The Retirement and IRA Show

Chris’s Summary

Jim and I discuss retirement spending plans through the lens of a New York Times article titled “You Saved and Saved for Retirement. Now You Need a Plan to Cash Out,” reviewing its key arguments about decumulation and where we agree, question, or hold no opinion. We cover why the Minimum Dignity Floor rarely fails in projections, why the 4% rule may be an outdated framework for structuring retirement withdrawals, how individual inflation rates for specific expense categories can produce more accurate projections than a single blended rate, and why underspending on fun during the go-go years may pose a greater risk than outliving assets for many listeners.

Jim’s “Pithy” Summary

Chris and I dig into a New York Times article — “You Saved and Saved for Retirement. Now You Need a Plan to Cash Out” — and use it as a jumping-off point to talk about what spending in retirement actually looks like in practice versus what the industry has been selling people for decades.

Here’s what struck me most: the 4% rule was created in 1994 with rudimentary spreadsheets, and the recommended safe withdrawal rate swings from 2.8 to 4.7 depending on who you ask and what year it is. That’s supposed to be your anchor? Are you watching TVs that look like the ones from 30 years ago? Talking on the same phones? My beeper evolved into a smartphone with more computing power than the Apollo mission, and yet most of the industry is still essentially creating retirement spending plans with a beeper. What the Fun Number framework helps clarify is that you don’t need a universal withdrawal percentage. You need to isolate your actual expenses, inflate each one at the rate that reflects how that spending actually grows — not some blended average — and then see clearly what’s left for fun.

The article also makes the point that fearful retirees may scrimp during their go-go years when they could afford to spend — and that’s something my dad reinforced in his own way. He’d watch people in his retirement community who had money but couldn’t bring themselves to spend it on fun, and he called them Debbie Downers. For many people listening to this podcast, that’s the real risk — not outliving your assets but failing to spend on fun while you still can.

The post Retirement Spending Plans: EDU #2616 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Jim and Chris discuss listener emails on Social Security benefits for a family with a disabled adult child, survivor benefits, ERISA vs. non-ERISA 403(b) protections, a listener PSA on Monte Carlo simulations, special needs trusts, and how a revocable living trust handles a primary home transfer.

(5:00) A listener asks whether her husband’s early Social Security filing while still working would suspend her child-in-care benefits, and whether his benefit would be recalculated to his Full Retirement Age amount once the earnings limit no longer applies.

(20:20) George wonders whether survivor benefits for his wife would be based on his age-70 amount or her Full Retirement Age amount.

(25:15) Jim and Chris take a question about the differences between ERISA and non-ERISA 403(b) protections, and whether state IRA protections offer comparable coverage.

(39:45) The guys share a listener PSA pointing them to a recent Retirement Answer Man episode on Monte Carlo simulations.

(44:00) Georgette enquires which assets belong in a special needs trust and how to structure it tax-efficiently.

(54:45) A listener asks how a primary home transfers to children through a revocable living trust and what the selling process looks like.

The post Social Security, ERISA, Trusts: Q&A #2616 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s SummaryJim and I are joined by Jake as we discuss tax rules and mistakes through two tax-focused PSAs before moving into listener emails. Jake covers a denied non-cash charitable deduction due to an incomplete Form 8283 and missing contemporaneous documentation, then walks through how estimated tax payments and safe harbor rules are calculated from prior-year tax liability. We then address listener emails on establishing home basis after a spouse’s death, how the senior deduction is reduced for married couples, and comparing IRA versus Roth withdrawal strategies.

Jim’s “Pithy” SummaryChris and I are joined by Jake as we spend some time on two tax-focused PSAs from Jake before getting into listener emails. Jake walks through a tax court case where a non-cash charitable donation was denied because Form 8283 wasn’t completed correctly and the required documentation wasn’t done at the time—even though the donation itself was valid. This highlights how strict tax rules and mistakes around them can cost you. He also breaks down estimated tax payments—those quarterly amounts that show up on your return after you’ve already paid what you owed—and how they’re calculated off the prior year to get you into the safe harbor.

We then get into a situation involving a home purchased in the early 1970s, no improvements over the years, a spouse passing in a community property state, and now the question of what the basis actually is and how to determine it years later without anything documented at the time, which is more common than you’d think. There’s also a question on the senior deduction where the reduction ends up applying to each spouse, which changes the expected result. Finally, we look at two different withdrawal approaches using traditional IRA and Roth accounts over the next few years, and how those choices shift balances and taxes depending on how the income is sourced and what you’re actually trying to accomplish with it.

The post Tax Rules and Mistakes: EDU #2615 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Jim and Chris discuss listener emails on Social Security claiming strategies, financial education electives for a college student, a listener PSA on podcast word counts, inheritance planning, and SEP IRA conversions.

(11:15) A listener planning to delay Social Security to 70 asks whether proposed benefit caps should change that strategy. He also asks Chris for financial education course recommendations for his son at CSU.

(35:45) The guys address a question from someone who discovered SSA shows zero earnings on their work record for a year they actually worked, following an overpayment dispute, and whether submitting a W-2 can correct the record and trigger retroactive back pay.

(43:45) Jim and Chris share a PSA on podcast word counts, with a speaker-by-speaker breakdown to crown the King and Prince of Word Count.

(49:30) A listener wants to create four separate Roth IRA accounts, each with one of their four adult children named as beneficiary, with the idea that any lifetime gifts to that child come out of their future inherited share. They ask whether this approach is more complicated than it needs to be.

(1:09:30) George asks whether the money his son placed in a traditional SEP IRA can be converted to Roth, and how the IRS would treat it.

The post Social Security, Inheritance Strategy, SEP IRA Conversions: Q&A#2615 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary

Jim and I share retirement lessons learned from a listener’s account of his mother. Her husband’s survivor pension elections, combined with Social Security, left her a unicorn — secure income covering all expenses — yet she died regretting trips never taken despite a $9 million portfolio. The episode also covers why joint account ownership with adult children can create legal exposure, and the importance of funding a living trust while you are still healthy.

Jim’s “Pithy” Summary

Chris and I walk through three retirement lessons learned from a listener whose mother passed at nearly 100 years old — what she did right, what she regretted, and what almost worked but she ran out of time.

Lesson 1: Her husband elected survivor options on his pensions, and combined with Social Security, she had a steady stream of lifetime income long after he was gone. He thought ahead and protected her.

Lesson 2: That income, combined with a modest lifestyle, allowed her to amass millions and become what we call a unicorn — guaranteed income that covered every expense, discretionary and otherwise. But she died with regrets, not because she ran out of money but because she could never bring herself to spend it. Her son urged her repeatedly to spend more on fun, but she was a child of the Depression, and that created a mindset that no amount of counseling could change until it was too late. Her husband, who died at 66 was “the other guy” — he probably expected to live at least into his 80s — so did not get to enjoy the money either. These are exactly the kinds of situations the Fun Number was built for.

Lesson 3: She did do a great deal right with her estate — POA designations in place and proper beneficiary designations so no assets were subject to probate. She even had a living trust in the works – but she ran out of time to fund it, and that distinction — between having a living trust and actually funding it — is a surprisingly common mistake people make when they set one up.

The post Retirement Lessons Learned: EDU #2614 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.