Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: Roth IRA or traditional IRA? Here’s why one might be a better choice for young workers

By

Dear Liz: My mid-20s nephews and I discussed financial planning for them. After recommending they check with their employers for a 401(k) or equivalent program, we spoke about traditional versus Roth IRAs. Would younger investors benefit more from a Roth IRA because the length of time the money would be invested is so long that the eventual tax-free withdrawal of the earnings outweighs the initial tax benefits of a traditional IRA? At this time, we cannot determine if my nephews will have a higher tax rate post-retirement than now (even assuming income tax rates stay the same).

Answer: The usual advice has been that people should contribute to a Roth IRA rather than a traditional IRA if they expect to be in the same or higher tax brackets in retirement. (Contributions to Roths are not tax-deductible but withdrawals in retirement are tax-free. By contrast, contributions to traditional IRAs are often deductible, but withdrawals are taxed as income in retirement.)

Of course, you can’t predict future tax rates with any certainty. But it’s a pretty good bet that 20-somethings who are at the beginning of their careers will earn more — and thus face higher tax rates — down the road. In other words, your nephews’ current tax rates may be the lowest they’ll ever be. Your nephews may not get much benefit from a tax deduction now but could get huge benefits from tax-free withdrawals in the future.

Also, premature withdrawals from traditional IRAs are usually taxed and penalized, but you can always withdraw the amount you contribute to a Roth without paying taxes or penalties. That flexibility often appeals to young people who worry about “locking up” their money or who don’t yet have a substantial emergency fund.

Q&A: Vehicle insurance coverage limits

By

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question from someone who lent a van to a friend for more than a year. You mentioned the borrower “may have benefited from free insurance coverage if you continued to pay those premiums.” Some insurance companies limit the time they extend coverage when a car is driven by someone other than the owner or immediate family. Our insurance has a four-month limit.

Answer: That’s a good point. Insurers often require that anyone who regularly uses a vehicle be added to the insurance policy as a driver. In addition, someone who borrows a vehicle and who is otherwise uninsured might want to consider getting a non-owner insurance policy. This wouldn’t cover damage to the vehicle but would provide liability coverage in case of an accident.

Q&A: This spouse wants to keep an inheritance secret from the other spouse. Here’s a better idea

By

Dear Liz: A good friend is leaving me money from her IRA after she dies. I have asked that the gift be designated as “sole and separate property” to me. As I am married and file joint state and federal taxes, can this money be kept separate for my use only? I prefer that my spouse not be made aware of this as they have different ideas about how to use our money.

Answer: Inheritances can be kept as separate property even in community property states where other assets acquired during marriage are considered jointly owned. Community property states include Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

An inherited IRA, however, would be tough to keep secret if you file taxes jointly with your spouse. You’ll be required to take yearly minimum distributions to empty the account within 10 years, and those withdrawals will be taxed as income.

Few couples are entirely on the same page about money, but keeping financial secrets from each other generally isn’t the best way to cope with these differences. Instead, many people find it helpful to have some “no questions asked” money that they can spend as they please without consulting their partner.

Q&A: Social Security survivor benefits

By

Dear Liz: My beloved brother died recently. He was 70, retired and collecting Social Security. His husband, age 63, is still working. They had been married since 2008 but when he applied for survivor benefits, he was denied. Several in our friend group looked into this and the way we all read it, he should be entitled to survivor benefits. What are we not understanding?

Answer: Your brother-in-law wasn’t denied a survivor benefit, precisely. He just earns too much to receive one.

If your brother-in-law was born in 1960, his full retirement age is 67. People who apply for Social Security benefits before their full retirement age are subject to the earnings test, which reduces their benefit by $1 for every $2 they earn over a certain limit, which in 2023 is $21,240.

The earnings test will go away once he turns 67. At that point — or earlier, if he reduces his work hours and earnings sufficiently — he will have a choice between starting a survivor benefit and starting his own, with the option to switch later. If he’s earned a sizable benefit on his own work record, for example, it could make sense to start the survivor benefit and allow his own benefit to grow until it maxes out at age 70. A claiming strategies site, such as Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions, can help him choose the right course, or he could consult a fee-only financial planner.

Q&A: When WEP doesn’t apply

By

Dear Liz: I am a retired police officer who worked for an organization that did not pay into Social Security or Medicare. During my career I worked side jobs and paid my own self-employment taxes to get my 40 quarters to qualify for Medicare once I reach age 65. I did have Social Security earnings for about eight years prior to my law enforcement career. My understanding is any Social Security I would otherwise be entitled to will be wiped out by the windfall elimination provision. The WEP calculator on Social Security’s website isn’t user friendly so I can’t tell if I will lose all or a portion of my Social Security to WEP.

Answer: Your own Social Security benefit won’t be wiped out. The windfall elimination provision can reduce your Social Security retirement benefit by up to half when you get a pension from a job that didn’t pay into Social Security.

By contrast, another provision called the government pension offset (GPO) can and often does eliminate Social Security benefits, but only those based on someone else’s work record, such as spousal or survivor benefits.

Also, you misunderstood how Medicare works. You need to work 40 quarters to qualify for a Social Security retirement benefit, but you can qualify for Medicare at age 65 as a U.S. citizen regardless of your work history.

Q&A: Social Security cost of living adjustments

By

Dear Liz: I am 67 and am delaying taking my Social Security until age 70 to take advantage of the 8% annual deferral. I was told by an individual at the Social Security office that I won’t get any inflation adjustments, such as the 8.7% increase for this year, and that people only receive the inflation adjustments if they’re actually receiving Social Security. Is that correct?

Answer: No. The Social Security Administration makes that clear in its two-page document, “Your Retirement Benefit: How It’s Figured.” Here’s what that document says verbatim:

“You’re eligible for cost-of-living benefit increases starting with the year you turn age 62. This is true even if you don’t get benefits until your full retirement age or even age 70. We add cost-of-living increases to your benefits beginning with the year you reach 62. Benefits are adjusted yearly to reflect the increase, if any, in the cost-of-living as measured by the Consumer Price Index.”

Your experience unfortunately isn’t unique. Other readers have reported getting misinformation or bad advice from Social Security reps. Social Security is a complicated system with many nuances, so it’s important to get a second opinion from a knowledgeable source, such as a fee-only financial planner, before making decisions regarding your benefits.