Sponsored Links..

Sponsors

Search

  • Google
    Web FMF

Disclaimer


  • Any information shared on Free Money Finance does not constitute financial advice. The Website is intended to provide general information only and does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser. All posts are © 2005-2009, Free Money Finance.

107 posts categorized "Retirement 2007"

January 04, 2008

How to Handle Six Money Dilemmas, Take Social Security Early OR Late

Money magazine lists six money dilemmas and what to do about them. This is the last one of the group I've been posting on the last few days. Here goes:

Dilemma #6: Take Social Security early OR late

Money's suggestion: If you're healthy and don't need the cash, wait.

My take: This is a long way off for me, and I'm counting on absolutely nothing from Social Security as I save for retirement.

That said, I think at this point we'd take advantage of the hybrid Social Security strategy for couples. And if it ends up that this won't work, I think we'd wait to take Social Security. We won't need the money, so we'd be willing to bet on the fact that we'd live longer and get more benefits in the long run.

FMF posts related to this topic: An Interesting Strategy for Taking Your Social Security Benefits, When to Take Social Security

What's your take on this issue?

December 28, 2007

How the Presidential Candidates Plan to Save Social Security

Whether or not you think Social Security needs "saving" or not, I think we could all agree that it at least needs a few fixes. Money magazine has a series on what the leading presidential candidates say they'll do to fix Social Security. Here are the highlights:

Clinton

  • Private accounts? No
  • Hiking the wage cap? No
  • Stand on reforming the system: Favors bipartisan panel to explore reform, plus add-on 401(k)-like accounts (not funded via payroll tax).
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: No specifics beyond saying what she won't do: cut benefits or raise the retirement age.

Obama

  • Private accounts? No
  • Hiking the wage cap? Yes
  • Stand on reforming the system: Favors keeping benefit levels and retirement age as they are now.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Would impose Social Security payroll taxes on income over $200,000 a year.

Edwards

  • Private accounts? No
  • Hiking the wage cap? Yes
  • Stand on reforming the system: Would create a bipartisan commission to recommend reforms.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Would impose Social Security payroll taxes on income over $200,000 a year.

Richardson

  • Private accounts? No
  • Hiking the wage cap? No
  • Stand on reforming the system: Thinks system doesn't need major reform; greater economic growth will resolve the problem.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Hasn't proposed a specific plan beyond ideas to spur growth; opposes any hike in payroll taxes.

Giuliani

  • Private accounts? Maybe
  • Hiking the wage cap? No
  • Stand on reforming the system: Says private accounts are a possibility for younger workers; would appoint bipartisan panel.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Hasn't come out with a position.

McCain

  • Private accounts? Maybe
  • Hiking the wage cap: ???
  • Stand on reforming the system: Advocates personal accounts but hasn't said if they'd be funded from payroll tax; would appoint bipartisan panel.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Hasn't come out with a position.

Thompson

  • Private accounts? No
  • Hiking the wage cap? No
  • Stand on reforming the system: Plan includes voluntary add-on accounts (not funded via payroll tax) with federal dollar match.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Would index benefits to inflation (not wage growth), which could reduce benefits 5 percent to 10 percent.

Romney

  • Private accounts? Maybe
  • Hiking the wage cap? No
  • Stand on reforming the system: Would consider private accounts (favors putting any surplus in them); no changes for those 50-plus.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Favors indexing benefits to inflation; might lower benefits for those in the highest income brackets.

Huckabee

  • Private accounts? Yes
  • Hiking the wage cap? N.A.
  • Stand on reforming the system: Supports Bush plan for private accounts; would give retirees option of a buyout or an annuity.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: Would replace Social Security payroll tax with his "FairTax," which is based on wealth.

Here's my position on each of the four factors:

  • Private accounts? Maybe. I'd need to know the details first. I like the idea of controlling my own destiny, but I'm sure the government will come up with an option so unusable it would be much different that what I'd hope for.
  • Hiking the wage cap? No
  • Stand on reforming the system: I like the bipartisan panel idea. That's about the only way to get anything done -- to get both sides in on it from the get-go.
  • Proposal to pay for the funding gap: I'd start to raise the retirement benefits age. Let's face it -- people are living a LOT longer than they did when this system started, and that's why it's in trouble. Let's go back to the original purpose of the system, which means we'd need to raise the age at which people could get Social Security.

A few other comments/things I noticed in the info above:

1. I'll be glad when we get through Iowa/New Hampshire and the presidential field gets weeded out a bit. I'm getting tired of listing all these candidates. ;-)

2. Clinton says she won't "cut benefits or raise the retirement age." As you can see, I'm not on the same page with her on this one.

3. Obama and Edwards want to impose Social Security payroll taxes on income over $200,000 a year. Nope, I'm not with them either.

4. Richardson seems to be the only one that thinks all is well.

5. Some ideas that interest me (not sure if they'd work or not, but I'd like to hear more about them):

  • Thompson's/Romney's plans to index benefits to inflation (not wage growth).
  • Huckabee's fair tax idea (though, again, I think this is dead-in-the-water politically.)

How to Handle Six Money Dilemmas, Roth 401k Versus Regular 401k

Money magazine lists six money dilemmas and what to do about them. Over the next few days, I'll list each dilemma, what Money suggests as the best option, my take on the issue, and additional FMF posts on the topic. Here goes:

Dilemma #2: Save in a Roth 401(k) OR a regular 401(k)

Money's suggestion: Unless you are on the verge of retiring and know your income will drop, the Roth wins.

My take: I'd take the Roth if I had the chance (even if just for the tax diversification versus my other retirement savings), but this isn't really a dilemma for most people. Why? Because the Roth 401k isn't widely available. It just isn't offered that many places.

FMF posts related to this topic: Nine Keys to a Great Retirement, Five Reasons You'll Love a 401k

What's your take on the issue? Anyone out there have a Roth 401k?

December 27, 2007

How to Handle Six Money Dilemmas, Credit Card Versus 401k

Money magazine lists six money dilemmas and what to do about them. Over the next few days, I'll list each dilemma, what Money suggests as the best option, my take on the issue, and additional FMF posts on the topic. Here goes:

Dilemma #1: Pay off a credit card OR fund your 401(k)

Money's suggestion: If you have a big credit-card balance, wipe it out before you open a 401(k).

My take: This is a very hard one -- probably the hardest of the group.

I never really had to face this situation since I've always paid off my credit cards in full. So my suggestion would be to never buy anything on a credit card that you can't pay off right away. If you live by that principle, you'll never have to face this issue.

But if I was in the situation where I did have credit card debt, I'd first look to cut my expenses so I could do both (pay off the cards and at least get my 401k match). If I couldn't do both, I'd look at the interest on the credit card and how much I owed on it. If it was above 15% or so and if it was a big balance, I'd pay it off first. If it was below 15% and not such a big balance, I'd go with the 401k first (but still would sell some things, take gifts, etc. and pay off the debt asap).

FMF posts related to this topic: Help a Reader: 401k or Debt, 401k Match Trumps Debt Repayment

What's your take on the issue?

