Social Security

What same sex couples–and their advisors–need to know

January 21, 2014 By Liz Weston

Last summer’s Supreme Court decisions on same sex marriage created a sea change for gay couples, but the details of that change depend on where they got married, where they live now and the federal agencies involved.

The changes are dramatic and complex enough that financial advisors should contact any clients with same sex partners to discuss the implications, planner Thomas Tillery explained at the AICPA’s financial planning conference in Las Vegas on Monday.

Tillery is a longtime fee-only planner with a string of credentials—CFP, CLU, ChFC, LUTCF, CRPC—as well as a masters of science in financial services and, interestingly, a masters of arts in Christian education from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. What Tillery doesn’t have is much patience for advisors who ignore these issues because they disagree with the Supremes’ decisions; they’re “fools,” he said, who need to understand the new realities and serve their clients appropriately.

Here’s a brief summary of what advisors and couples need to know, by agency:

The IRS. Same sex couples are considered legally married for federal income tax purposes if they were wed in a state that recognizes their marriage. It doesn’t matter whether the state where they currently reside recognizes such unions, Tillery said. Couples can apply for refunds for up to three years’ worth of tax returns if they were married during those years and their newly-recognized status would have resulted in lower taxes. Some gay couples had to pay income tax on health insurance benefits for their spouse; the elimination of that requirement could mean money back from the government.

Social Security. Here, residence matters: if the state where couple applies for benefits recognizes same sex marriage, then Social Security spousal and survivor benefits are available to that couple. One way around this limitation is for the couple to establish residency in a state that recognizes their marriage and then apply for benefits. They could later move to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage without risking the loss of their Social Security benefits, Tillery said.

Department of Defense. Benefits are available for same sex spouses who can show a valid marriage license from any state or country that recognizes gay marriage. The state where the couple currently lives is irrelevant. Service members can get special leave to travel to a state where same sex marriage is recognized in order to wed.

Department of Labor/ERISA. Qualified pension plans have guaranteed protections for spouses, including automatic survivor benefits unless the spouse waives them and provisions that allow for division of retirement assets at divorce without triggering tax bills. Whether a same-sex married partner qualifies as a spouse for these provisions depends on whether the state where the employee resides recognizes same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court decisions have implications for other aspects of a couple’s financial life, including estate planning, family leaves, participation in flexible spending accounts and more.

My advice: if you don’t have an advisor who can help you with these issues, find one who can. It could make a huge difference in your financial lives and financial security.

Who should save 10%

January 20, 2014 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I often hear financial planners say you should save 10% of your income, but they don’t go into exactly what that means. Is that 10% separate from retirement or including retirement? Does that include saving for your emergency fund? Is this just archaic advice now? I’m 46 with only $40,000 saved for retirement so I’m in the panic mode that I will never be able to save enough for retirement.

Answer: Saving 10% for retirement is often considered a minimum for those who start saving in their 20s. The older you are when you begin, the more you’d need to save to match the nest egg you would have accumulated with an earlier start. That means saving 15% to 20% if you start in your 30s, 25% to 30% if you start in your 40s, and 40% of your income, or more, if you don’t start until your 50s.

Clearly, the wind is at your back when you start saving young. It starts blowing pretty hard in your face if you wait.

If you can’t carve out a huge chunk of your income for retirement, though, you shouldn’t despair. Save what you can, as anything you put aside will help supplement your Social Security checks. You may find that your expenses drop substantially in retirement, particularly if you have a mortgage paid off by then, so you won’t need to replace as much income as you think.

Another technique for coping with a late start is to work longer. That gives you longer to save, but it also allows your savings — and your Social Security benefits — more time to grow. You will be able to claim early Social Security benefits at 62, but you’ll be locking in a smaller check for life. It’s usually better to wait until your full retirement age, which will be 67, to begin benefits, since each year you wait adds nearly 7% to your check. If you wait three more years, until age 70, your check would grow by 8% each year. That’s a guaranteed return unavailable anywhere else.

Your payout from Social Security and Medicare

December 9, 2013 By Liz Weston

A reader recently wondered what the average person could expect from Social Security, compared to the taxes we pay into the system.

Urban Institute has done the math, and recently released “Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits Over a Lifetime: 2013 Update.” The institute figured out net present values of money paid in and paid out for various situations: single male and single female, one-earner family, two earner families. Spoiler alert: in most situations, people in the simulations pay more in Social Security taxes than they get back in benefits–but they get back vastly more Medicare benefits than they pay in taxes. Overall, benefits received exceed taxes paid. Here’s one example with a cogent comment from the Wall Street Journal:

Consider: A one-earner couple with a high wage ($71,700 in 2013 dollars) retiring in 2015 can expect lifetime Social Security benefits of $640,000. The same couple can expect to get $427,000 in lifetime Medicare benefits—while paying only $111,000 in Medicare taxes. The latter figures help illustrate how Medicare, in particular, is expected to strain future federal budgets.

The report, which you’ll find here, is interesting reading. Obviously, there are caveats. Nobody can know for sure what his or her Social Security “payout” will be, since a lot depends on longevity. And that brings me to the most important point: it’s really not about money in, money out.

Social Security isn’t an investment scheme. It’s insurance. (The formal name for what we know as Social Security is Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI). It’s insurance against poverty, against outliving your assets, against a downturn in the market at the wrong time that could leave you with too little money on which to live. You still should save and invest as much as you can on your own, but Social Security provides a safety net in case things don’t go as planned.

Should daughters be forced to give money to Mom?

December 3, 2013 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I read with interest your recent column about the filial obligation law possibly coming into effect in California. I hope this is true. I have three grown daughters who make terrific money and who will not offer a pittance to me. I live on Social Security, period. I could really use a few hundred dollars a month to supplement. They had a glorious childhood and this is really sad and inexplicable. I want to contact someone involved with this law, if possible. I am puzzled and hurt. More than money, this situation has a strange malignity to it.

Answer: Currently, California’s filial responsibility law — which makes adult children responsible for supporting their indigent parents — isn’t being enforced. When similar laws in other states have been invoked, it’s typically because the parent is receiving governmental aid or has racked up a bill with a nursing home that wants to get paid.

One of the reasons the laws aren’t enforced is because most people feel an obligation toward their parents. The fact that your daughters apparently don’t indicates that there’s either something missing in their characters or in your characterization of the situation.

Here’s another perspective:

Dear Liz: I am 67 and live in a retirement home. I strongly feel that children should not have to take care of their parents. We all have time to save for our own futures. I left a marriage with very little other than a small child. We did lots of free events together because there was not money to spend. I did immediately start saving for retirement and her college. It all worked out, but had it not, I would not expect her to support me in my old age. I chose to get pregnant and have her…. She did not chose to have me!

Answer: Thanks for sharing your experience. My guess is that if your financial life had not worked out — if you hadn’t been able to save enough or if your savings had been wiped out — your daughter happily would have stepped up to help if she could. People who do their best to take care of themselves often find the support that isn’t offered to those who don’t.