Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: How a new credit card can help your credit score

By

Dear Liz: I’ve received a notice stating that a retail credit card I’ve had for more than a decade will be converted to a Mastercard. I already have an American Express charge card and a Visa rewards credit card. I don’t need another credit card. But I’m concerned. Will the conversion hurt my credit scores? Or is having a credit card versus a retail card better for my credit scores?

Answer: Congratulations! Such conversions indicate you’ve been using the card and your other credit accounts responsibly. If you continue to do so, the new credit card could help your credit scores more than the retail card.

Although getting new plastic is both good and bad for your credit score, a credit card is typically factored into more FICO scoring variables than a retail card, said Ethan Dornhelm, FICO’s vice president of scores and predictive analytics.

“So to the extent that you have positive behaviors, it’s more likely to have a broader positive impact,” Dornhelm said.

The flip side is that if you mess up by missing a payment or running up big balances, those mistakes could have a greater effect on your scores, Dornhelm said.

Closing the account probably would be one of those mistakes, since closures reduce your available credit and in general should be avoided unless there’s a compelling reason, such as a too-high annual fee. The benefits that came with the retail card, such as discounts and free shipping, probably will transfer to the credit card, so you can continue to benefit from the account without worrying that it will hurt your scores.

Q&A: Worried about identity theft? Here are some things you can do

By

Dear Liz: Last week I received my annual mortgage interest report. The envelope was not sealed and my full Social Security number was exposed. Two days later, I received an e-mail from PayPal for a purchase made online in my name with a different address. What do I need to do to protect myself from identity theft and are there any penalties my mortgage company could face?

Answer: The penalties for exposing your information depend on your state’s laws. You can contact your state attorney general’s office for more information.

At the very least, consider reporting the issue to the mortgage company and demanding that your Social Security number be redacted in future mailings. Better yet, see if you can go paperless and download your tax documents, a process that is typically more secure than having your private financial information sent through the mail.

It’s entirely possible the fraudulent purchase was unrelated to your mortgage company’s sloppy practices, but you should still take steps to reduce your odds of being victimized again. Obviously, you need to change your PayPal password but you should also make sure all your accounts — especially your financial and email accounts — have unique, complex passwords. A password manager such as LastPass or 1Password can help you keep track.

Good computer hygiene also can help reduce your risk. That means turning on your computer’s firewall, using a secure browser and keeping that browser up to date. Update and frequently run antivirus software as well.

Another important step in reducing identity theft risk is freezing your credit reports at all three major bureaus: Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. This should prevent someone from opening a new fraudulent credit account in your name but won’t prevent account takeovers, such as what may have happened with your PayPal account.

Detect account problems as quickly as possible by regularly reviewing bank, payment and credit card transactions. Consider putting alerts on your accounts for foreign transactions or transactions over a certain size or signing up with a credit- or identity-monitoring service.

Q&A: A gray area in required distributions

By

Dear Liz: I’ve reached that “certain age” when I should be taking required minimum distributions from my retirement accounts. I retired from full-time work at age 65 but continued doing small jobs at an hourly rate for that same employer. I set my own hours and earn just a couple thousand bucks a year. The company that holds my retirement funds says I don’t have to take the required minimum distribution because I never retired. I don’t want to be penalized for failing to take the RMD, and I can’t believe I get to delay taking the funds. Have I found a little-known loophole?

Answer: You’ve found a definite gray area.

People who are still working for the employer who provides their 401(k) may be exempted from the required minimum withdrawals that are otherwise supposed to start at age 72. The exemption does not apply to IRAs or retirement plans from previous employers. The exemption also doesn’t apply if you own more than 5% of the company, and not all 401(k) plans offer a “still working” exemption.

The IRS hasn’t offered a lot of guidance about the still-working exemption. For example, there doesn’t seem to be a clear minimum number of hours that an individual must work, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting.

Luscombe says the exemption may depend in part on the minimum number of hours required to participate in the plan. Even then, though, it’s not clear that an employee could reduce the number of hours working from a full-time level to a part-time level and still qualify for the still-working exception, he said.

“This could be a discrimination issue if higher-paid employees were allowed to reduce their hours and lower-paid employees were not,” Luscombe notes.

The company might need a written rule that all employees are allowed to reduce their hours at a certain age, Luscombe said.

If a particular plan permits part-time employees working at least 500 hours per year to qualify for its 401(k) plan, for example, then perhaps working at least 500 hours per year meets the still-working standard for that plan.

You’ll want to get some clarity about this, because the penalty for not taking required minimum distributions on time is high — it’s 50% of the amount you should have taken but didn’t. If the plan doesn’t have clear rules, ask your company to create some to guide you and others in your situation.