December 17, 2007

Can't Afford Retirement? Move to Mexico

As I wrote in The 10 Most-Hated Money Saving Tips, people don't like to be told to move to a foreign country to save money (see tip #9.) No, they'd rather put up this objection and that objection on why it's a bad idea. Maybe it is a bad idea, but if you haven't saved much for retirement (a situation many Americans will face), it's better than eating dog food and living under someone's porch.

Of all the foreign options, Mexico is particularly a decent place to consider moving to because:

1. It can save you a TON of money (more on that later.)

2. It's not far from the U.S. You can drive there.

3. Nice climate.

4. It's easier to learn Spanish than Chinese. ;-)

So how much can you save by moving to Mexico? Here's what MSN Money came up with:

Suppose you can find a place where the cost of living is about 75% of the cost in the United States -- some beach town north of Puerto Vallarta or south of Manzanillo. What happens to your standard of living when you move to Mexico? It rises to the equivalent of about $42,400 in the U.S.

So let's say you have a $60,000 a year lifestyle but only have enough retirement income (via Social Security and your own savings) to fund $30,000 a year. Move to Mexico, make a few lifestyle changes, and you're not far from your pre-retirement standard of living in the U.S. Not bad at all!

December 14, 2007

Help a Reader Retire Early

Here's a question I received from a reader recently:

I am 27 years old and my husband and I have been maxing out our Roth IRA's and heavily funding our 401k's. I currently contribute 20% of my salary with a 4% match and my husband contributes 5% with a 9% match (this is not able to be changed).  At this rate, I think that we should be able to support ourselves with the interest off our investments after about 15 years, and at that point could decide if one or both of us wanted to stay home, pursue other interests, etc. Nearly every financial advice book or article (including your blog, from what I've seen), even those about early retirement, says that funding these retirement vehicles is the most important thing you can do, but I wonder about the ease of accessing this money before age 59½.  I know about the 72(t) exemption and the ability of withdrawing Roth contributions penalty free, but I worry about the complexity of calculations, the possibility of a penalty if something is calculated wrong, and having to withdrawal the same amount for many years whether you need it or not.

I am wondering whether I should reduce my 401k contribution only enough to get the company match and then put the rest of the money I had been contributing (perhaps in addition to the $10,000 that we would have been putting in our Roth IRAs) into a non-retirement investment fund.  I would be paying extra income tax now, but only long term capital gains later, so I don't believe that the tax savings is significant enough to worry about, but I am not an expert and could be missing something. Have you thought about this situation or read any articles or books that address this?  Thanks in advance for your help.

So, what would you advise her to do?

December 12, 2007

Help a Reader: 401k or Debt

Here's a question I received from a reader recently. I think it's a pretty easy decision, but maybe I'm missing something:

I am starting a new job with a nice raise.  I am debating what to do with the additional money.

The new job has a very generous 401(k) match - 75% of the first 8% contributed.  However, my wife and I are aggressively paying down some substantial debt - primarily a $10,000 car loan at 5.9% interest and a personal loan of $10,000 at 8.9% interest.   We also have over $40,000 in student loans that we would like to pay off ahead of schedule.

The problem is this, if I contribute 8% of my salary to the 401(k) in order to get the match I will not be able to pay extra towards the debt.  Should I use my raise to fund my 401(k) to get the company match, or use it to pay off debt?

So, what would you advise him to do?

FYI, we discussed this issue last Friday if you want to see what people had to say on the comparison of debt versus a 401k.

December 11, 2007

Would You Give Up Control of Your 401k for Much Higher Contributions?

Here's an interesting piece from Yahoo that details how one company (Devon Energy) is offering a "super 401k" -- but it comes with strings. The choice is to stay with the traditional 401k and make your own investment decisions or to get a much higher level of contributions and let the company manage the money for you. The main details:

Rather than rely on employees to take the initiative to save, Devon plans to save for them--by making annual contributions to these accounts in line with what it would have spent to provide a traditional pension benefit. Depending on an employee's tenure, the company will put 8% to 16% of annual compensation into the 401(k)--regardless of whether the employee kicks in a dime. For those who put money into the plan, the company will also match it dollar for dollar up to 6% of salary.

Add it all up, and Devon workers who divert 6% of their pay into the super 401(k) could receive as much as 22% per year from the company. While many companies that freeze pensions increase their 401(k) contributions, Devon "is one of the few coming close" to what's required to compensate employees for the loss of a pension, said EBRI's VanDerhei.

In return for its largesse, Devon plans to impose an unusual degree of control over how its contributions are invested. Under the new plan, employees are required to use "target date" funds. Already available in many 401(k)s, the funds recently got a big boost when the U.S. Labor Dept. approved their use as a default investment for accounts established under automatic enrollment programs. Designed to provide workers with all they need within one portfolio, the funds put investing on autopilot: Employees simply select the fund that most closely matches their expected retirement date and the funds' managers do the rest of the work, by shifting into a more conservative mix of stocks, bonds, and other asset classes as retirement approaches. Devon's target-date funds will consist of low-cost investments in its $614million defined-benefit pension plan, including alternative investments such as real estate investment trusts and inflation-indexed securities.

The article goes on to detail the issues Devon employees are considering. It seems like a no-brainer to me (take the money and run!), but it's a bit more complicated than that.

What would you do? Would you rather take 14% to 22% of your salary in a super 401k managed by your employer or take 6% and control everything yourself?

December 07, 2007

401k Match Trumps Debt Repayment

Bankrate notes that you should take a 401k match before paying off debt (in this case, they're talking credit card debt). As if the reason isn't totally obvious, here's why:

You may be paying 13 percent on your credit card, but you're earning 50 percent on the typical company match.

Let's see -- which is better -- a 50% return or a 13% return? ;-)

For some of us, the issue is even more glaring. Anyone out there get a 100% match? Many do.

Yeah, I'm a big believer in paying off all kinds of debt, but there are better options that have to be exhausted first, and getting the full employer match on a 401k is a major one. Even when I was paying off my mortgage a decade ago, I still put as much as I could into my 401k first. Not only did I get the match, but that money has now been working for me for ten years and it's grown into a sizeable chunk of change. I plan to let it sit for a couple more decades -- it should REALLY be a nice sum by then.

For more thoughts on 401ks, retirement, and debt, see these posts:

December 06, 2007

How to Retire Early

When it rains, it pours. Just when I find one article on "retiring early", I find a couple more. But since it's a topic I like, I'm going to run with it for now.

This first piece tells the story of two couples who retired early (one of which I covered in an earlier story. But the key part of this piece is the list of five steps for early retirement. Here is their list:

  • Set spending and investment priorities now for the future
  • Stay 100 percent out of debt, except for a mortgage
  • Invest in stocks through index and mutual funds
  • Use the compounding effect of time by investing early
  • Seek a partner with the same financial values

Can I say how much I love this list? If you've been a reader for any amount of time, you know these are principles I believe in. Here are some posts I've written on each of these topics (in order) that explains my related thoughts:

Really, all of these can be summarized by the following: How to Get Rich in Three Easy Steps.

The second story lists some personal "extreme" early retirement experiences. There are some very interesting stories in this article on how people retired early. Seems like there are lots of ways to do it (and many reasons for doing so too.)

