May 20, 2013 By

Why delaying Social Security can make sense

Dear Liz: Your comments about the benefits of delaying Social Security misled readers. While a cost-of-living increase was standard for many years, it no longer is. You might want to check back over the last 10 years to get details. In addition, a reader might interpret your points about the increased benefit at full retirement age versus the benefit amount at 62 as a promise for the future. Factors such as health and family longevity are also involved. Depending solely on one’s Social Security check for living expenses will most likely bring derisive laughs for those who unfortunately have to do just that.

Answer: Your comments are a good example of why it’s important to get a second opinion on Social Security benefits, because what we think we know about the program may not be true.

One of the best reasons for delaying Social Security is to claim a bigger benefit down the road, a benefit that has nothing to do with cost-of-living increases. “Retirement benefits increase by 6 2/3% each full year an individual waits between age 62 and 65,” said Patricia Raymond, regional communications director for the Social Security Administration. “For each additional year an individual delays benefits from age 65 until full retirement age, the benefit increases 5%.”

The full retirement age is now 66 and will increase to 67. Even if Social Security is restructured sometime in the future, it’s highly unlikely that the system would stop rewarding people for delaying retirement or that cost-of-living increases would be discontinued (although they may be reduced).

By the way, there have been only two years in the last 10 when there was no cost-of-living increase, as you can see at http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm. Increases have ranged from 1.7% this year to 5.8% in 2009. The average for the last decade was 2.56%. Whether these increases truly keep up with inflation is questionable, especially with increasing Medicare costs, but to say cost-of-living adjustments are no longer “standard” simply isn’t true.

Trying to decide when to take Social Security based on your current health or your family history of longevity is tricky, at best. Taking Social Security early might turn out to be a good decision if you die relatively early, or it could be a big mistake if you live longer than expected or you have a surviving spouse who may depend on your benefit. (Starting your retirement early would reduce not only your check but also the check a survivor would receive.)

The AARP website has a Social Security calculator that can help you understand the ramifications.

Obviously, some people have little choice but to apply for Social Security as soon as they’re eligible because they need the money. But delaying Social Security for a bigger benefit can be seen as a kind of longevity insurance for those who can afford to do so. Even people in poor health or who lack a family history of longevity might want to hedge against the possibility of outliving other assets, either for themselves or their spouses.

Ideally, no one would rely solely on Social Security benefits, but unfortunately many do. Social Security constitutes 90% or more of income for nearly half of single retirees and more than 1 in 5 married couples. For most people who receive Social Security, the checks represent half or more of their income. So it makes sense to learn how to maximize your benefits using information from reliable sources. In addition to the Social Security and AARP websites, you can learn more from the excellent primer “Social Security for Dummies” by Jonathan Peterson.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , ,
April 29, 2013 By

Playing it safe could mean losing money

Dear Liz: The certificate of deposit I owned in my Roth IRA recently matured. I’ve put the money into a Roth passbook account until I can figure out what to do with it. I’m a public school teacher and have a 457 deferred compensation plan to which I contribute monthly. I am 57 and will need to work until I am at least 65. What should I do with the money in my Roth?

Answer: As a public school teacher, you probably have a defined benefit pension that will give you a guaranteed monthly check for life once you retire. Depending on how long you’ve taught and where, this pension could cover a substantial portion of your living expenses.

The guaranteed nature of this pension means that you may be able to take more risk with your other investments. That would mean your Roth could be invested in stock mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that offer potential for growth. CDs and other “safe” investments can’t offer that — in fact, your money loses purchasing power since you’re not earning enough interest to even offset inflation.

Since you’re so close to retirement, you should invest a few hundred dollars in a session with a fee-only financial planner who can review your situation and offer personalized advice.

Filed Under: Investing, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , , ,
April 15, 2013 By

401(k) loans can get really expensive

Dear Liz: I bought my condo in 2009. I took out a loan on my 401(k) account to use for the down payment. I left my job in early 2012, and at the time didn’t have the money to pay back the loan, so the balance was treated as a distribution. I now owe the IRS $10,000 and don’t have the money to pay them, nor can I afford monthly payments beyond about $50. I can’t borrow any money from a family member or friend. My tax guy suggested (another) 401(k) loan, but I’m really reluctant to go deeper into debt. Any suggestions?

Answer: Thank you for providing a vivid example of why people should think twice before dipping into retirement funds to buy a house. Not only are you facing a steep tax bill, but the money you withdrew can’t be restored to your account, so you’re losing all the tax-deferred gains that cash could have earned over the coming decades. You can figure that every $10,000 withdrawn costs you at least $100,000 in lost future retirement funds, assuming an 8% average annual return on investment over 30 years. If you’re 40 years from retirement, the toll can be twice as large.