Q&A: Government pensions and Social Security

By

Dear Liz: Both of my parents have been retired for over 25 years. My father collects Social Security but my mother didn’t have enough quarters to collect. Both have Postal Service retirements. Can my mother file and get half of my father’s amount? Can they get back payments for 25 years?

Answer: The answer to both questions is “probably not.”

Your parents’ situation is complicated by the fact that the federal government changed its pension system for civilian employment in the 1980s. Prior to 1984, civilian employment was covered by the Civil Service Retirement System and workers did not pay into Social Security. Starting in January 1984, new hires were covered by the Federal Employee Retirement System and were required to pay into Social Security. Current hires had the option, but not the requirement, to join FERS, says William Meyer, founder of Social Security Solutions, a claiming strategy site.

Normally when someone receives a pension from a job that didn’t pay into Social Security, the government pension offset would reduce or eliminate any Social Security spousal benefit they might otherwise receive. However, there is an exception: The offset doesn’t apply to government workers who pay Social Security taxes for the last 60 months of employment. This exception applies to employees paying into FERS, Meyer says.

If your mother paid into FERS during the last 60 months of her employment at the Postal Service, she would be eligible for a spousal benefit on your father’s record, Meyer says. If your mother didn’t pay into FERS those last 60 months, the government pension offset would apply and would reduce or eliminate any spousal benefit.

That option should have been explored when your parents applied for their Postal Service retirement benefits, Meyer says. Social Security also would have looked into it as part of your father’s application process. If she’s not receiving a Social Security spousal benefit, she probably didn’t switch to FERS and did not pay into Social Security during the last 60 months of her employment at the Postal Service, Meyer says.

Q&A: How a living trust helps your heirs after you die

By

Dear Liz: My husband and I made a living trust in 2004. He died in 2018, so his half became irrevocable. But while we were settling his estate, no one mentioned (though I can see clearly in the 2004 flow sheet) that all the assets from his half went into a survivor’s trust, controlled by me. I had the option to disclaim those assets within a year, which I did not do, so now everything is mine. Is this standard? If so, how can it be considered irrevocable?

Answer: The structure you’re describing is pretty standard for living trusts, which avoid probate, the court process that otherwise follows death. Living trusts are considered revocable when they are created, meaning the creators can make changes during their lifetimes. Eventually, the trust usually becomes irrevocable, which means changes no longer can be made.

Your living trust was entirely revocable while both of you were alive. That means you could make changes or cancel the trust entirely. When your husband died, part of the living trust became irrevocable — the part that created the survivor’s trust. You had the option to disclaim those assets, which means refusing to accept them, but you couldn’t dictate where the assets would go at that point or otherwise change the terms of the trust.

If your living trust had created a bypass trust instead, then that would have been irrevocable as well but the structure would have been quite different. The assets in the bypass trust would not become yours. Instead, you would get the income from the assets but they would ultimately be passed to heirs designated by your husband.

As mentioned earlier, bypass trusts can be helpful in blended family situations. They also are used to avoid or reduce estate taxes, which are no longer an issue for the vast majority of people. (A public service announcement: If your estate plan was created prior to 2010, you need to have it reviewed pronto. It’s entirely possible your plan includes a bypass trust that’s no longer necessary and that could needlessly complicate your estate.)

Q&A; An auto dealer keeps checking my credit. Is that a problem?

By

Dear Liz: How do I remove inquiries from multiple auto lenders? One of the dealerships pulled my credit at least eight times over a two-day period. I thought this could only be done while the customer is physically at the car lot.

Answer: Dealerships aren’t supposed to check your credit without your permission, and they can’t check your credit if you don’t give them your personal information, including your Social Security number. Some dealers use deceptive methods to get your personal information, such as claiming they need your Social Security number for you to take a test drive. (They don’t.)

If you did give permission, though, there’s not a lot you can do about multiple inquiries. Dealerships can, and will, check with multiple lenders to see what rates and terms they’ll offer you. If your credit isn’t great, multiple inquiries may be necessary to find you a loan.

The good news is that multiple auto loan inquiries in a two-day span won’t hurt your credit that much or for that long. Most credit scoring formulas don’t count each auto loan inquiry separately, but instead aggregate such inquiries together and count them as one. The ding against your credit scores is typically small and lasts only a few months.

Ideally, though, you wouldn’t continue to do business with a dealership that wasn’t crystal clear about why it needed your personal information and how it was going to be used. Also, consider applying for a car loan from a local credit union before you step onto a car lot. Credit unions are member-owned and tend to have good rates and terms, without the runarounds and add-ons that are so prevalent at car dealerships.