In my net worth post wrap up for the year (I'll post it sometime in mid-January), I'll talk about our plans for retirement. If all goes well, we should be able to retire in several years with a solid income to boot. Stay tuned.

December 05, 2007

5 Steps to Early Retirement

Here's the story of a couple who "retired" at age 38. I have retired in quotes because it seems like they didn't really retire, they simply quit their hectic lifestyles (and jobs), started easier jobs (their own business/website), and spent more time traveling. That said, they do have some good tips in listing their five steps to early retirement. Their list:

1. Track spending
2. Save a lot
3. Invest wisely
4. Put peer pressure into perspective
5. Keep your eye on the prize

It's pretty basic advice, but I've said before that much of personal finance is simply doing the basics. Besides, doing these five things WILL allow you to retire early. However, they won't allow you to retire at 38 -- it will be something more like 55 or 60. Saving 10% to 15% of your income can only go so far unless you're making a boatload every year.

For more thoughts on retirement, see these posts:

December 01, 2007

Medicare Medical Savings Account Plans

The following is provided courtesy of Marotta Asset Management.

Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSA) Plans are one of the newest Medicare Advantage Plan options. Private companies began offering these accounts in 2007. Like Health Savings Accounts, a Medical Savings Account puts you in control of your own health care dollars.

If you are in good health and want to limit the maximum you would need to pay in a medical emergency, you may want to consider a Medicare Medical Savings Account plan during your retirement years.

When you choose a Medicare MSA plan, you are still participating in one of Medicare's plan options. A Medicare MSA plan is a "Medicare Advantage Plan," also known as Medicare Part C.

A Medicare MSA has two parts: a medical insurance plan and a savings account. The medical insurance portion is a high-deductible health care plan which covers your medical expenses only after you have met a high out-of-pocket deductible. But before you receive coverage, you'll have to pay all of your health costs until you reach your deductible. However, to help you pay the out of pocket costs, the Medicare deposits money into your savings account each year. You can use this money to pay your health care costs before you meet your deductible.

To purchase the Medicare MSA coverage, you probably won't have to pay an additional premium. In keeping with the Medicare Advantage Plan system, you'll simply have to pay the Medicare Part B premium. The costs of Part B are dependent upon your yearly income. In 2008, seniors will pay $96.40 per month if they are married filing joint and reported $164,000 or less in income. Monthly premiums climb as high as $238.40 if you are in the highest income bracket.

With a Medicare MSA, you can keep all the money you don't spend on health costs. In fact, you may do better than break even each year. The annual amount you are given will not cover the gap until you meet your deductible. But if you spend less than the amount you are given, your account could grow in size. You may be able to accumulate enough money in your account to cover all of your health care costs up to the amount of your deductible. And like a true savings account, anything you don't spend one year carries over to the next. With an MSA, it's your money.

As an example, the Anthem MSA plan in Virginia has an annual deductible of $3,000 and an annual deposit $1,300. In short, you pay all medical costs up to $3,000. But to help you cover those costs, Medicare will deposit $1,300 at the beginning of the year into your medical savings account.

If you don't need all of your savings for medical expenses, you can spend your account on what you do need. Withdrawals for Medicare covered expenses are tax-free and count toward your deductible. Withdrawals for qualified medical expenses that are not Medicare covered (such as dental, vision and prescription drugs) are tax-free but do not count toward your deductible.

Qualified expenses may also include items which may or may not count toward your deductible. The IRS has approved a long list of qualifying expenses. In addition to doctors visits, hospitalizations, lab tests and the like, the list also includes prescriptions, some over the counter drugs, vision and dental costs.

You can withdraw and use a portion of the money in your Medicare MSA for non-medical reasons (such as groceries and utilities) without penalty. You will still need to pay income tax on non-medical withdrawals, just as you would with a traditional IRA. The limit you can withdrawal without penalties is equal to your account balance on December 31st of the prior year minus 60% of your policy's deductible. Withdrawals above that for non-medical expenses will be taxed as income and slapped with an additional penalty.

A Medicare MSA can also be a good solution if you have very high out-of-pocket costs under your current Medicare program. Unlike the plain vanilla Medicare Part B which could leave you paying 20% of all your medical costs with no limit, a Medicare MSA account caps your liability. Once you've met your annual deductible, your insurance plan will cover 100% of your Medicare-covered health costs.

Consumer-driven health care plans may help shape consumer behavior and keep health care costs from spiraling out of control. Contrast Medicare MSA plans with other Medicare Advantage Plans. Generally HMOs pay for medical services. Doctors dictate which services are given, and patients are the ones who actually benefit from these services. With Medicare MSA plans, consumers pay, dictate and benefit from services. They are empowered to make their own healthcare decisions.

Those covered by a Medicare MSA plan should be more likely to engage in healthy behaviors and to get annual check-ups. They should also be more likely to inquire about costs and less likely to consume health care they don't need. If this sounds like you, you may be a good candidate for a Medicare MSA.

Medical Savings Accounts offer you the opportunity to take more control of your health care spending. The money you save on your medical expenses is really yours and can be used to pay whatever bills you might have in retirement, even if those bills are not Medicare covered expenses.

Enrollment in a Medicare MSA is limited to one percent of Medicare recipients on a first come first serve basis. If you are interested, I suggest you sign up early. Open enrolment for Medicare MSA plans begin November 15th and ends December 31st every year.

For related articles, see the following:

November 27, 2007

Seven Ways to Boost Your Retirement

Kiplinger gives us a list of seven ways to boost your retirement which contains the following suggestions:

1. Consider working a little longer.
2. Build tax-free retirement income.
3. Downsize.
4. Keep 50% of your retirement savings invested in the stock market.
5. Delay taking Social Security.
6. Tap your home equity with a reverse mortgage.
7. Buy an annuity.

Here's my take on each of these:

1. Yes, working longer can make a big difference to your retirement savings. But you might not be able to control whether or not you can work longer (due to an accident or illness), so don't bank on this one.

2. Of course. 401ks, IRAs, and Roth IRAs are all retirement savings vehicles everyone should consider. (I know not all of these are tax-free, but they are tax-preferred.)

3. We'll be doing this, I'm sure. Once the kids are gone and we officially retire, we'll probably sell our house and move into a much smaller one.

4. Gone are the days when you put all your retirement savings in an income-producing security. Why? Because people are now living 30 years in retirement, not five years, and it's hard to live off the proceeds of bonds for three decades.

5. We've debated when to take Social Security quite a lot here at Free Money Finance. If you're married, seems like there's a decent strategy you can employ that makes the issue pretty clear. For you singles, it's still murky on what's the best option.

6. I hate this idea. If you do #3 correctly, you shouldn't have to do #6.

7. I'm still sorting out my feelings on this one. When I hear "annuity" I also hear "over-priced, expensive investment." But maybe that's just a bias based on not knowing all the facts.

And a couple points to add:

November 21, 2007

How Medicare Works

The following is courtesy of Marotta Asset Management.

Many seniors look forward to saving on medical insurance costs by enrolling in Medicare at age sixty-five. However, navigating the Medicare system is not for the faint of heart. Medicare is an alphabet soup of plan choices. Currently Medicare is organized as parts A through D.

