Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

q&a

Q&A: Postponing Social Security

By

Dear Liz: My question is on when to take Social Security. My financial advisor recommends that I file for my benefit at age 66 but suspend the application so my benefit can continue to grow until it maxes out at age 70. At 66, I would receive $2,614 per month. At age 70 I would receive $3,451 per month. In those 48 months I would have received $125,472. I calculate that it would take me 12.49 years to make up the difference of $837 a month. So why should I postpone until age 70? What am I missing?

Answer: There’s a big difference between postponing Social Security until your full retirement age of 66 and postponing again until age 70.

Postponing until full retirement age is pretty much a slam-dunk, if you can afford to do so. That’s because most people will live beyond the break-even point, which is typically somewhere between ages 77 and 78.

The break-even point for postponing until age 70 is between age 83 and 84, which is cutting it closer in terms of average life expectancy. A man who reaches age 65 is expected to live on average until age 84. Women reaching 65 are expected to live until 86.

But focusing just on break-even points ignores other, more important factors.

One is that waiting offers an 8% annual return between age 66 and 70. No other investment offers a built-in, guaranteed return that high.

Another has to do with survivors. If your spouse earned less than you, she would end up depending on your check alone should you die first. (Survivors get the larger of their own benefit or their spouse’s, but not both.) The larger the check, the better off she’ll be.

You can think of Social Security as a kind of longevity insurance that protects you against poverty in old age. The longer you or your spouse live, the greater the chance that your assets will be exhausted and that one or both of you will end up depending on Social Security for the greatest part of your income.

Q&A: Shifting Roth IRA Broker Fees

By

Dear Liz: What can I do to stop my broker from deducting trading fees from my Roth IRA contributions, which I make monthly? Let’s say I invest $420 each month, but the broker takes $7, or $84 a year. Shouldn’t this be payable from a separate source so that I can invest the full contribution each year, thus reaping the eventual benefits of compounding the extra $84 sum over a long period of time?

Answer: As you understand, $7 per month isn’t such a small sum when you factor in how much more you’d get over time by investing that money instead of paying it to a broker. If that money remained in your account, you’d have roughly $8,500 more at the end of 30 years, assuming 7% average annual returns.

All investments have costs, of course, but minimizing those costs typically means you’ll create more wealth.

You can ask your broker if there is a way to pay the monthly fee from another account, but any commission you pay would be included in the annual amount you’re allowed to contribute. If your broker isn’t providing helpful investment advice to justify the commission, you can look into ways to invest for less, such as using a discount brokerage.

Q&A: Social Security spousal benefits

By

Dear Liz: I’m 52 and my wife is 57. I recently retired from the military and will have a small retirement from my new job. When should I take Social Security and when should she take hers? Her letter from the Social Security Administration says that based on her work record, she will receive $88 a month. She has spent most of our married life as a homemaker and caregiver to our children.

Answer: Your wife can’t file for spousal benefits until you file for your own benefit, and that can’t happen until you turn 62 in 10 years.

You may not want to file that early, though, since that would force you to take a permanently reduced benefit. You would be settling for about half of what you could get by letting your benefit grow, which also means a much smaller benefit for your wife should she outlive you.

A better strategy may be for each of you to wait to apply at least until you reach your own full retirement ages (66 1/2 for her, 67 for you).

Your wife would get her own small benefit until you turned 67. At that point, you could “file and suspend.” That means you file so she could get her much-larger spousal benefit, but you would immediately suspend your application so your own benefit could continue to grow.

The “file and suspend” strategy is really helpful for maximizing what married couples can get from Social Security, but the maneuver is available only for those who have reached their full retirement age.

Three years later, when your benefit maxes out at age 70, you can end the suspension and start getting your checks.

It’s especially important for higher-earning spouses to avoid locking themselves into permanently reduced checks. If your wife outlives you, she’ll have to get by on a single check — yours — so you want the amount to be as large as it can be.

Q&A: Filing joint tax return while not married

By

Dear Liz: Is it possible to file a joint tax return if you are not married but have lived together for more than seven years? We’ve owned property together for nine years.

Answer: What matters to the IRS is how your state treats your arrangement. Most states don’t recognize common law marriages, in which two people live together but don’t have a marriage license. But a few do.

The states that currently recognize common law marriages under some circumstances include Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

States that recognize common law marriages entered into prior to certain dates include Pennsylvania before Jan. 1, 2005; Ohio before Oct. 10, 1991; Indiana before Jan. 1, 1958; Georgia before Jan. 1, 1997; and Florida before Jan. 1, 1968, according to the NCSL.

Also, most states do recognize common law marriages from those states where they are recognized, said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. In other words, if you move from a state where common law marriage is recognized to one where it isn’t, your union may still be considered a legal marriage.

Same-sex marriages are somewhat different, Luscombe said. The U.S. Treasury and the IRS have ruled that same-sex couples who were legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriage are considered married for tax purposes, even if the state where they currently live doesn’t recognize their union.

Confused yet? Talk to a local tax pro who can advise you about the status of your arrangement.

Q&A: Credit CARD Act

By

Dear Liz: I have a business credit card that offers cash rebates. It has an interest rate of 15.24% on purchases and 25.24% on cash advances. I carry balances in each category. Each month the issuer posts my entire payment to my lower-interest purchases balance and nothing to my cash advance balance. I telephoned to complain but I was told that they will not post any payments to my cash advance balance until my purchases balance is completely paid off. I thought that there was a federal regulation that payments had to be posted to the highest-rate debt balance first. Am I mistaken? If not, to which federal agency can I complain?

Answer: There is indeed a federal law that requires payments in excess of the minimum to be applied to the highest-rate balance. It’s part of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. But the Credit CARD Act applies only to consumer credit cards — not business cards.

It’s not a good idea to carry a balance on any credit card, but it’s even more dangerous to carry a balance on a card that lacks the consumer protections promised in the Credit CARD Act. Talk to the bank that has your business checking account to see if you can arrange a lower-rate loan to pay off your balances.

Q&A: Helping a mentally ill family member

By

Dear Liz: I want to offer some bit of advice to the woman with the mentally ill, homeless son. She didn’t say which state he lives in, and I’m guessing it’s not California. There are so many wonderful programs here. I did help a woman my age (late 40s at that time) get off the street by convincing her to let me drive her to PATH (People Assisting the Homeless). It took a few tries but she finally got into my car. PATH took over after that. She has been on Supplemental Security Income for years and lives in a low-income housing tax credit building. Tell the mother that there are social workers dedicated just to representing people that are both homeless and mentally ill in all 50 states. There is also subsidized housing available in all 50 states. She just needs to put her worry into action to find the right social worker or organization. They have the know-how to proceed and help her son. I’m not saying that this will be easy, but she will feel better if she persists in trying to find the right resources for her son and it just might work.

Answer: Thank you for suggesting PATH as a possible solution for homeless people in Southern California. The mother thought there was no help available in the state where her son lives, but every state has at least a few programs for the mentally ill. Getting low-income housing is another matter because many programs have far more applicants than availability.

The mother can certainly make inquiries and suggest possible solutions for her son. But she still needs to set boundaries in how much time and money she dedicates to his problems. She is elderly, on a limited income and several states away from her son. She deserves a little peace at the end of her life, which may mean making peace with the idea that his fate is not in her hands.