Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: Setting up nieces and nephews for success

By

Dear Liz: This is a little unorthodox, but I’m hoping you can help. I have six nieces and nephews from my various brothers and sisters. They range in age from babies to teenagers. When they get older, I want to be able to assist them with therapy sessions — not because I think their parents will mess them up, but because I believe mental health is important to success. I imagine telling them about this fund when they are about 18 or so, so I’d need money I can access in five to 10 years. How should I start saving for this? What accounts should I use? Should I open one account for each of them, and how can I manage this the best way for my taxes?

Answer: Custodial accounts could save money on taxes, but the money would become entirely theirs at a certain point (typically age 18 or 21) and you would lose control over what they did with it. You could hire an attorney to draft trusts that would have more restrictions, but that will cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars to set up and administer.

The simplest solution would be to set up one or more accounts in your own name that you’ve earmarked for this purpose. You would pay taxes on any interest, dividends and capital gains accrued, but you would maintain control of the money and it wouldn’t affect the children’s ability to get financial aid in college.

Keeping control also gives you the flexibility to use the money for another purpose, in case your young relatives don’t need or want therapy. Mental health challenges — although widespread — aren’t universal. A survey funded by the National Institute of Mental Health found 46% of adults had a psychiatric disorder at some time in the past, and one-quarter had experienced a problem in the previous year. The most common disorders were major depression (17%), alcohol abuse (13%) and social anxiety disorder (12%).

If you’re concerned about their success and want to help with money they’re even more likely to need, consider funding 529 college savings plans. The money can grow tax-deferred and be used tax-free at virtually any post-secondary school in the U.S., as well as some abroad. You can maintain control and have the flexibility to move money to other beneficiaries, or to withdraw it at any time (although you’d pay penalties and taxes on any earnings).

Q&A: Social Security for a child

By

Dear Liz: I will be 65 next year and have an 8-year-old son. I have been told by various people that I can receive an extra Social Security allowance for him until he is 18. These same people also said it would reduce my benefit permanently. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes, plus your benefit would be subject to the Social Security earnings test if you continue to work. The earnings test applies when you start Social Security before your full retirement age, which is 66 and 2 months, and could temporarily reduce or even eliminate your benefit.

The earnings test disappears at full retirement age, which is why it’s usually good to wait until then to apply if you continue to work. Most people benefit from delaying the start of Social Security even longer, but your situation may be one of the exceptions because the child benefit can be a valuable, if temporary, addition to the family finances.

A child can receive up to half the parent’s full retirement benefit, typically until the child turns 18. (Benefits can continue as late as age 19 if the child is still in high school.) The parent must apply for his or her own benefit to trigger a child benefit. Also, there’s a limit to how much a family can receive based on one worker’s earnings record. This family maximum varies but can be from 150% to 180% of the parent’s full benefit amount.

Free Social Security claiming calculators typically aren’t set up to handle the possibility of child benefits, so you may want to use one of the paid versions such as Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions to determine your best course.

Q&A: Rising insurance premiums

By

Dear Liz: I’m an insurance agent specializing in long-term-care policies and just read your advice to the woman who was upset about how much her premiums had risen. Her premiums were $2,400 annually starting when she was 55 but are $4,470 now that she’s 77. First, thank you for noting that these premium increases are because insurance companies didn’t expect people to live so long and nursing home rates to increase so much. Please also tell your reader that, at her age, her premium for the coverage she has now would be well over $12,000! She bought early and she’s definitely getting a ridiculously low premium for the coverage she has. I’m sorry that she’s on a fixed income, but ask her how she’ll pay for a $60,000-per-year stay in a nursing home. If she can’t afford her premium, she should reduce her amount of time covered, not the amount of dollars covered.

Answer: Let’s be clear about who’s at fault here. It’s not the people who bought long-term-care insurance policies and expected them to remain affordable.

Insurers are supposed to be experts at predicting risk, but they made incorrect assumptions about how many people would drop their policies (known as the lapse rate), how many would file claims and how long those claims would last. Insurers also overestimated the returns they could get on their bond investments, which also help determine premiums.

All these stumbles have led to repeated premium increases that have threatened to make coverage unaffordable right when people need their coverage the most.

This woman is well aware of the high costs of long-term care; that’s why she bought the policy in the first place and kept paying it all these years. Her premium might seem “ridiculously low” to you, but anyone with an ounce of empathy could understand that $4,470 is a huge chunk of change for most seniors.