Medicare Part A provides hospital insurance to seniors. For the majority of seniors who have paid into the plan, enrolling in Part A comes at no cost. Part A covers hospital stays, home health care services, and hospice care. However, if you just need a check up, you'll need to resort to Part B or Part C to help with those costs.

Part B helps to cover doctor's services, some outpatient care, and routine preventative services. However, unlike Part A, you'll have to pay a monthly premium to buy the coverage. The costs of Part B are dependent upon your yearly income. In 2008, seniors will pay $96.40 per month if they were married filing joint and reported $164,000 or less in income. Monthly premiums climb as high as $238.40 if you report lots of income in retirement.

However, unlike Part A, Part B may require you to first pay the $135 deductible before Medicare will pick up the tab. For other services, Medicare will cover 80 percent of your medical costs, requiring you to pay the other 20 percent. Still in other cases, you'll wind up paying both the $135 deductible plus 20 percent of the remaining costs.

Don't try and save a few bucks by skipping Part B coverage. If you fail to enroll in Part B at age 65, you'll be slapped with a 10% penalty for each year you delayed enrollment.

Your Part B insurance will provide you with some free services such as a flu shot, diabetes and cancer screenings, and 'Welcome to Medicare' physical exam. If you take advantage of these services you may avoid more costly and more dangerous conditions.

Most seniors sign up for the Original Medicare plan, a combination of Parts A (hospital insurance) and B (medical insurance). However, if Uncle Sam's doesn't provide you with sufficient coverage, you may be better served by a private insurance company offering a Medicare-approved insurance plan.

Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage Plan, includes coverage for parts A and B through private insurance companies. The plans are usually offered in the form of a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) or a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). Your premiums, co-payments, coinsurance and deductibles will vary based on your specific plan benefits. And, although offered by private companies, Medicare Advantage Plans are approved by Medicare.

Choosing a Part C plan may mean you already receive prescription drug benefits. If your prescription drug coverage is deemed "creditable" by Medicare, you won't have to pay an additional premium for the Medicare prescription drug plan, also known as Part D.

Part D, the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, is the newest of all the Medicare programs. However, Medicare does not provide the insurance directly. Instead, each state has contracted with insurance providers to offer the drug coverage. If you are a senior, you must decide if you should sign up, and then which plan you should purchase.

Most states offer at least 40 different drug plans. Premiums average $28 per month, depending on the level of coverage and the types of drugs covered by the plan. If you are enrolling in the Original Medicare or don't already have "creditable coverage", you'll need enroll in Part D, or face a penalty. If you fail to enroll at age 65 but decide to enroll at a later date, you'll pay a 1% penalty for each month you delayed enrollment.

The costs of Part D vary, and if you don't think you will need the coverage you should find the lowest cost Part D to avoid the penalties. That way, if you need the coverage later, you won't be stuck with premiums inflated by penalties. You can always change providers at a later time, if you decide different coverage suits your situation better.

If your income and assets are low enough, you may be able to save money on your Medicare costs. This assistance is done through your State Medical Assistance and is often called Medicaid. Call even if you aren't sure if you qualify. The Virginia Medicaid office can be reached at 804-786-7933. Call 1-800-MEDICARE to get the telephone number for other states.

The initial enrollment period begins three months before your sixty-fifth birthday and ends three months after your birthday. Be sure you enroll to avoid unnecessary penalties.

You can get more information by visiting Medicare on the web or by calling 1-800-MEDICARE.

November 17, 2007

Fund Your HSA to Cover Retirement Healthcare Costs

The following is courtesy of Marotta Asset Management.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) can provide inexpensive medical coverage if you maintain a healthy lifestyle. With your healthy lifestyle you may not spend anywhere near your high deductible insurance and consequently save on your medical costs. Even if you do not need to, we recommend funding your account with the maximum allowed. If your HSA builds up it may help you cover any extra medical expenses during retirement.

An HSA is a tax free savings account. As long as funds are spent on qualified medical expenses, all contributions, capital gains, and withdrawals remain untaxed. And like any other bank account, HSAs come complete with debit cards and checks.

But to qualify for one of these tax-free savings accounts, you must have a high deductible health plan (HDHP). Now, you may be thinking your insurance plan has a high enough deductible already. However, to qualify as a high deductible health plan, your insurance deductibles must be a minimum of $1,100 for individuals and $2,200 for families in 2007.

The good news is, once you meet your out-of-pocket deductible, most HSA-eligible high-deductible plans cover 100 percent of most medical expenses like emergency room visits, hospitalization, lab tests and prescriptions. Still, these deductibles are nothing to joke about. Paying a couple grand out of pocket before your insurance chips in may seem like financial suicide.

HSA-eligible high-deductible premiums are only a fraction of the cost of a traditional medical insurance plan. As an HSA owner you’ll likely do better than break even each year. With the savings on your insurance premiums, you should be able to accumulate a sizeable nest egg in your HSA.

Unlike your traditional health care plan, your HSA funds are not subject to a "use it or lose it" policy. Anything you don’t spend one year carries over to the next year. After all, it’s your money. While you’re on a roll, why not check out the invest options offered by your HSA bank?

Some people put only enough into their HSA each year to fund their medical expenses. This is shortsighted. We would recommend making the maximum HSA contribution each year, after covering your other financial needs.

In 2007, you can contribute $2,850 for individuals or $5,650 for families. If you are 55 or older you can make an extra $800 catch up contribution. In 2008, you can contribute $2,900 for individuals or $5,800 for families. If you are 55 or older you can make an extra $900 catch up contribution.

One you enroll in Medicare (typically at age 65) you can't make new contributions to your HSA. But any money left in your HSA will continue to accumulate tax free. It is a good idea to over fund your HAS while you are young so that during your retirement you will have some extra tax-sheltered dollars to use for medical expenses. After enrolling in Medicare, you can't contribute to an HSA.

Any HSA withdrawals that are not for qualified medical expenses are counted as taxable income and subject to a 10% tax penalty. The tax penalty does not apply, however, if you are 65 or older, or are permanently disabled. However, the withdrawals are still taxable at ordinary income rates.

In other words, any excess contributions you make to your HSA can be withdrawn after age 65 without penalty. Just like a traditional IRA, when the funds are used for non-qualifying medical expenses you will have to pay tax on the withdrawals, which is no different than other retirement savings option.

The law is currently silent on what happens to your HSA when you reach 70 1/2. We expect that the IRS will treat your HSA like an IRA and therefore require minimum distributions, but this has not been settled.

When you die, your surviving spouse inherits your HSA and it is treated as their HSA if they are named as the beneficiary. Otherwise, your HSA ceases to be an HSA and is included in the federal gross income of your estate or the named beneficiary.

There are three strategies that you can use to grow your HSA large enough to cover your retirement years. First, make the maximum allowable deposit to your HSA each year. Second, if your medical plan includes the option, invest your HSA in mutual funds instead of keeping your account entirely in an FDIC-insured savings account. And third, delay reimbursing yourself from your HSA account as long as possible to profit from its tax sheltered compounding interest.

You can reimburse yourself for qualified medical expenses at any time, but you also have the option of leaving the money in your HSA so that it continues to grow tax free. You can save all your receipts in a shoe box for decades and then decide to withdrawal your reimbursements at any future date when you need the money. This allows the growth on these funds to continue to compound tax-free.

