Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: His Social Security claiming decision could use a second opinion

By

Dear Liz: I retired in 2013 at 55. I purchased an annuity, which will pay $1,000 a month for life for me and my wife as well. That starts in February 2020. My retirement fund, meanwhile, was rolled into an IRA and I’m withdrawing about 10% of that annually. The balance is about $650,000.

My advisor wants me to start my Social Security at age 62. I would receive $1,800 a month and could reduce my withdrawal rate to 4%. I’ve also been told, however, that it would be better to wait until my full retirement age (66 and 6 months) or 70, when my benefit maxes out. At full retirement age, my monthly benefit would be about $2,500, and at 70, it would be $3,000.

I’m not sure what to do. My wife will be retiring next year and her monthly pension will be about $3,700. We still owe on our house and have other debt as well. What’s my best option?

Answer: There’s a lot of research showing that single people and “primary earners” — the higher wage earner in a married couple — are better off delaying the start of their Social Security benefits. (The article “Understanding Social Security Claiming Decisions Using Survey Evidence” in the November 2018 issue of the Journal of Financial Planning does a good job of summarizing the research.)

Longer life expectancies mean most people will live beyond the “break even” point at which the larger benefit more than makes up for the checks they pass up in the early years. These larger checks are a kind of longevity insurance, as well. The longer you live, the more likely you will have spent your other resources and wind up depending on your Social Security income to live.

Having the primary earner delay is especially important for married couples because at the first death the number of checks the household receives will drop from two to one. Because the survivor receives the larger of the two checks, it’s usually wise to make that check as large as possible.

The benefits of delay are so substantial — one study shows that the sustainable standard of living is 30% higher for people who start at 66 rather than 62 — that advisors often recommend tapping other resources, including retirement funds, if it enables people to put off starting their checks.

Your situation may be a bit different, though because you mention that your wife has a pension. If the pension is from a job that did not pay into Social Security, it would affect her ability to receive survivor’s benefits from the Social Security system. Something known as the government pension offset would reduce her survivor check by two-thirds of the amount of her pension, which could eliminate her survivor benefit entirely. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t be as crucial for you to delay.

Given how much is at stake, though, you might want to get a second opinion from another advisor who can review the specifics of your situation.

Q&A: Capital gains on house sale

By

Dear Liz: I am one of those seniors who purchased their house in the 1970s. I would like to move but I’m reluctant because of the huge capital gain tax that I would have to pay. The exemption amount has not been raised since 1997 when it was enacted. In comparison, the estate tax exemption has risen from $600,000 in 1997 to more than $11 million currently. Wouldn’t raising the capital gain exemption stimulate the real estate market as more people would put their homes on the market and give more first-time buyers a chance at homeownership?

Answer: Perhaps, but you shouldn’t let tax law be the sole determinant of what you do or don’t do. Minimizing taxes can be a factor in your decisions but shouldn’t be the only one.

Also, keep in mind that the median home price in the U.S. is currently $226,300, according to real estate site Zillow. Most homeowners haven’t seen and probably won’t see enough appreciation to use a single $250,000 exemption, let alone the $500,000 available to couples.

So you may have a problem, but it’s an enviable problem. Even if you pay taxes at top rates, you’ll still have a substantial sum left over. And you may be able to spread out the tax bill using an installment agreement, in which the buyer pays you over time. You’ll want a tax pro’s help if you go that route, but you should consult one in any case to make sure you’re taking advantage of every other legal opportunity to reduce what you owe.

Q&A: Loans, taxes and home sales

By

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question about determining home sale profits for a widow. My question is how you calculate taxes when there’s a loan in the mix. For instance, when I bought my home, I took out a mortgage. Subsequently, I took out a second mortgage to pay for a pool and landscaping. I also refinanced several times, but never took a mortgage with cash out. Please advise me how to calculate my cost basis given these loans. Of course, you can broaden your response to include other loan scenarios and how they play into cost basis.

Answer: This will be a short answer, because they don’t. What you owe the mortgage lender(s) is typically irrelevant for calculating your capital gain.