So it would be good, if at all possible, to leave your retirement funds alone from now on. That means you need to come up with the cash to pay what you owe, and $50 a month doesn’t cut it. To use an IRS payment plan, you’ll need to come up with about $140 a month to pay your bill off within the required 72 months.

Fortunately, there are plenty of ways to trim your spending so you can free up more money to pay this bill. These ways include, but aren’t limited to: ending your pay TV subscription, preparing meals at home instead of eating out, trading your smartphone for a dumber one or at least switching to a prepaid plan, selling or storing your car and using public transportation, or selling your condo and moving to a cheaper place.

When people have virtually no discretionary income left after paying bills, and they’re employed, the culprits are often their housing or transportation costs, or both. Reducing these can be painful but may be necessary if you want to get on more solid financial footing.

Filed Under: Credit & Debt, Q&A, Retirement, Taxes Tagged With: , , , , ,
April 8, 2013 By

Use windfall to boost retirement savings

Dear Liz: What would you suggest that someone do with $20,000 if the someone is closer to 40 than 30, single, with $100,000 of student loan debt and a $250,000 mortgage? My salary is around $100,000 a year. I have an emergency fund equal to six months of expenses and I make an annual IRA contribution since my employer doesn’t offer a 401(k) plan. Should I accelerate my student loan payments, since the interest isn’t tax deductible for me because my income is too high? Or should I invest instead? If I invest, should I put it all in a total market stock index fund or is that too risky?

Answer: Even if you’re making the maximum annual IRA contribution of $5,500 (people 50 and older can contribute an additional $1,000), you’re probably not saving enough for retirement. You can check the numbers using a retirement calculator (AARP offers a good one at its website, http://www.aarp.org). If indeed you’re coming up short, then consider opening a taxable brokerage account and earmarking it for retirement. You can use a chunk of your $20,000 windfall to get started, but also set up regular ongoing contributions.

The bulk of your retirement money should be invested in stocks, since that’s the only asset class that consistently outperforms inflation over time. If you try to play it too safe and avoid stocks, your purchasing power is likely to decline over the years instead of growing. A total market index fund with low expenses is a good bet for delivering diversification at low cost. But leaven your portfolio with bonds and cash as well, since these assets can cushion market downturns. All the returns that stocks give you in good markets won’t be much help if you panic and sell in a bad market. People who try to time the market that way often miss the subsequent rally, so they wind up selling low and buying high — not a winning way to invest.

If you don’t want to try to figure out an asset allocation, look for a low-cost target date fund. If you plan to retire in about 25 years, you’d want to look for a “Retirement 2040” fund.

Once you get your retirement savings on track, then you can start paying down that student loan debt. Target private loans first, if you have any, since they’re less flexible and have fewer consumer protections than federal student loan debt.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement, The Basics Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
March 25, 2013 By

Downsizing: Be realistic about the value of your stuff

Dear Liz: We are in our 60s and looking to downsize. We’re living in an apartment now and don’t like it, so we want to buy a small house. Also, our finances took some serious hits in the recent economy and we’re trying to rebuild. But in trying to sell our possessions, we’re learning that people want us to discount the item beyond belief or even expect to get it for free. People talk about using Craigslist and EBay to generate cash but it looks like a waste of time. Do you know of other options?

Answer: Your two goals are somewhat in conflict with each other, so you need to clarify which is more important. Is your primary aim to shed your excess stuff so you can get on with your life? If that’s the case, then your focus should be on getting rid of what you don’t need rather than squeezing top dollar from it. If it’s more important to harvest the maximum value from these unwanted items, you’ll need to invest more time and effort in marketing your goods.

It may help your decision-making to get a reality check on the value of your stuff. If you believe that you have some quality items — antique furniture, rare collectibles or expensive artwork — you could hire an appraiser to give you an idea of their market value as well as some ideas where these items could be sold.

Consignment stores and auctions can sell your stuff, although you typically have to split the proceeds. Another possibility if you have quality items is to hire a company that specializes in estate sales to sell your things. These companies also typically take a hefty percentage of the sale proceeds — often 30% or more.

If what you own is mostly mass-produced, though, you’re unlikely to recoup much of what you spent. Many people erroneously cling to the idea that their possessions are worth what they paid for them, or at least something close to that. In fact, that purchase price is what economists call a “sunk cost,” which can’t be recouped. The best you can do is get fair market value for your items. “Fair market value” doesn’t mean the price you think is fair; it means what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller when neither is under any duress to buy or sell.