Once you turn 65 and enroll in Medicare you can no longer fund your HSA. Medicare will pay for the majority of your health expenses during retirement. There are some expenses, however, that Medicare will not cover that your HSA can. In retirement, your HSA can cover proactive health screenings, unconventional treatments for terminal illnesses and nursing home expenses. Your HSA can even cover long term care expenses if you decide to self insure, or pay your long-term care insurance if you decide not to. None of these expenses will be paid by Medicare.

Another option during retirement is to enroll in a Medicate Medical Savings Account. This account is similar to an HSA, but funded in retirement by Medicare contributions. If you select a Medicare MSA during retirement, you can use the funds in your HSA until you build sufficient value in your Medicare MSA.

Maximizing your contributions to an HSA may secure your health care spending for life. Even if you end up not needing it, you can pay income tax and withdraw it without penalty after age 65 just like a traditional IRA.

November 12, 2007

Nine Keys to a Great Retirement

Retirement is supposed to be the period of life when you can do what you want to instead of what you have to. But while most Americans are looking forward to retirement, many are not planning for it. Here are nine simple keys to realizing a great retirement:

  • Calculate your retirement number. Find out how much you need to save. The old rule-of-thumb says that middle-income households usually need to replace 70% to 75% of their current living expenses in retirement to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living. But the one big wildcard is growing health care costs. As such, a better rule-of-thumb is to estimate how much you’ll need to withdraw from savings during your first year of retirement (adjusted for inflation) and multiply that amount by 25 to determine your target number. For example, if you want to withdraw $40,000 from savings your first year of retirement, you’ll need to have saved $1 million. (For an example, see how I set my retirement number.)
  • Develop a plan. Once you know your number, you need a specific plan to reach it. Most families may save for retirement, but without a plan their saving is random and haphazard. Having a plan means determining how much to save each month to fund retirement, putting that amount into your budget, and, if necessary, taking steps to fund the needed amount by cutting back on expenses or earning extra income.
  • Begin immediately. The earlier you start, the more time your money has to grow. Financial planner David John Marotta has noted, “Every six years you delay adequately funding your retirement cuts in half your retirement standard of living. The wisest financial decision you can make is to start – now!” and I agree. Save now, invest now, and let your money work hard for you -- compounding throughout the years.
  • Start with your 401k.Your 401k is the best place to save for retirement if your company matches your contribution. Be sure to put in the full amount for the match.  It’s free money and a tremendous return on your investment even before you start working to make it grow.  In addition to building your nest egg, your contribution will also reduce your taxable income this year.
  • Contribute savings above the 401k match to a Roth IRA. If you get the entire 401k employer match and still have retirement money left to save, contribute to a Roth IRA if you’re eligible, as your money will grow tax deferred and tax free.
  • Max out the 401k. If you still have money to set aside for retirement after fully funding the Roth IRA, max out on your 401k. No, you won’t get a match on it, but it will grow tax deferred as well as lower your taxable income this year.
  • Invest wisely for growth. To make the most of your retirement savings, you need to invest for growth, which means investing in stocks. Your best investment option is probably a stock market index fund (such as one tracking the S&P 500 or the “total market”), which usually outperforms most other mutual funds. This strategy has four big advantages: it’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s unlikely to significantly decline and, even though there may be occasional setbacks, it works.
  • Review your plan annually. Times and circumstances change – and as such your retirement plan may need an adjustment. “Retirement planning isn’t simply a matter of putting some money in a retirement account,” Marotta advises. “It requires periodically working through the mathematical assumptions and projections required to ensure you will meet your retirement goals. Annual reviews guarantee that the changes in your lifestyle are minimized and the chances of meeting your retirement goal are maximized.”
  • Seek help if needed. If you don’t feel confident in knowing how or how much to save for retirement, get help. If you pick the right advisor, she can be a tremendous asset in making sure your retirement is fully funded and secure.

Whether retirement is just around the corner or a long way off, begin today with these steps to make your dreams of a great retirement a reality.

November 09, 2007

An Interesting Strategy for Taking Your Social Security Benefits

We've had some debates here and been back and forth on when to take Social Security retirement benefits (for an overview of the discussion, see When to Take Social Security). There's not one "right" answer, of course, but we all seemed to agree that the "best" option was much more up for debate than most personal finance-related decisions. That is, until now.

Here's a piece from Forbes that recommends the "best" way for couples to answer the "when do I take Social Security" question. The recommendation:

One spouse (usually the wife) claims at 62 to 66, while the other waits until 69 or 70 to collect. This pays off because of obscure Social Security rules and some facts about life expectancy that aren't obvious if you don't make your living as an actuary.

And the reasons it supposedly works:

For the boomers turning 62 next year (and anyone born from 1943 through 1954) the Social Security "full retirement age" is 66. If they claim benefits at 62, they get just 75% of their full retirement age benefits. For each year they wait past 66, they get 8% more (plus an inflation adjustment), for a maximum benefit at 70 equal to 132% of the full retirement age payout.

These adjustments are supposed to be actuarially neutral--meaning if you live to the average age, you get about the same whether you start collecting smaller checks early or bigger checks later. But they're not. One reason is that married couples get a special deal: When one dies, the survivor can take the dead spouse's benefits (if they're higher) and drop his or her own.

"Whoever the higher earner is should plan to delay taking Social Security, because the higher benefit will always live on," says James Mahaney, vice president of Prudential Retirement and coauthor of one of the papers. "The key message is keep your husband in the workforce as long as you can,'' quips Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and coauthor of the other paper. (She notes that a wife might continue to work, too, while collecting Social Security. Although early retirees can lose a portion of their benefits if they earn too much, once you reach 66 you don't incur any penalty for working.)

The piece goes on to list more details and thoughts in support of this recommendation, but these are the highlights. I must say, this plan makes sense to me. Of course it only works for married couples and we still have the "is it better to wait" question for individuals, but this does seem to address the problem for a large segment of the population.

Any thoughts or comments on this strategy?

Roth Conversions Can Help Build Wealth

Here's a piece courtesy of Marotta Asset Management that discusses the advantages of converting to a Roth IRA.

If you don't have retirement savings in Roth IRAs, it's time you considered the benefit of these tax-savings accounts. The long-term tax savings opportunities are driving more Americans to rollover various retirement funds into Roth accounts. These so called "Roth conversions" can be performed on traditional IRAs. And, beginning in 2008, it will be easier to roll money from an employer plan into a Roth IRA.

But first, you may be wondering what's so great about Roth IRAs. Roth IRA contributions are always made with after-tax dollars. That's right; you won't get a tax deduction for contributing. However, the principle grows tax-free and the account holder may make tax-free withdrawals at 59 1/2. Furthermore, there are no required minimum distributions for a Roth, which makes them ideal for funding the latter years of retirement.

Conversely, a traditional IRA allows before-tax contributions to grow tax-deferred, but not tax-free. So, although you can usually deduct your contribution to a traditional IRA, you pay ordinary income tax on the withdrawals. Furthermore, the IRS will require you to take minimum distributions, whether you need the money or not.

