Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: The effects of a property sale on Social Security

By

Dear Liz: I sold a rental property this year and will have a long-term capital gain of about $100,000. My normal income usually puts me in the 10% tax bracket and my Social Security is not taxed because my total income is under $25,000. I pay $104 per month for Medicare. Will the sale of the rental property count as income and make my Social Security benefits taxable? Will I suddenly be deemed “rich” enough to pay more in Medicare payments? If so, will the Medicare payments go back to normal because I will have total earnings under $25,000 after 2014? I am 66, single and by no means rich.

Answer: This windfall will affect your Social Security taxes and your Medicare premiums, but the changes aren’t permanent.

The capital gain will be included in the calculation that determines whether and how much of your Social Security checks will be taxed, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for CCH Tax & Accounting North America. That will likely cause up to 85% of your Social Security benefit in 2014 to be taxable.

Your Medicare premiums are also likely to rise based on your higher modified adjusted gross income, said Jay Nawrocki, senior healthcare law analyst for Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. The income used to determine Medicare premiums is the modified adjusted gross income from two years earlier, so your premiums shouldn’t increase until 2016. If your income reverts to normal in 2015, your premiums should also revert to normal in 2017, Nawrocki said.

The exact amount you’ll pay can’t be predicted, but people with modified adjusted gross incomes under $85,000 paid $104.90 per month in 2014. Those with MAGI of $85,000 to $107,000 paid $146.90, while those with MAGI of $107,000 to $160,000 paid $209.80. If your income for 2014 puts you in that last group, you should count on your premiums roughly doubling in 2016.
There is some good news. You’ll qualify for the 0% capital gains rate on the portion of the gain that makes up the difference between your income and the top of the 15% tax bracket (which is $36,900 in 2014 for a single person). If your income is $24,000, for example, then $12,900 of your capital gain wouldn’t be taxed by the federal government. The remaining $87,100 would be subject to the 15% federal capital gains rate. You may owe state and local taxes as well, so consult a tax pro.

Q&A: When elderly parents are in financial trouble

By

Dear Liz: My in-laws just informed us that they have gone through their retirement fund and soon won’t be able to pay their mortgage. They borrowed against the house they’ve lived in for 30 years and currently owe $325,000. They are devastated, so I am trying to figure out the best way for them to stay in their house in their final years, as they are both 73. They have about $300,000 in equity but do not want to sell. They are willing to sell the house to my wife and me at their current balance. We would make the payments and they remain in the house. When they pass, the house would be ours. They looked into a reverse mortgage but this would cover only the payments, not taxes, insurance or maintenance. What is the best way to do this? Do I get a loan and purchase outright? Do I contact their bank and see if I can assume their loan? Do they quit-claim the home to my wife and me? My wife and I can afford to do this, but we want to make the right financial decision.

Answer: Before you do anything, please consult a tax professional and an attorney with experience in estate and elder law.

It’s unlikely the lender will allow you to assume the loan, so you probably would need to set this up as a sale of the home with you and your wife obtaining a new mortgage.
But their plan to sell the house to you at a below-market value could create gift tax issues and could delay their eligibility for Medicaid, should they need help paying for nursing home care.

There are other risks to your in-laws. Your creditors could come after the home if you lose a lawsuit, for example. You could sell the home without their consent, and you would have a claim on the property if you and your wife split up.

Then there are the risks to you. You say you can afford to make the payments (and presumably pay the taxes, insurance and maintenance as well), but what happens if you lose a job or suffer another financial setback?

All of you need to understand the risks involved, and your alternatives, before proceeding.

A sale of the home or a reverse mortgage may well prove to be a better choice. A reverse mortgage wouldn’t completely eliminate their home costs, but would substantially lower them — whoever winds up paying the bill.

Q&A: Saving vs Relying on pension

By

Dear Liz: My husband works for the government and will be receiving a pension when he retires. Am I still supposed to save the recommended amount for retirement from my income or can that amount be reduced since we know we have the pension? We are starting a family and could use any extra money we can get right now.

Answer: If your husband is just a few years away from collecting that pension, counting on it to be there is reasonable. Since you’re just starting a family, though, it’s much more likely that retirement is decades away, and a lot can happen in that time.

Your husband could be laid off or fired, or he could quit. Even if he sticks it out, the government could change the way his pension is accrued to make it less generous. (The rising cost of public employee pensions concerns many lawmakers and taxpayers.) Even if he gets what he expects, his pension may not be enough to support the two of you in old age.

So yes, you should be saving for retirement. A cautious person would save as if no pension existed. Someone who’s comfortable with risk might simply aim to fill the gap between the expected pension and future living costs. Others might find a comfortable saving rate between those two points. You can use AARP’s retirement calculator to help you create a plan that allows you to take care of your family today without depriving yourselves in the future.

Q&A: Twelve-year old charge-off

By

Dear Liz: Late last year, I applied for a credit card to buy a new computer on the computer maker’s website. I was declined. I was given the chance to talk to the credit card company’s agent and was belittled for having not-so-perfect credit, not enough credit and using too much credit, all in the same phone call. Needless to say, I got the message. I was also reminded that I’d had a charge-off on a competitor’s card in 1992! I always thought bad credit dropped off after seven years, certainly 10. Maybe you can clarify?