Craigslist and EBay are two marketplaces that can give you a pretty good idea of what those values might be.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement, Saving Money, The Basics Tagged With: ,
March 11, 2013 By

IRA distribution could go into Roth

Dear Liz: You recently answered a reader who wondered whether he could delay mandatory distributions from his traditional IRA because he was still working. You said correctly that he could delay taking required minimum distributions from a 401(k) but not an IRA. But as long as the questioner is working full time and meets the other tests, he could contribute to a Roth IRA. That would allow him to re-invest part or all of the required distribution. Tax would have to be paid on the distribution, but the money could continue to be invested in an account that isn’t taxed on the earnings annually.

Answer: That’s an excellent point. Withdrawals from IRAs, SEPs, SIMPLE IRAs and SARSEPS typically must begin after age 701/2. The required minimum distribution each year is calculated by dividing the IRA account balance as of Dec. 31 of the prior year by the applicable distribution period or life expectancy. (Tables for calculating these figures can be found in Appendix C of IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements.)

Anyone who has earned income, however, may still contribute to a Roth IRA even after mandatory withdrawals have begun, as long as he or she doesn’t earn too much. (The ability to contribute to a Roth begins to phase out once modified adjusted gross income exceeds $112,000 for singles and $178,000 for married couples.) There are no required minimum distribution rules for Roth IRAs during the owner’s lifetime. As you noted, the contributor still has to pay tax on the withdrawal, but in a Roth IRA it could continue to grow tax free.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , , ,
March 7, 2013 By

My book is out! Get it for free.

DWYD cover2013“Deal with Your Debt” is now available, and I’m giving away five copies this week.

To enter to win, leave a comment here on my blog (not my Facebook page).

Click on the tab above the post that says “comments.” Make sure to include your email address, which won’t show up with your comment, but I’ll be able to see it.

If you haven’t commented before, it may take a little while for your comment to show up since comments are moderated.

The winners will be chosen at random Friday night. Over the weekend, please check your email (including your spam filter). If I don’t hear from a winner by noon Pacific time on Monday, his or her prize will be forfeited and I’ll pick another winner.

Also, check back here often for other giveaways.

The deadline to enter is midnight Pacific time on Friday. So–comment away!

Filed Under: Liz's Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
March 4, 2013 By

401(k) withdrawals can be postponed, but not those from IRAs

Dear Liz: I just turned 70. Must I draw now from my IRA? I still work full time. I heard from one investment company representative that since I work, there is an exemption that I may not have to start withdrawals. Is this true?

Answer: Withdrawals from retirement plans typically must begin after age 70-1/2. You can postpone withdrawals from your company’s 401(k) plan past the typical required minimum distribution age if you’re still working, but not from traditional IRAs.

“An IRA owner must commence distributions from an IRA by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which the IRA owner turns 70-1/2,” said Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for tax research firm CCH Tax & Accounting North America, “regardless of whether they are still working or not.”

With 401(k) plans, required withdrawals can be delayed to April 1 of the year following the year you retire, unless you’re a 5% or more owner of the business, Luscombe said.

It’s important to get this right, since failing to make required minimum distributions triggers a tax penalty of 50% on the amount not withdrawn that should have been. The required minimum distribution rules apply to all employer-sponsored retirement plans, including profit-sharing plans, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans and 457(b) plans, the IRS says, as well as to traditional IRAs and IRA-based plans such as SEPs, SARSEPs and SIMPLE IRAs. Required minimum distribution rules also apply to Roth 401(k) accounts, but not to Roth IRAs while the owner is alive.

Filed Under: Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , , ,
February 25, 2013 By

What to do with extra cash when an auto loan is paid off

Dear Liz: I’ll be done paying off my car in a couple of months. What’s a good strategy for redirecting that money once it’s paid off? Should I use the whole amount each month to start saving for my next car, or would I be better off splitting it up and putting it into several savings “buckets” such as retirement, emergency and my next car? I’m 35, have an emergency fund equal to four months’ living expenses and only one other debt, a very low-interest student loan.

Answer: If you aren’t already contributing to a retirement plan, you should be. If you aren’t contributing enough, that should be your priority even before you pay off your debt.

Market researcher and Yale University professor Roger Ibbotson has found that people who start saving for retirement after age 35 have an extremely difficult time “catching up.” They’ve lost a crucial decade or more, and often can’t set aside enough to offset their late start.

If you are on track for retirement and are comfortable with your emergency fund, saving to pay cash for your next car is a reasonable course.

Filed Under: Credit & Debt, Q&A, Retirement Tagged With: , , ,