However, Roth IRAs may not provide tax savings for everyone. Remember, contributions to Roths are made with after-tax dollars whereas traditional IRAs are made with pre-tax dollars.

Roth IRAs provide tax savings for individuals who expect to be in a higher tax bracket later in life. The tax benefits of a Roth are created by the tax disparity between your tax bracket when you put your money in versus your tax bracket in retirement. The lower your tax rate, and the longer you have until retirement, the more likely a Roth conversion will play in your favor.

Imagine John, age 60, owns two traditional IRA accounts. Each is funded with $5,000. Let's assume he keeps the $5,000 in one IRA. But with the other, he uses some of the funds to pay the taxes due and then converts it to a Roth. Assuming John remains in the same tax bracket and the accounts deliver the same return on investment, each account will generate the same spending money in retirement, after taxes are paid on the traditional IRA. If John drops into a lower tax bracket after his retirement, the traditional IRA would have been the better bet. But if John's taxes rise, the Roth IRA proves to be the better option.

Guessing your future tax rates is nearly impossible. Traditionally, it was thought your tax rate in retirement would be less than when you were working, but this is increasingly not the case. Tax rates are not adjusted for inflation, so many retired couples continue to creep into higher tax brackets. Also, tax rates are at a historic low and likely to rise if the political winds change.

If you expect to see your tax bracket increase significantly - from say, 15% to 25% - you will likely benefit from a Roth conversion. This is true for younger workers and also for new retirees. In the early retirement years, many couples dip into a lower tax bracket just after retirement but before Social Security checks start arriving.

Before you rush off to begin your Roth conversions, be sure you have enough money to cover the tax bill. During a conversion, you'll withdraw funds from your traditional IRA, report the funds as income, and roll them over to a Roth IRA account. The tax implications from the conversion will vary based on whether you took a deduction on the principal. If you deducted your IRA contributions, you'll have to pay taxes on both the principal and the earnings. If you didn't, you'll just pay taxes on the earnings. I say 'just,' but either way, this could be a big bill.

The good news is you can withdraw funds from your traditional IRA and convert them to a Roth without incurring the 10% early withdrawal penalty.

You'll also have to pass an income test. Until 2010, income limits do apply. Only joint and single filers with a modified adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less can qualify. After 2010, the income restrictions on converting funds from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA will disappear completely.

Traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs and SARSEP IRAs are subject to the same conversion rules. Until 2010, you'll have to pass the income test to qualify.

SIMPLE IRAs can also be converted to Roth IRAs, if you participated in the plan for more than two years. SIMPLE IRA account holders are not subject to this rule if they are over 59 1/2. The income test of $100,000 or less (no requirement after beginning in 2010) still applies.

Keep in mind there are more ways than one way to get funds into a Roth IRA. Although conversions from a traditional IRA to a Roth are common, funds in employer sponsored plans – like 401k, 403b and 457 plans - can also be rolled over to a Roth.

In 2007, rollovers from an employer plan cannot go straight to a Roth IRA. Instead, you'll first have to rollover funds into a traditional IRA. Once in the IRA you can immediately do a Roth conversion. But thanks to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, it will soon be easier to convert your retirement savings to a Roth IRA. Beginning in 2008, funds from your employer sponsored plan can be directly rolled over into a Roth IRA.

However, don't Roth conversions with the other Roth plans sponsored by your employer. Currently, you cannot convert a traditional 401k or 403b to its employer-sponsored Roth counterpart such –a Roth 401k, Roth 403b.

Remember, no matter when you do your conversion, it must be done before Dec. 31st of the tax year. Later, if you find you weren't eligible for the Roth conversion, you can undo the damage with a Roth recharacterization before your file your taxes.

November 01, 2007

IRAs Offer Big Tax Savings for Charitable Gifts

Here's a piece courtesy of Marotta Asset Management dealing with giving from your IRA.

For a few more days this year, the tax law will allow you to give to charity directly from your IRA and count that gift toward your required minimum distribution. Giving to charity from your IRA will also provide you with additional tax savings. But, to qualify, you must make your donations before 2008.

Unlike the typical deduction you may be taking to offset your charitable giving, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 offers you tax savings opportunities which a charitable contribution deduction will not.

The Pension Protection Act provisions allow you to make so called "qualified charitable distributions" from your IRA and to exclude the gift from your gross income. Furthermore, such gifts can be used to fulfill required minimum distributions. But you must give before 2008, when the provision sunsets.

If you are an IRA account owner over 70½, you are required to take withdrawals, known as "required minimum distributions" (RMDs), from your IRA account. You must take your RMD each year, regardless of whether you need the money or not. What's more, IRA withdrawals must be reported as income and are taxed at ordinary income rates. After all, Uncle Sam won't let your money go tax-free forever.

The Pension Protection Act offers a unique tax benefit with these so called, "qualified charitable distributions." Here's how: Gifts you make to charity from your IRA bypass your taxes altogether. Since your gift is not counted as income, it does not increase your adjusted gross income (AGI).

Your adjusted gross income determines your tax bracket and your eligibility for a number of other tax benefits. By reducing this number, you may avoid the phase-out rules which may limit your itemized deductions or personal exemption amounts. You may even be able to drop to a lower income tax bracket.

If your IRA contains both before-tax and after-tax dollars, you can save even more by giving. Qualified charitable distributions made from an IRA containing both before-tax and after-tax dollars are taken from the portion of untaxed dollars. This is a radical departure from the typical IRA model which requires you to withdraw the pre-tax and after-tax dollars proportionately. Under the Act, you'll be able to give away the dollars which carry the highest tax liability. At the end of the day, you'll have a higher percentage of after-tax dollars left in your IRA.

To be considered a "qualified charitable distribution," your donations must meet a few criteria. First, only IRA account holders age 70½ or older are eligible to participate.

Next, your donation must be made directly from your IRA to the charity. Contact your IRA trustee for more instructions on how to initiate the transfer. Any distribution made payable to you won't qualify.

Finally, be sure the receiving organization is a qualified public charity or private foundation which can receive donations. Contributions to donor advised funds aren't considered qualified charitable distributions. And, as with any gift to charity, don't forget to obtain a receipt acknowledging your gift.

Qualified charitable distributions will help to fulfill your annual required minimum distributions. But, your donation can be greater than your required minimum distribution amount. You can exclude up to $100,000 in qualified charitable gifts each year. A gift amount over $100,000 must be recognized as income and deducted according to the standard charitable deduction rules.

Above all, keep in mind that you cannot double-dip and take a deduction for your IRA qualified charitable contribution. No deduction is permitted for charitable distributions which are not recognized as income.

Finally, be sure you act soon. Only contributions made to charity before January 1, 2008 can be characterized as qualified charitable distributions.

Qualified charitable distributions are just one tax planning tool which may save you money. We advise our clients to meet with their tax professional in November or December to review their tax plan before year's end. Tax planning is complex and time consuming. So, make an appointment with your tax professional before the real tax season hits.

October 31, 2007

Employee Retirement Options, Part 2

Here's a piece courtesy of Marotta Asset Management with some additional retirement thoughts.

