Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: The confusing balancing act between government pensions and Social Security benefits

By

Dear Liz: I am a public school teacher and plan to retire with 25 years of service. I had previously worked and paid into Social Security for about 20 years. My spouse has paid into Social Security for over 30 years. Will I be penalized because I have not paid Social Security taxes while I’ve been teaching? Should my wife die before me, will I get survivor benefits, or will the windfall elimination act take that away? It’s so confusing!

Answer: It is confusing, but you should understand that the rules about windfall elimination (along with a related provision, the government pension offset) are not designed to take away from you a benefit that others get. Rather, the rules are set up so that people who get government pensions — which are typically more generous than Social Security — don’t wind up with significantly more money from Social Security than those who paid into the system their entire working lives.

Here’s how that can happen. Social Security benefits are progressive, which means they’re designed to replace a higher percentage of a lower-earner’s income than that of a higher earner. If you don’t pay into the system for many years — because you’re in a job that provides a government pension instead — your annual earnings for Social Security would be reported as zeros in those years. Social Security is based on your 35 highest-earning years, so all those zeros would make it look like you earned a lower (often much lower) lifetime income than you actually did. Without any adjustments, you would wind up with a bigger check from Social Security than someone who earned the same income in the private sector and paid much more in Social Security taxes. It was that inequity that caused Congress to create the windfall elimination provision several decades ago.

People who earn government pensions also could wind up with significantly more money when a spouse dies. If a couple receives two Social Security checks, the survivor gets the larger of the two when a spouse dies. The household doesn’t continue to receive both checks. Without the government pension offset, someone like you would get both a pension and a full survivor’s check. Again, that could leave you significantly better off than someone who had paid more into the system.

Q&A: You don’t need to carry debt in order to have good credit

By

Dear Liz: You should tell people that they can help their credit score more by not paying their credit card bills in full each month. By not paying in full, but paying the minimum or more each month, it shows the card issuer that you can handle credit wisely and encourages them to raise the limit. This pushes the utilization down.

Answer: There’s nothing wise about carrying credit card debt. The idea that you need to carry a balance to have good scores is a stupid, expensive myth that needs to die.

People who spread this myth don’t understand how balances are reported to the credit bureaus and subsequently used in credit scores. Credit card issuers typically don’t report your balance on the day after you pay your bill. They may report your last statement balance, or the balance on a certain day each month. That’s the balance that credit score formulas have long used to calculate your scores. The scoring formulas traditionally couldn’t see whether or not you carried a balance from month to month, so there was no reason to do so and incur expensive interest.

Recent credit reporting changes will make carrying a balance an even worse idea. Some card issuers have started reporting payment patterns — essentially telling the bureaus which people consistently pay their balances in full and which don’t. That’s because research has shown that people who pay off their credit card bills are significantly less likely to default than those who carry a balance. Mortgage lenders already are considering this information when making loans, even though it’s not something that factors into the credit scores most of them currently use.

Although there’s no advantage to carrying a balance, there is a huge advantage to lightly but regularly using the credit cards you have. That’s what actually shows scoring formulas and lenders that you can responsibly manage credit.

Q&A: How a short sale can short-circuit your credit score

By

Dear Liz: In 2010 I was laid off from my construction management position. I was unable to find work for 28 months. The bank tried to foreclose but I was able to arrange a short sale of my home in March 2012. Shortly after that, my unemployment benefits ran out and I was unable to pay my obligations (two credit cards totaling around $9,500).

I did get a good job in June and in July worked out payment plans to get the back debt caught up. I have since paid this debt off (November 2016) and pay any credit card balances in full every month. I also pay my car loan on time using automatic debits.

My credit scores remain stuck in the 675 to 690 range and none of the steps that I take seem to help. I know that after seven years the negative information regarding the mortgage and the credit card past dues will drop off. Since I did the short sale and not a foreclosure, though, why are my credit scores treating me as if I did a foreclosure or chose bankruptcy?

Answer: A bankruptcy theoretically slices more points off credit scores than either a foreclosure or a short sale. The hit you take from a short sale, though, depends in part on how your lender reported the transaction to the credit bureaus.

If the lender reported a deficiency balance — which is essentially the balance of your mortgage that wasn’t repaid after the sale — the impact will be similar to a foreclosure. If the lender opts not to report the balance, the credit score impact will be somewhat less. After the foreclosure crisis started, some lenders opted not to report those balances as an incentive for homeowners to arrange short sales rather than let their homes go into foreclosure.

