Retirement

Q&A: Timing a Social Security application

June 9, 2025 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I know you work to maximize people’s money. I had a thought about the quality of life with Social Security. I took it at 65, which was then full retirement age. I was fully employed and did not need it to live. However, the extra money allowed us the opportunity to travel to all seven continents, help our kids with debts and down payments, and generally enjoy things with the extra cash. Now the full retirement age is 67, so there are fewer years between full retirement age and when benefits max out at 70. But the difference could still be enough for that motor home or world cruise.

Answer: All financial planning requires a balance between current and future spending. If you spend too much in the early years, you may not have enough to make it through the later ones. Retirement planning is further complicated by the fact that we don’t know how long we’ll live or how our health will hold up. We can delay spending so long that we’re no longer able to do the things we want to do, such as travel.

Still, the fact remains that when one spouse dies, one Social Security check goes away. That can lead to a devastating drop in income for the survivor. Because the survivor receives the larger of the two benefits, and may have to live on that amount for years, it almost always makes sense for the higher earner to delay filing as long as possible.

Q&A: Maxing out retirement contributions? Beware of future tax issues

May 19, 2025 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I work for a local government and am trying to decide when to retire. I will receive a pension and have put away as much money as I could afford in my 457 deferred compensation plan. I invested it in a Standard & Poor’s 500 index fund that has performed well and is now worth $1.3 million. I also have a non-sheltered brokerage account of seven figures and no debt. Last year, I contributed vacation time and money to maximize my 457 contribution of $46,000. This year (and next unless I retire), I am likewise maximizing my contribution and contributing $46,000 each year. But periodically our monthly expenditures have exceeded my monthly income after the contribution and I have had to dip into the brokerage account to make up the difference. Does that make financial sense to do if needed or should I consider scaling back my contribution?

Answer: When you’re behind on saving for retirement, maximizing your contributions to tax-deferred plans in your final working years can be a smart move.

You, however, have a large amount of savings as well as a pension, so you may face a different problem: higher future taxes. Diligent savers can find themselves pushed into a higher tax bracket when required minimum distributions (RMDs) kick in. RMDs used to begin at age 70-½, but now start at age 73 for those born between 1951 through 1959 and will rise to 75 for those born in 1960 and later.

Many people with large tax-deferred retirement accounts can reduce their lifetime tax bills by converting at least some of the funds to a Roth IRA. Conversions are taxable, but Roths don’t have required minimum distributions and future withdrawals from Roths can be tax free. Conversions can affect other aspects of your retirement, such as Medicare premiums, so you’ll want sound tax advice before moving forward. You also may want to consult a fee-only financial planner who can review your overall financial situation and help you shape your retirement income plan.

Q&A: Planning for retirement in a volatile market

April 7, 2025 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I have a retirement account at work and a stock portfolio. Both are down significantly this year and I’m tired of losing money. What are the safest options now?

Answer: Before the “what” you need to think about the “why” and the “when.” Why are you investing in the first place? And when will you need this money?

If you’re investing for retirement, you may not need the money for years or decades. Even when you’re retired, you’ll likely need to keep a portion of your money in stocks if you want to keep ahead of inflation. The price for that inflation-beating power is suffering through occasional downturns.

You won’t suffer those downturns in “safer” investments such as U.S. Treasuries or FDIC-insured savings accounts, but you also won’t achieve the growth you likely need to meet your retirement goals. In fact, you may be losing money after inflation and taxes are factored in.

Also keep in mind that if you sell during downturns, you’ve locked in your losses. Any money that’s not invested won’t be able to participate in the inevitable rebounds after downturns. Plus, you may be generating a tax bill, since a stock that’s down for the year may still be worth more than when you bought it. (You don’t have to worry about taxes with most retirement accounts until you withdraw the money, but selling stocks in other accounts can generate capital gains.)

The exception to all this is if you have money in stocks that you’re likely to need within five years. If that’s the case, the money should be moved to investments that preserve principal so the cash will be there when you need it.

Q&A: You can’t spend it when you’re gone, but delaying Social Security payments makes sense

October 14, 2024 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I’m a single person with no children. I worked for one private employer for 36 years, retired from there at 54 and am now 57. My home is paid off. I receive a pension of $2,400. I’ve been working a nearly full-time job averaging $3,800 a month with 8% going into a 401(k) and 4% being matched. I have observed many fellow workers wait till 65 to collect Social Security and then die a few years later. I also volunteer at my local VFW and listen to people complain about the lack of money they have, especially the women, who unfortunately relied on their dead husbands. So would it be bad for me to start collecting my Social Security at 63?

I am a very healthy person and longevity is in the family.

Answer: Some people do die shortly after retiring. Most, though, live well past the “break-even” age, when the smaller checks they give up by delaying Social Security are more than made up for by the larger checks they receive by waiting.

And the ones who die early … well, they’re dead. They no longer care about Social Security checks. The ones who care intensely about how much they’re getting are those who survive and run through their savings. Perhaps some of the women at the VFW had husbands who started their retirement benefits early, thus stunting the survivors’ checks their wives are getting. A few years’ delay could have made a huge difference to these women, who may have to live for years or even decades on a too-small benefit.

That’s why it’s so important for the higher earner in a couple to delay starting Social Security as long as possible, preferably to age 70, when their benefit maxes out. That’s also good advice for single folks who haven’t been previously married and don’t have another person’s benefit to supplement their own.

Plus, starting Social Security before your full retirement age of 67 means you’re subject to the earnings test. That test reduces your check by $1 for every $2 you make over a certain amount, which in 2024 is $22,320.

Your good health and family longevity don’t guarantee a long life, but they certainly make it more likely. Maximizing your Social Security benefit is a powerful way to ensure you don’t run short of money in your old age.