comacbanner

Community Accounting & Tax, LLC., Chester, Virginia, Serving Metro Richmond and Southside Virginia.

Coming Soon!

natplogo65
nsa_logo
NACPBK_S1
IAAI
chamber
vahccf_logo_103

Back in 1997, Congress created the "Roth IRA," a new kind of retirement account with back-end tax breaks. Contributions aren't deductible - but withdrawals will be tax-free, so long as you meet certain requirements.

Choosing between traditional and Roth 401k isn't easy. It depends mainly on whether you expect the tax break to be worth more today, when you put the money in, or tomorrow, when you take it out. If you're stuck in a high bracket today, and expect you'll pay less in retirement, take the deduction today with a Conventional IRA. If you're in a low bracket now and expect to pay more tomorrow, choose the Roth and save the tax break for later. Of course, most of us don't know what we'll be making in retirement. And none of us know what rates will be decades down the road.

We still favor the Conventional IRA for those who can take the deduction, as it will decrease your tax bill now, when you need it.  Now, if you don’t need the deduction because you are rolling in the bucks, and want to gamble, you can roll the dice and go for the Roth.

The Roth 401k opportunity expires after 2010, unless Congress acts specifically to extend it. For more information, or if you'd like us to help you determine if the Roth 401k is right for you, call us at 804-768-2255.

 

Paying for health care in retirement

Ice floe anyone? A 65-year-old couple retiring today will need on average a tidy $200,000 set aside to pay for medical costs in retirement, according to an annual Fidelity Investment study released this week.


Of course, as with any study, the devil is in the details. For instance, Fidelity's estimate, which assumes that Americans do not have employer-sponsored retiree health care, includes expenses associated with Medicare Part B and D premiums ($64,000),

Medicare cost-sharing provisions such as co-payments, coinsurance, deductibles and excluded benefits ($72,000), and prescription drug out-of-pocket costs ($64,000). Fidelity's numbers do not include other health expenses, such as over-the-counter medications, most dental services and long-term care.

 
"It doesn't look hopeful," said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate with the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, D.C. and fellow at TIAA-CREF Institute whose research shows medical costs in retirement to be even higher. "It's a massive problem especially in light of what happens to Medicare over the next 14 years."

 
To be sure, not all retirees will need as much as Fidelity's or Fronstin's research suggests. For instance, some retirees, though fewer and fewer, will have retiree health care coverage from their former employer. Others, however, especially those who may need to use a nursing home or who live past age 85, (which is the life expectancy Fidelity used to calculate the present value of medical care costs), may need even more than $200,000 set aside.
 

But no matter whether you need more or less than $200,000, Fronstin and others say the fact remains that retirees will need lots of money to pay for medical costs in retirement.
 

So what are some of the best ways retirees can pay for or reduce the cost of health care in retirement?
 

Keep working, especially for a company that provides health care. For many preretirees and retirees, the hard reality is this: Many will have to keep working because out of need. Either they didn't save enough to pay for health care expenses so they need the income to pay for such costs. Or they need to work for a company that provides health care coverage.
 

Either way, Fronstin sees this as the best option for many Americans who failed to play for health care costs in retirement. The next best bet, especially for those who cannot work during retirement, is to be married to a spouse who can work for a firm that provides health care insurance or at least pays well enough to pay for such costs.
 

For his part, Fronstin suggests that some Americans consider working for the U.S. Government for at least five years, especially in light of Uncle Sam's rich retiree health care plan. Read Fronstin's reports at EBRI's Web site and TIAA-CREF Institute's Web site.
 

Maintain a healthy lifestyle. Steve Vernon, author of "Live Long & Prosper" and vice president for Watson Wyatt Worldwide, says the best way to pay for medical costs in retirement is maintain or adopt a healthy lifestyle now. "A lifetime of bad habits will result in higher medical costs," says Vernon. In fact, Vernon estimates that preretirees and retirees can reduce the odds of having high medical costs in retirement, and especially those associated with long-term care such as nursing homes, by 75% simply by eating right, exercising, and reducing stress.
 

Use a health savings account (HSA). Fidelity Investments suggests that pre-retirees might consider using an HSA, a tax-advantaged account, to pay for future medical and retiree health care expenses.
 

To be sure, Americans under age 65 who participate in high-deductible health plan get plenty of tax savings with an HSA. They can deduct the amount they contribute to an HSA, their money grows tax-deferred and they can withdraw money from an HSA tax-free if used for qualified medical expenses.
 

The big problem, however, say Fronstin and Vernon is that few Americans have access to an HSA today. Preretirees, for instance, must work for a firm that provides a high-deductible health plan. Plus, the amount of money that people can set aside in such accounts (a current maximum of $5,450) will unlikely grow enough to pay for medical expenses in any significant way. "HSAs are great in the sense that the provide tax advantages that you can't get anywhere else but its savings potential isn't great," Fronstin says. Still, Vernon says those who access to an HSA should save as much as they can in it. Learn more about HSAs at the Treasury Department's Web site.
 

Consider buying long-term care insurance or a catastrophic health insurance plan. Fidelity's estimate of health care expenses in retirement doesn't include the costs associated with long-term care, such as home-health aide (presently about $19 an hour), assisted living facilities (presently about $35,000 per year), or nursing homes (presently about $74,000 per year). And that means pre-retirees and retirees need a just-in-case plan to cover those costs.
 