Most employees have all their retirement eggs in one basket --their employer's retirement plan. The plans usually offer less than two dozen fund choices to cover all your hopes of maintaining your lifestyle, independence, and dignity in your later years. As discussed in the previous article, the more baskets (and eggs) you have, the better. If most of your retirement assets are with your employer, here's how to make the most of what you've got.

First, there are some mistakes to avoid. Probably the most common mistake made by employees is to allocate an equal amount of money to each of the fund choices. Studies have shown that given ten choices, employees tend to put 10% in each choice. Given five choices they put 20% in each choice. If four of the choices represent one type of asset and the fifth is unique the asset allocation is split 80/20. If the funds happen to be the other way round then the asset allocation is 20/80.

The equal proportions methodology builds very poor portfolios. You can't afford to make these types of mistakes with your future livelihood. The only thing worse than the equal proportions strategy is allocating all of your money to just one fund. You need an investment philosophy that integrates all of your asset holdings. Only then can you evaluate which of your company's fund options are right and determine what percentage to allocate to each.

Many employer sponsored retirement plans are just mediocre. Neither the fund company nor plan provider has much incentive to fill your selections with stellar choices. Plan sponsors have a fiduciary responsibility, but few take that responsibility seriously. Procedures may or may not be in place even to meet minimum guidelines. Still, you should be able to find a few funds worth selecting in order to gain your employer's match.

Your own company or plan provider usually isn't the best place to turn for advice. After all, they are the ones that picked the options in the first place. You should get the outside opinion of a professional financial planner on where to invest.

Another common mistake is to invest in whatever funds have done the best over the past 1, 3, or 5-year period. None of these measures is long enough to produce a balanced asset allocation. Every financial disclaimer states that "past performance is no indication of future returns," and yet, past performance remains the primary selection criteria for many investors. Too many employees pick the asset category that has done the best over the past three years. However, these higher-than-average returns often represent a peak. Going forward, they are the fund choices most likely to under-perform for the next three years.

While three year average returns is a poor way to select a fund, thirty year average returns is a good way to select an asset category for including in your asset allocation. If small cap value is a good asset category to include for the long term, see if your plan includes any small value funds. Then judge them against other outside funds within their asset class and not against other funds within your plan.

You should be looking for funds which are the best funds within their asset class regardless of how well the asset class has done over the short term of just the last few years. Funds that are the best in their category can often be found through index funds that have very low expense ratios.

Remember also that you are looking for a team of funds and not just a few hot shots. Your retirement portfolio consists of more than just your employer's plan. Even if your employer's plan only has a couple of good choices, you can use your other investments to create a balanced asset allocation. While the choices in your employer's plan may be limited, investments in your IRA or taxable account will have an unlimited number of choices from which to craft a balanced allocation.

It is important to start with an over all asset allocation plan and then see what asset classes your employer's plan offers that would integrate well with your investment philosophy. Since your employer's plan usually has the most limited number of choices, pick the best it has to offer that fits with in your over all plan.

October 24, 2007

Two Unique Risks You'll Face in Retirement

Here's something that I've always understood, but never seen an article on before -- the fact that we all face extra risks in retirement. This piece from Yahoo details the two added risks of retirement -- longevity risk and spending risk. Let's start with longevity risk:

One of the common concerns I hear from people approaching or in retirement is the fear of running out of money too soon. It's tough (okay, impossible) to know just how long a life expectancy you should plan for. When I run retirement projections for people, I'm now using age 97 as the default life expectancy. If I know that long lives run in a client's family, I may shift this even further out.

When you're planning for your retirement years, you'll want to err on the conservative side of life expectancy, meaning that you should plan as though you're going to live to a ripe old age. When you look at tables showing average life expectancies based on your current age, remember they are just averages.

Yep. I'd be really, really, really conservative on this one. It would be very bad to run out of money before you run out of life. In a bit, I'll detail how I'm handling this risk as well as the other one. My solution for each one goes hand-in-hand with the other.

As far as how to deal with longevity risk, the piece gives a suggestion:

There are protections you can put in place to guard against longevity risk. One is purchasing or electing an immediate annuity.

They then detail what sort of annuity, special circumstance you need to consider, what provisions you'll want as part of the annuity you buy, and so on.

The article then switches to spending risk:

People are living longer in general and spending more money in retirement than previous generations. In particular, people are spending more on gasoline, entertainment, travel, and health care. Most of my clients expect to spend about the same, or perhaps even more, in retirement than they do now. That's because they want to travel, play more golf, or spend more time on hobbies.

In particular, here's a big cost to watch out for:

No discussion of the spending risks in retirement would be complete without touching on the cost of long-term care. According to the MetLife 2006 Survey of Nursing Home and Home Health-Care Costs, the average rate for a private room in a nursing home is about $200 a day or about $75,000 a year.

So, how do we deal with these two risks? Here's what the article suggests:

  • Run your retirement projections out to a reasonable life expectancy. Plan for a longer-than-average life.
  • Add up what you're spending now if you are about to retire or if you are in retirement. Remember to include less frequent expenses like travel, cars, and real estate taxes. Plug those expense numbers into your retirement projection to see how long your assets last.
  • Try to generate enough income from fixed sources (like TIPS or an immediate annuity) to cover fixed costs.
  • Make sure your retirement budget has adequately prepared for health-care costs in retirement, which may include long-term care.

This is basically what I'm doing. I'm estimating that I'll live a long life and that my living costs will be higher than I expect. If I then save according to these goals, I should be fine. But, boy, that sure makes for a very big retirement number! Yikes!

October 22, 2007

Employee Retirement Options, Part 1

The following article is courtesy of Marotta Asset Management.

Putting all of your retirement eggs in one basket is easy to carry, but risky. Most workers are putting all their retirement assets in the basket of their employer's retirement plan. They are depending on one employer and two dozen eggs (funds) to hatch and maintain their lifestyle, independence and dignity in their later years. Don't trip.

Just one generation ago employers provided their employees with defined benefit plans for retirement. The employee could plan on a benefit that the employer had contractually promised. The employer was responsible to insure that a defined amount would be payable to each employee when they retired. Such security today is obsolete.

The new model moves the outcome responsibility from the employer to the employee through what are called defined contribution plans. The employer is helping with the input (the contribution), but no longer guaranteeing the output (the benefit).

An employee's retirement income is now contingent on four variables: how much the employee puts in, how much the employer matches, the performance of the underlying funds and of course, time.

In a typical defined contribution plan the employer will match dollar for dollar the first 3% of your salary, and fifty cents per dollar on the next 2% of your salary. That means if you contribute 5% of your salary, your employer will give you an additional 4% of your salary in retirement contributions.

Getting the maximum amount possible of this free money should be your first priority in saving for retirement. Even if your 401k or 403b defined contribution choices are not stellar, you still get an automatic 80% return on your money the very day you contribute. Strangely, many employees neglect to pick up this free money. The 80% automatic return is an offer you should not refuse.

After saving enough to get the full match from your employer, don't necessarily continue to use your employer's plan as your only retirement basket. After getting the full match, we recommend funding your Roth IRA, your spouse's Roth IRA and your taxable account. Only after adequately funding these individual account choices should you consider putting more money into your employer's plan than is necessary to get the full match.

