Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Q&A

Q&A: Gift taxes vs. estate taxes

By

Dear Liz: A reader recently asked about passing a $500,000 inheritance to their children. You mentioned the option of disclaiming, or refusing the inheritance so that it would go to their kids. You wrote, “If you decide not to disclaim and later give the entire $500,000 to your kids, you wouldn’t have to pay gift taxes until you gave away considerably more. Plus, gifts are tax free to the recipients.” Are you possibly mixing up gifting and inheriting? As I understand it, gifting to your kids is limited to something like $15,000 per parent per kid. Unless you have a huge family, that’s not going to add up to $500,000 of tax-free giving.

Answer: Many people get confused about how gift taxes work. The gift and estate tax systems are intertwined, causing further confusion.

There’s no limit on how much you can give away during your lifetime: You can give as much money as you want to as many people as you want. If you give more than $15,000 to any one recipient in a given year, however, you’re required to file a gift tax return. That doesn’t mean you owe gift taxes.

The amounts over $15,000 count against your lifetime estate and gift tax exemption, which is currently $11.7 million per person. So if you give someone $20,000, the extra $5,000 would be deducted from your $11.7-million lifetime exemption. Only after you exhausted that lifetime exemption would you owe gift taxes.

Q&A: Exes and Social Security benefits

By

Dear Liz: I receive Social Security. My recently divorced girlfriend receives Social Security from her ex-husband who is still living. If we were to get married, would either of us lose part or all of our Social Security benefits? It seems like a simple, straightforward question, but every Social Security representative I speak with by phone or in person gives me a different answer. My girlfriend did not work long enough to earn her own Social Security benefits. She was married over 30 years and is over 60.

Answer: Your girlfriend would lose her divorced spousal benefits if she remarries, but she could then qualify for spousal benefits based on your earnings record. Your benefits would not be affected. A Social Security representative should be able to calculate how much her benefit would change.

Q&A: How a fee-only financial planner differs from a fee-based one

By

Dear Liz: What is the difference between a fee-based financial planner and a fee-only financial planner? I have had a few complimentary meetings with a fee-based financial planner regarding retirement planning and income-generating strategy. I am 61 and currently have $325,000 in a traditional IRA and a 401(k) from a former employer, with 70% of both accounts held in stocks. The planner suggests that I put the whole $325,000 into a fixed indexed annuity, which he says is no risk. Is this a good idea?

Answer: Someone who is “fee based” typically accepts commissions or other incentives for selling certain investments in addition to charging fees. “Fee only” advisors accept money only from their clients.

Another important word that starts with f: fiduciary. Fiduciary advisors promise to put your interests ahead of their own. A fiduciary advisor, for example, typically wouldn’t recommend putting all your money in a single investment since having all your eggs in one basket is rarely in your best interest.

Most advisors are not fiduciaries, however, and may recommend poorly performing or expensive products to you when better options are available because those lesser options pay them more. Indexed annuities can pay high commissions to the people selling them, for example, and that can be a powerful incentive for your advisor to gloss over their potential disadvantages.

Indexed annuities are sold as a way to benefit from some of the upside of the stock market without the risk of loss if the market falls. But these annuities are complex and insurers can typically change the rules that govern your returns. In addition, you may face surrender charges if you need to take your money out.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued investor alerts about indexed annuities. These alerts urge potential investors to thoroughly investigate how the contracts are structured, how returns are figured and how the calculations can change. Anyone who is considering an indexed annuity would be smart to run the purchase past a fee-only, fiduciary financial planner to see whether it really makes sense for their situation.

By the way, there’s no such thing as a no-risk investment. Every investment poses some kind of risk, and a fiduciary advisor will take the time to explain those to you so you can make an informed judgment.

Q&A: When mortgage shopping, does checking your credit scores lower them?

By

Dear Liz: We’re trying to refinance a mortgage. All of the mortgage lenders claim that checking our credit scores will not affect the scores. However, that is not true. What gives? The three credit bureaus all list “too many inquiries” and penalize us. Does calling them do any good or make it even worse?

Answer: Checking your own scores is considered a soft inquiry that has no effect on your scores. When a lender checks your scores, there can be a small ding, but credit scoring formulas also have a feature that reduces the effect when you’re shopping for a mortgage.

Essentially, all the mortgage inquiries made within a certain amount of time are grouped together and counted as one. In addition, the formulas ignore any mortgage inquiries made within the previous 30 days. The amount of time you can shop varies with the credit scoring formula, so it’s generally a good idea to concentrate your shopping into a two-week period.

What you don’t want to do when you’re in the market for a mortgage is to apply for other credit. Those inquiries are not grouped with your mortgage inquiries. The effect of these inquiries fades quickly and is usually pretty small — typically 5 points or less for FICO scores, for example. But even a small ding could cause you to pay more in interest if your scores aren’t already excellent.

Q&A: Social Security windfall elimination provision

By

Dear Liz: I was referred to an answer you wrote in 2017 explaining Social Security’s windfall elimination provision. It was the clearest explanation I have seen. I receive a government pension and a reduced Social Security check from the provision and am now fine with how it came to be, thanks to your post.

Answer: Many people are understandably upset that their Social Security benefits are reduced when they receive a pension from a job that didn’t pay into the Social Security system. Understanding why this happens may help. Here’s a reprint of the question and answer from 2017:

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 more than 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.

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.

Q&A: More about Medicare choices

By

Dear Liz: I’ve enjoyed your columns about choices between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. I have a terminology question: What is the difference between a Medigap policy and a supplemental one? I have traditional Medicare and a supplemental plan, which covers the deductibles and copayments that Medicare doesn’t cover. According to your article, it seems a Medigap policy does the same. Please clarify and keep up the good work.

Answer: Medigap and supplemental policy are two terms for the same product: an insurance policy sold by private insurers to cover the “gaps” in Medicare coverage. If you have traditional Medicare (also known as original Medicare), it’s generally advisable to have a Medigap supplemental policy as well.

You can’t get a Medigap policy, however, if you have Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is also provided by private insurers but is meant to be an all-in-one alternative to traditional Medicare, rather than a supplement to it.