Q&A: Credit scores measure Dad’s accounts, too

January 6, 2020 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I recently added myself onto my 95-year-old father’s two credit card accounts as an authorized user. I am his agent under a power of attorney and handle his finances. I noticed that after being added to those accounts, my credit scores increased. When he passes on, I plan to close those accounts. Will my credit score be negatively affected?

Answer: Possibly. Closing accounts doesn’t help your scores and may hurt them. Scoring formulas are sensitive to the amount of credit you have versus how much you’re using. Closing an account shrinks your available credit, and the formulas don’t like that.

If you have good scores and plenty of other open accounts, though, the damage from closing these accounts probably will be minor and short-lived.

Q&A: How deposit insurance limits work

December 30, 2019 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: My parents, who are in their 80s, just moved and are about to sell their former home. Their net gain from the sale will be approximately $400,000. I am advocating they put this money in a high-yield savings account as capital preservation is key. I know an individual account is insured by the FDIC for up to $250,000. But if we set it up so they are joint account holders, would the FDIC insurance limit on that one account rise to $500,000?

Answer: Yes. The FDIC insures up to $250,000 per depositor, per institution and per ownership category. Ownership categories include single accounts, joint accounts, certain retirement accounts such as IRAs, revocable trust accounts and irrevocable trust accounts, among others. Each depositor in a joint savings account is covered up to $250,000, so a couple would have $500,000 of coverage.