Retirement plans through work are laden with fees and expenses that are not on individual investment accounts. The difference in fees is often 1% or more. The longer you leave your money in a defined contribution plan, the more the excessive fees will erode its value. There are plans so laden with fees that they are not even worth the match. Where the fee differential is 2%, after 30 years the fees will have eaten up the entire 80% match.

In other words, if you had the same amount of money in a traditional IRA account earning 2% more because of lower fees after 30 years you would have 81% more money in your account. For this reason alone, make sure that you don't leave money in an employer's retirement plan any longer than you have to. After terminating employment with one employer you should always roll that money into an individual IRA Rollover account where you can invest with lower fees and better choices.

It is a mistake to move money from a pervious employer's plan into your current employer's plan. This mistake, however, can often be undone. Money that has its source from another employer is usually allowed to be rolled out of an employer's plan and into an IRA Rollover account. If you are in this situation you should see if you can rescue some of your investments from the higher fees and limited choices of your current employer's plan.

There's another important tax reason not to put all of your retirement assets in your employer's plan. If you take a deduction while you are in a low tax bracket and in retirement when you are taking withdrawals you are in a higher tax bracket then your contributions work against you. You would have done better to have put your extra non-match retirement savings into a Roth or taxable account. Your tax rates are likely to be higher during your retirement. Currently, top marginal tax rates are only 35%. Before the Bush tax cuts the top marginal rate was 39.6%. Before the Regan tax cuts the top marginal rate was 70%. Before the Kennedy tax cuts the top marginal rate was 90%. Tax rates are at historic lows.

When you take the money out of an employer's plan or a traditional IRA account you will have to pay taxes at whatever tax rate is currently in effect. And after age 70 ½ you will have to start taking required minimum distributions in order for the government to ensure that they will get their tax. Historically speaking, the odds are your withdrawals during your retirement will be charged at a higher income tax rate than the deduction you received when you put the money in.

If may be better for you to pay your current tax rate and get your money into a Roth IRA where it won't be taxed again or a taxable investment account where the growth is only taxed at capital gains rates.

If you are just starting out in your career you are probably in the lowest tax bracket you will ever be in. Therefore it is more important to carry your retirement savings in more than one basket. Fund your employer's plan with no more than is necessary to get the match and then fund your Roth IRA and build your taxable savings.

October 17, 2007

$4 Million Is Not Enough to Retire On

Ok, here's a piece that really has me steamed. It's about what Forbes calls "middle-class millionaires" (they use the word "mMillionaire" to refer to them) and how they have to dramatically cut their standard of living if they retire with only a few million dollars. Yep, you read that right. The article is about how tough it is for these people with only a few million dollars when they retire. They have to do unheard of, horrible things like "live in three- and four-bedroom homes and drive mid-priced four-door sedans and mini-vans." Oh no! Not that!

Here's a quick summary of what this piece is about:

Just a generation ago, a person with $2 million or more in liquid assets would have had enough for a secure retirement. But not today. Combine longer life expectancies and the rising costs of health care, food, transportation and property, and you have financial challenges ahead for the mMillionaire.

The piece does have its facts straight. If someone is used to living off $400,000 a year, then $5,000,000 in retirement either isn't going to last long or they'll need to adjust their spending. But the point here is that these people have simply under-saved during their careers. Yeah, they made a bundle of money and saved a good chunk of it, but they didn't save enough. If they wanted to retire at the same level of income, they needed to spend less and save more while working.

And then the article simply goes overboard when it talks about how they'll now need to give up "mansions and yachts" and somehow try and get by with "three- and four-bedroom homes." Is anyone feeling sorry for these people? Not me.

If there's any value in this piece at all, it's in what's implied but not stated outright: funding retirement takes a load of money -- much more than what most people (even rich, smart people) estimate or imagine. That's why you need to calculate your retirement number now and take steps to start saving for it. Otherwise, you might have to cut your standard of living substantially in retirement as well.

October 10, 2007

How to Retire by 50

Here's a piece from Money Central that details how several couples have retired by age 50 and what it takes to do so. It boils down to three success factors. The people who can retire at 50 are:

  • Allergic to debt.
  • Acutely aware of the power of time.
  • More interested in their goal than what the neighbors think.

Hmmm. Those sound familiar. :-)

My take on how to get rich is fairly similar to these, and I often talk about the three items listed above. Here's what I'm doing with each of the suggestions above:

1. Yep, I hate debt too. That's why I have none. Paid off my mortgage over 10 years ago. Of course I do still charge on credit cards, but I pay them off each month. And I bought a new car a few years ago where I had a "two years same as cash" deal (I tried to get them to give me a discount instead and let me pay cash, but they wouldn't) that was torture because I again had payments. All that to say -- I am certainly allergic to debt.

2. Yep. The power of time/compounding is part of my formula for getting rich.

3. Again, it's a yes for me. I don't really care what the neighbors think of what I drive, what I wear, the "toys" I own, etc. I'd rather be wealthy and look middle class than be middle class trying to look wealthy. Heck, I'm not even interested in being wealthy and looking wealthy. Middle class is much more comfortable, laid back, and "warm" to me anyway. :-)

I think if I really, really pushed it, I could retire by 50, but I'm not sure I want to push it. The biggest category that would need to be cut back in order for me to make it is my giving, and I'm not prepared to give up on that in order to call work quits a few years early. In reality though, I do see myself down-scaling when I get to 55 or so. I should have enough saved up and the kids will be out of college, so at a minimum I should be able to take a job that generates less income as well as requires less of my time.

October 08, 2007

Five Reasons You'll Love a 401k

Consider this a "basic" personal finance post. I know many of you reading it will be far beyond this topic, but I also know that many people who read Free Money Finance are new to personal finance and haven't read the other 4,500 posts I've written to date. With that said, let's explore a recent piece touting the great benefits of 401ks.

This article is from Kiplinger's and lists five reasons you'll love a 401k:

1. It could make you a millionaire.
2. Your employer may give you free money.
3. It's a low-maintenance relationship.
4. You don't have to remember to make deposits.
5. You'll have fewer taxes taken from your paycheck each month.

My (even shorter) summary:

1. It makes you money (both in employer matches and long-term earnings).
2. It saves you money (on taxes).
3. It's easy to participate.

What isn't there to love? I especially like the free money of the employer match -- where else can you earn 50% to 100% return on your money?

I've maxed out my 401k for years now and the amounts I have saved from them (I have a 401k as well as an IRA rolled over from previous jobs' 401ks) is amazing. In addition, I'm adding more to this amount each pay period and all these funds still have 25 years or so to compound. If I can earn 10% on them, they'll double every seven years or so, so I'll be looking at many, many times with I currently have now even if I don't put in another penny (which I will.)

As I'm sure you can tell, I LOVE 401ks and recommend them to everyone who will listen!

For more on this issue, see these posts:

October 06, 2007

Rename Retirement, Win $100,000

Here's an interesting contest. The basics for those of you who like a topline summary:

1. SmartMoney magazine is holding a contest to replace the term "retirement."

2. To enter, you go to the SmartMoney site and submit a text or video entry.

3. If you are selected as the winner, you get a $100,000 annuity.

Now the details from the SmartMoney press release:

<