Answer: You need to take a look at your credit reports to see what lenders are seeing.

A charge-off from 1992 should have been removed in 1999, said credit expert John Ulzheimer, president of consumer education at CreditSesame.com. Charge-offs aren’t public records, so there would be no way for a credit card company to know that a competitor wrote your account off as a loss unless it’s still showing on your credit reports.

“This is why it’s a great idea to pull your credit reports from time to time to make sure ancient debts aren’t still on [them],” Ulzheimer said.
If the charge-off is still showing, you should dispute it with the credit bureaus to have it removed.

What might still be a public record is a judgment, if your old creditor filed a lawsuit against you and then took the trouble to renew the judgment to extend how long it could appear on your credit reports.

“That’s a little trick some lawyers play to keep judgments from expiring,” Ulzheimer said. “They’ll re-file them, sometimes in different jurisdictions, and the byproduct is new credit reporting.”

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, civil judgments have to be dropped after seven years unless your state has a longer statute of limitations. If it does, the judgment can be reported until the statute expires. The statute for judgments ranges from three years to 20 years. California’s statute of limitations for judgments is 10 years. Bills.com has a list of state statutes of limitation athttp://www.bills.com/statute-of-limitations-on-debt/. If you find a judgment on your credit report that should have expired, dispute it with the credit bureaus.

You also should remedy the other problems the representative brought up. You need to pay down the balances on the credit accounts you’re using (preferably paying them off in full). Once you’ve done that, consider adding another credit card to your mix — but use it only if you can commit to paying the balance in full each month. Paying your bills on time and responsibly using credit will help you put your “not-so-perfect credit” behind you.

Q&A: Student loans and credit reports

By

Dear Liz: My daughter graduated from college seven years ago and moved to London. She has not paid her student loans. Do they drop off her credit reports like other unpaid debt? What about the government’s ability to collect? Does that expire as well?

Answer: The government can pursue people who owe federal student loan debt to their graves. There is no statute of limitations for collections activity, as there is on most other debt. Furthermore, the government has powers any private collection agency would envy. The feds can seize tax refunds, garnish wages without a court order and even take a portion of a debtor’s Social Security checks.

Your daughter shouldn’t expect the unpaid debt to vanish from her credit reports either. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act limits the length of time other negative marks can remain, but that doesn’t apply to federal student loans.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act “is silent as it pertains to government-guaranteed student loans,” said credit expert John Ulzheimer, president of consumer education at CreditSesame.com. “The Higher Education Act allows them to remain on credit reports as long as they’re unpaid.”

There are so many affordable repayment options these days for federal student loans that it makes little sense to default. In cases of extreme hardship or low income, payments can be reduced to zero and the loans would still be considered current.

Your daughter needs to make arrangements to pay what she owes, especially if she ever plans to come home. The good news is that the Department of Education will work with her to get her loans out of default status, and clear up her credit, with an affordable payment program. She can start by visiting the department’s site at studentaid.ed.gov.

Q&A: Retirement annuity vs lump sum

By

Dear Liz: I am 54 and considering retiring in three or four years. I have been fortunate to work at a Fortune 100 company for 30-plus years and have both a defined benefit pension plan and a 401(k). When I retire, we have the option of taking a lump sum or an annuity. Most financial people I talk to strongly recommend taking the lump sum, though I wonder if it is not just so there is more money to manage? My current inclination is to take the annuity (with survivor benefit for my wife). I think we can live off the annuity alone and use the 401(k) for emergency/fun/help-the-kids money, etc. I think if I took the lump sum and invested it, I’d always worry about what the market was doing. Am I off base?

Answer: Not at all.

Theoretically, you often can make more money by taking a lump sum and investing it than by accepting the annuity, which offers a lifetime stream of payments. But perhaps you’ve heard the quote “In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not.” Anyone who knows much about behavioral finance knows there are many, many ways such a plan can go wrong.

You could pick the wrong investments, take too much or too little risk, trade too much or spend too much, and wind up much worse off than if you’d chosen the annuity. You could turn over the investing decisions to a pro, but there’s no guarantee that person won’t make mistakes. Even if he or she chooses great investments and allocates your assets well, your nest egg could still take a hit from the market.

If you were comfortable taking that extra risk to get the extra possible reward of more cash, accepting the lump sum would be the way to go. Since you’re not, there’s nothing wrong with taking the annuity. Opting for a survivor’s benefit means your wife will have guaranteed income should you die first.

Before you pull the plug at work, though, make sure you talk to a fee-only planner who charges by the hour to make sure your retirement plan makes sense. (Planners paid by the hour won’t have a vested interest in how you opt to manage your retirement funds.) Your assets probably will have to last 30 or 40 years, and you’ll have to figure out how to pay for the ever-escalating cost of health insurance. This can be a tricky process, so you’ll want expert, unconflicted help.