Q&A: Facing retirement with parent student loans? Transfer them to the kids

By

Dear Liz: I’m 60. Should I take a $50,000 distribution from my 401(k) to pay down my $146,000 parent Plus college loan and then try to refinance the balance with a private lender at a lower interest rate? I have $364,000 in my 401(k). I’m paying 8% interest on the parent Plus loan and planning to retire at age 66 years and 10 months, my full retirement age for Social Security.

Answer: Are you sure you can afford to retire?

You would still have a massive amount of education debt even after paying it down, plus a smaller nest egg. Unless you have a substantial amount of savings outside your 401(k) or another source of income besides Social Security, you could run a substantial risk of running short of money even if you can persuade a private lender to refinance your debt.

That may not be the best option, in any case. Federal loans have more consumer protections, including deferral and forbearance options and income-contingent repayment plans that could lower your payments.

Refinancing with a private lender might make the most sense if you can transfer this debt to the child or children who benefited from the education. Several private lenders offer this option if the kids have good credit and decent incomes.

In any case, you’d be smart to consult a fee-only financial planner who can review the specifics of your finances and offer advice.

Q&A: Student loan forgiveness fail

By

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question from someone who had defaulted on federal student loans. You mentioned ways to get out of default and qualify for income-driven repayment plans that could reduce her monthly payments. Couldn’t she also qualify for student loan forgiveness?

Answer: There are programs that are supposed to allow federal student loan balances to be forgiven after 10 years of payments for people in public service jobs and after 20 or 25 years for other borrowers. It’s questionable how much anyone should count on getting this relief, however.

Last year was the first time borrowers qualified for forgiveness under the 10-year public service program, which was enacted under President George W. Bush in 2007. The Department of Education has denied the vast majority of applicants their expected relief. Nearly 40,000 people had applied by Dec. 31 and fewer than 300 people have been approved, according to the Washington Post.

Critics say the U.S. Department of Education has set much more rigid standards for approval than anything Congress envisioned when creating the program. Many applicants also relied on erroneous advice given by the private companies that service federal student loans.

It’s possible that lawsuits, or Congress, will force the Education Department to forgive more of the debt. But if this is what can happen to people who have given a decade of their lives to public service, one has to wonder how much relief other borrowers can expect to get.

Liz Weston, certified financial planner, is a personal finance columnist for NerdWallet. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.Distributed by No More Red Inc.

Q&A: Don’t make this Social Security mistake when planning retirement

By

Dear Liz: I’m 64, single, and was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. I still work full time but due to my health, it’s getting harder to do. I have a 401(k) from this job. I’m just wondering how smart would it be, all things considered, to retire now and collect Social Security since the chances of my living another two to four years don’t seem high. What are your thoughts?

Answer: A large body of research shows most people are better off delaying Social Security. Your situation may be one of the exceptions, or it may not be.

A man age 65 in the U.S. can expect to live, on average, to 84, according to the Social Security Administration. A woman age 65 can expect to live, on average, to nearly 87. That’s beyond the typical “break even” point, where the benefits of larger Social Security checks for life outweigh the cost of missed checks from not claiming earlier.

But most people shouldn’t base their claiming strategy on break-even points alone. Dying too soon and not being able to get the maximum payout from Social Security is certainly a risk. But a much bigger risk is longevity. The longer you live, the higher the odds of running short of money and having to get by on Social Security alone.

Those risks are greater than many people think. A 65-year-old man has a 20% chance of living to age 90, while a 65-year-old woman has a 32% chance, according to the Society of Actuaries.

If the man and woman are married, there’s a 45% chance that one will live to age 90. That’s why it’s so important for the higher earner in a marriage to put off claiming as long as possible, since doing so will generate a bigger check for the survivor to live on. (Single people also are exhorted to delay claiming, since they will be living on just one check, rather than two.)

People with more education and higher incomes tend to live longer than average, while those in poor health obviously can have shorter life expectancies. A terminal diagnosis certainly changes the math. But you didn’t say why you expect to live only two to four more years. Various studies have estimated that Type 2 diabetes could shave five to 10 years off the typical life expectancy, which would still have you living well into your 70s. If you went through your savings as if you were going to live four years but wound up living 14, that last decade could be pretty uncomfortable.

None of this means you can’t retire now, but like everyone else, you should balance the desire to make the most of the time you have left with the risk that you may live longer than you think. A fee-only financial planner could help you think through the options and run various financial scenarios so you can see how your decisions could play out over time.