Keeping her coverage means giving up some of the benefits she was promised and had been counting on. Reducing the number of years the policy protects her, for example, could make her premium more affordable but leave her exposed to devastating costs if she needs many years of care.

This is a crappy situation for people who were trying to do the right thing. They don’t deserve to be sneered at for being upset about it.

Q&A: When savings are meager, it might be time to unretire

By

Dear Liz: I’m 67, retired and have $83,000 in a 401(k) that I left with my employer. Should I see a certified financial planner? Based on my current income, I either need a job, or I have to start pulling $10,000 from my 401(k) each year, which will clean out my account in eight years.

Answer: You definitely need a job.

You could burn through your nest egg even faster than you expect if the stock market drops or an unexpected expense crops up. And retirement is loaded with surprise expenses, from healthcare bills to home repairs to long-term care. Even in a best-case scenario, you’re likely to run short of money long before you run out of breath.

A planner could have warned you about this and suggested that a few more years of working, saving and delaying Social Security could have given you a far more comfortable retirement.

It may not be too late.

If you can return to work full-time, you could suspend your Social Security benefit. That would allow it to grow by 8% each year until you turn 70. If you’re married and the higher earner, that also would increase the survivor benefit that one of you will have to live on once the other dies.

Even if you can’t work full time, a part-time job could ease the drain on your 401(k). If you’re a homeowner, you also could consider a reverse mortgage that would allow you to turn your home equity into a lifetime stream of monthly checks, a line of credit or a lump sum.

A fee-only advisor — one who is paid only by clients’ fees, rather than by commission — could help you review your options. The Garrett Planning Network offers referrals to fee-only planners who charge by the hour.

Another option for people on a budget: accredited financial counselors or financial fitness coaches. These folks aren’t certified financial planners, but they can help with budgeting, debt management and retirement planning. You can get referrals from the Assn. for Financial Counseling & Planning Education.

Q&A: This generous gift has no tax effects

By

Dear Liz: If I give $15,000 to my grandson, do I report it on my tax return? Is it deductible? Does my grandson report the gift on his tax return and does he owe tax on it? What if three sets of grandparents (parents and stepparents of his parents) do the same?

Answer: No, no, no, no and it doesn’t matter for tax purposes (although obviously your grandson should be delighted he has such generous grandparents).

Gifts to individuals aren’t tax deductible, but neither are they taxable to the recipient.

People can give a certain amount each year to as many recipients as they like without having to report the gifts via a gift tax return. In 2019 and 2020, the limit is $15,000. Each grandparent could give up to that amount to your grandson; he wouldn’t have to report the income on his tax returns, and it wouldn’t cause any of you to have to file gift tax returns.

There’s no limit to the number of people who can give $15,000 to your grandson this way.

You wouldn’t owe gift taxes until the amount you’d given away above the annual exemption limit exceeded $11.4 million.

Q&A: Don’t rush to collect Social Security

By

Dear Liz: I would like you to explain to us retirees why we should delay taking Social Security.

I have two tax preparers — and other people — who say delaying is a terrible idea. I’m in my 20th year of collecting Social Security, and I can assure you that people who delay are making a dreadful mistake. Please check this out!

Answer: Your tax preparers may have had a point 20 years ago, but a lot has changed since then, including life expectancies and prevailing interest rates. It’s unfortunate if your advisors haven’t kept up with copious research showing that delaying Social Security makes sense for most recipients.

One issue of particular interest to tax pros is the “tax torpedo.” That’s a sharp rise and then fall in the marginal tax rate caused by taxation of Social Security benefits. Researchers found the tax torpedo could nearly double the marginal tax rate for many middle-income families. People in the 22% federal tax bracket, for example, could see their marginal tax rate jump to 40% on a portion of their income.

Two decades ago, this would have been an issue for fewer taxpayers because most did not owe income tax on their Social Security benefits. Now more than half pay taxes on their benefits because Congress hasn’t updated certain income limits to reflect inflation.

The researchers found that delaying the start of benefits until age 70 and tapping retirement funds instead could reduce the tax torpedo’s effect. This approach not only maximizes Social Security benefits but also reduces the minimum amounts that must be distributed starting at age 70½. For more details, you can point your tax advisors to the July 2018 issue of the Journal of Financial Planning.

The National Bureau of Economic Research also has numerous papers on Social Security-claiming strategies, including “Recent Changes in the Gains from Delaying Social Security,” “Leaving Big Money on the Table: Arbitrage Opportunities in Delaying Social Security,” “The Power of Working Longer” and “The Decision to Delay Social Security Benefits: Theory and Evidence.”