You’re already doing most of what you need to do to repair your credit, including having different types of credit (credit cards are revolving accounts while car loans are installment accounts) and paying those debts on time.

One tweak you can try is reducing your credit utilization on those cards. If you regularly charge 30% or more of your credit limits, try reducing your charges to 10% of those limits or less. It’s good that you pay in full, but the balance that’s used in most credit scoring formulas is the one the credit card issuer decides to report. It’s often, but not always, the amount that shows as your balance due on the statement closing day. Reducing the amount of credit you use may boost your scores a few more points. Other than that, you simply have to wait for time to pass and for your responsible credit use to undo the damage of the past.

Q&A: Social Security survivor benefits

By

Dear Liz: I have been with my significant other for over 30 years. We have an adult son. My significant other has a much larger Social Security benefit than I will have when it’s time for me to retire. I understand that if we were to marry and something happened to him, I would receive his benefit. But the law on Social Security is confusing. It says you have to be married several years to collect your spouse’s benefit unless you have a child. If we were married soon, would I be eligible for his benefits if something happened to him or would we have to be married for many years?

Answer: Social Security benefits can be confusing, but you don’t have to be married for many years to receive benefits.

To qualify for survivor benefits, you typically must have been married for at least nine months. To qualify for spousal benefits, you generally have to be married a year. If you have a natural child together and that child is a minor, the one-year requirement for spousal benefits is waived.

Survivor benefits are what you get when a higher-earning spouse dies. The benefit is 100% of what the deceased spouse received (or earned, if he hasn’t started benefits), but the amount is reduced if you as the surviving spouse begin benefits before your own full retirement age. The current full retirement age is 66 and will rise to 67 for people born in 1960 and later.

Spousal benefits are what you can receive while a spouse is still alive. This benefit is typically equal to half that spouse’s benefit and is reduced to reflect early starts.

You’ll need a longer marriage to get benefits should you divorce. The marriage must have lasted 10 years, and you must not be currently remarried to receive divorced spousal benefits based on your ex’s work record. For divorced survivor benefits, the marriage also must have lasted 10 years but you’re allowed to remarry at age 60 or later.

Q&A: Investors need to stop trying to time the market

By

Dear Liz: My 25-year-old son is a new investor. He put $11,000 ($5,500 each for 2016 and 2017) into an IRA in a money market fund with a discount brokerage firm. He doesn’t want to get into the market yet because he thinks it is in a bubble. I’m afraid with this strategy, he could be sitting there for a long time losing out to inflation. How would you present this argument?

Answer: You might ask him when he plans to enter the market. When stocks fall 10%? 20%? More? If stocks do tumble to his target level, there are likely to be plenty of scary headlines indicating that the market could fall further. Will he be able to follow through on his plan or will he put off investing — and miss the inevitable rise that will follow?

Newbie investors, and even some more experienced ones who should know better, often think that they can time the market. They can’t. They’re better off diving in with a well-diversified portfolio and adding to it regularly without worrying about the day-to-day swings of the market. Your son won’t need this money for decades, so there’s no sense fretting about what might happen tomorrow or next week. Over the next 40 years, he’ll see significant gains — but only if he gets off the sidelines and puts his money to work.

Q&A: Co-signing a loan may affect credit score

By

Dear Liz: Despite having high credit card debt (about $35,000), which I am working hard to pay off, my FICO score is consistently over 765 and I have never been denied credit — until now. I was recently denied for a card because of “high debt to earnings” (I earn about $85,000 annually.) Could that be because I recently co-signed for a $15,000 education loan for my grandson? I trust him completely to pay off the loan, but is it now showing on my credit history as money owed even though it is not payable until after he graduates?

Answer: You’d need to check your credit reports to be sure, but it’s entirely possible the new loan is already showing up and affecting your scores. Your debt-to-income ratio was high even before adding this loan, though, so it’s not surprising that the credit card company balked.

It’s unfortunate that you weren’t clear about this when you co-signed, but you’re on the hook for that student loan every bit as much as your grandson is. If he misses a single payment, you could see your credit scores lose 100 points or more overnight.

If you want to protect your credit scores and have the opportunity to get good credit card deals in the future, continue to pay down your debt. Also, consider making the payments on the education loan yourself and having your grandson reimburse you. That’s really the only way to make sure a missed payment won’t torpedo your scores.