Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

q&a

Q&A: Reverse mortgages have improved but still require caution

By

Dear Liz: You’ve written about the potential financial flexibility and options for preserving quality of life for seniors by using a reverse mortgage line of credit. I believe there is a great need for much more cautionary advice regarding reverse mortgages.

Someone I know entered into a reverse mortgage and the consequences have been disastrous. She was barely past the minimum age of 62 when she got the loan and took the lump sum option, only to spend it hastily on various purchases and debts.

Having no income other than Social Security, and almost nonexistent savings, she faces many years of figuring out how to pay property taxes and ongoing maintenance costs to avoid foreclosure. So although she has her home, it’s a precarious situation from year to year. She also no longer has an asset that could be used for long-term care or other expenses because the reverse mortgage makes it unlikely the owner will receive any leftover proceeds after paying off the lender.

Answer: You didn’t say when your friend got her reverse mortgage, but the rules for lump-sum payouts have been tightened under the Federal Housing Administration’s Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

In the past, borrowers could take 100% of the loan proceeds upfront. Today, only 60% is typically available in the first year. The total amounts that can be borrowed overall have been reduced as well. These changes were meant to shore up the program’s finances, but they also could lead to fewer situations like your friend’s.

That said, people should be extremely careful about encumbering their homes in retirement. Prospective borrowers have to meet with HECM counselors to discuss a reverse mortgage’s financial implications and potential alternatives, but they would be smart to also meet with a fee-only financial planner.

Q&A: Credit freeze may be inconvenient, but it’s effective

By

Dear Liz: Is freezing one’s credit reports the safest bet even though it’s inconvenient to get it temporarily unfrozen? Plus you have to pay a fee. At my son’s urging, I had my credit reports frozen since the Equifax incident but I find it very inconvenient whenever some financial firms need to look into my credit score.

Answer: Credit freezes remain the best way to prevent new account fraud, which is when criminals open up bogus credit accounts in your name.

It is somewhat inconvenient to have to remember to thaw the freezes when you apply for credit or other services, and you have to keep track of the personal identification numbers (PINs) that allow you to do so.

The good news is that the fees for instituting and thawing freezes will go away as of Sept. 21. The Dodd-Frank reform that Congress passed this spring included a clause requiring credit bureaus to waive those fees.

Q&A: The future is bleak for charitable deductions, early retirees’ healthcare costs

By

Dear Liz: When I sat down with my accountant in March to do my 2017 taxes, he said next year I will take the standard deduction. Are my contributions to charity still deductible if I take the standard deduction?

Answer: No. Charitable contributions are an itemized deduction. If you don’t itemize your deductions, you won’t get the tax break.

Congress nearly doubled the standard deduction as part of its tax reform. For married couples, the standard deduction is now $24,000, up from $12,700. The state and local tax deduction was capped at $10,000. As a result, the proportion of taxpayers who will itemize their deductions is expected to drop from about 30% to 10% or less.

Q&A: Leaving the U.S. for cheap healthcare

By

Dear Liz: Your column a few weeks ago suggested a couple consider leaving the country for healthcare benefits until they reach the age to receive Medicare. We are in a similar position, with enough money to retire early but profoundly worried about the future availability of health insurance. Which countries are considered good options for American ex-pats who want good, affordable healthcare?

Answer: Five countries with healthcare comparable to or better than the U.S. are Colombia, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Mexico and Panama, according to International Living, a site for living and investing abroad. These countries have both public and private healthcare systems, with out-of-pocket costs that are a fraction of what they are in the U.S.

In Mexico, for example, many doctors receive at least some of their training in the U.S. and speak English, according to International Living. The public healthcare system typically costs legal residents a few hundred dollars a year, while private services and prescription drugs cost 25% to 50% of their U.S. equivalents.
Some early retirees like their adopted countries enough to stay past age 65, but they should strongly consider signing up for Medicare when they are eligible, even if they can’t immediately use its services. Failure to sign up can lead to permanent penalties that will make Medicare more expensive if and when they do come back to the U.S.

Q&A: Beware of ‘junk’ medical insurance

By

Dear Liz: In response to your response to the retired couple about healthcare costs. I wish everyone else could be informed about this. Healthcare costs in the individual market before the ACA were anything but affordable. I had to quit my job because my husband got ill in 2000. I was healthy and was paying at first $350 a month. Every couple of years it went up because I entered a new age bracket. I had to drop my coverage when premiums went to $800. And that was for a junk policy. I was hit by a car and I realized what it didn’t cover. I almost went bankrupt, but was able to sue my own car insurance company so that I wouldn’t lose my house. I finally was able to get on Medicare when I turned 65.

Answer: Thank you for mentioning the issue of “junk” policies. Some of the cheaper alternatives to ACA policies offer far less coverage, something buyers may not discover until it’s too late. Any insurance policy worth the name should cover the kinds of catastrophically high expenses that could otherwise wipe out a retirement fund or lead to bankruptcy.

Q&A: High earners need to watch out for Medicare surcharge

By

Dear Liz: When I retired at age 70, I anticipated receiving the maximum available Social Security benefit payment because I had paid in the maximum tax for my entire career. I did not anticipate the heavy hit my spouse and I would take in monthly income-adjusted Medicare “premiums.” (I say “tax” is a more appropriate description.) We now pay over $500 per month each, or more than $12,000 per year! I know I am blessed to have the income I have in retirement, but that is because we were thrifty and worked hard and saved.

Answer: Many high-income retirees are unaware of “IRMAA,” or Medicare’s income-related monthly adjustment amounts, so they can come as a bit of a shock. These adjustments begin when modified adjusted gross income exceeds $85,000 for singles or $170,000 for couples. At that level, Medicare recipients pay an additional $53.50 for Part B, which covers doctor’s visits, and $13.30 extra for Part D prescription drug coverage, on top of their regular premiums. (Regular premiums for Part B are $134 a month, while premiums for Part D vary by the plan chosen.) The adjustments increase as income rises until they max out at $294.60 for Part B and $74.80 for Part D when modified adjusted gross income exceeds $160,000 for singles or $320,000 for couples.

Medicare Part A, which covers hospital visits, remains free for all Medicare beneficiaries.

That $12,000 a year may feel like a lot, but healthcare is expensive in the U.S. Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $18,764 last year.