Vernon says preretirees and retirees who don't maintain a healthy lifestyle might consider buying long-term care insurance, especially if they have access to group plan. But in the main, he says people, especially those with a healthy lifestyle, are better off setting aside the money they might have used to pay for long-term insurance in savings as well as toward a catastrophic health insurance plan. "Most of diseases and illnesses associated with long-term care are due to lifestyle decisions," he says.
 

Fronstin says preretirees should buy long-term insurance way when they younger rather than older. That's especially important since many older applicants get turned down because of some health issue or another, he says. Of course, the big issue with long-term care insurance, he says, is this: "You are trying to buy something that you may or may not need for 20 years and hope that you don't need."
 

Buy a medigap insurance plan or enroll in a Medicare Advantage. A medigap insurance plan will cover the costs not covered by Medicare Part A, B and D. Yes, experts say these policies may not reduce the $200,000 Fidelity estimates that a 65-year-old couple needs in retirement. But a medigap insurance plan, in combination with Medicare Part B and Part D insurance, or Medicare Advantage plan reduce the likelihood that you need more than $200,000 for health care expenses. Learn more about those plans at Medicare's Web site.
 

Save more now. Sure, it's trite. But Fronstin says preretirees, especially younger employees, could save a lot more now in anticipation of health care expenses in retirement. "This is where the big opportunity is," he says, noting the small percentage of workers who save the maximum in their 401(k) plans or even save enough to take full advantage of their company's match. "And the earlier you start the better."
 

Pension Reform Politics


The pension reform bill now being worked on by a House-Senate conference is teetering on the verge of being worse than worthless. The nation cannot afford to miss this opportunity to protect workers who count on company retirement plans to see them through their old age. There is still time to rescue this critical legislation ­ if key lawmakers give up political horse-trading and put public good above corporate interests.

Against this background, let’s remember that people went to work for a company, did their jobs and helped make a profit, and expected the promises of retirement benefits as expressed in the company employee package to be there when they retired.  But we have seen a companies reneging on the promises, raids on company pension funds which went into the hands of stockholders and golden parachute programs for key executives -- but when the time comes for the pension funds, not enough to pay the workers their promised due, what in fact they worked for and were promised.

Let's start with Representative John Boehner, Republican of Ohio and the new House majority leader. The most important reform in the bill, as everyone agrees, is to ensure that companies contribute enough money to their pension plans to meet their obligations fully. It is also accepted that companies cannot step up their contributions overnight. But rather than support the sensible notion of a simple seven-year catch-up period, Mr. Boehner championed a super-slow phase-in that is now part of the House bill. The slower the phase-in, the weaker the reform. A seven-year transition, with the clock starting on Day 1, is reasonable and should become law.

On the Senate side, Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, has been a leader in the fight for special airline relief provisions, mainly for the bankrupt Northwest and Delta. But the largess in the Senate bill must be scaled way back. In general, Congress has skillfully devised new rules for computing pension obligations. But an exception to the rules would allow airlines to factor in highly optimistic assumptions that would, in effect, let them get away with putting much less in their pensions each year than would otherwise be the case. That is a horrible precedent, essentially endorsing the use of funny numbers for favored industries.

Legislators can legitimately give bankrupt companies leeway, for example, by granting more time to make required pension contributions. But allowing "flexibility" in the basic pension calculation would mock the whole notion of reform.

It should go without saying, but Congress should also reject provisions that would weaken current protections. Present law bans a mutual fund company from offering employees investment advice if the company's funds are among the employees' retirement investing options. Mr. Boehner, a darling of the securities industry, wants to remove the ban. That is a clear invitation to conflicts of interest. The House bill would also allow hedge funds to manage more pension money without having to meet established legal standards for doing so. That would encourage the misuse of pension assets.

This is not just a matter of better or worse ways to improve the shaky status quo. As Mary Williams Walsh recently reported in The Times, a study from the federal pension insurance agency shows that the current House and Senate bills would actually weaken the pension system by sharply reducing corporate pension contributions over the next few years. Corporations ­ and lawmakers in their thrall ­ routinely dismiss the agency's calculations as flawed. But an analysis of the bills released by Congress's own Joint Committee on Taxation also shows lower contributions through 2010.

No matter what Congress does, traditional pensions are disappearing. In the year that it has taken to get this far on reform, more pension plans have defaulted or have become in danger of default. Healthy companies are increasingly freezing pensions for current employees and closing them to new hires. The point of reform should be to avoid accelerating the decline by ensuring that companies with pension obligations keep their promises, in that way protecting employees and taxpayers.

Real pension reform would deliver 100 percent pension funding and the use of uniform market-sensitive calculations. Instead of focusing on those goals, the House and Senate have been stuffing the legislation with opportunistic attempts to please corporate campaign contributors, and be damned with the worker. In this case, less is definitely more.

Its time to make Pension Reform just that.   Make pension funds untouchable to corporate raiders, creditors, or anyone but those who the funds were originally set aside for - the employee.  Its patently unfair to squander what employees worked so hard for over 20 or 30 or more years.

Its time for Congress to step up and for once tell the corporate money grubbers, “keep your hands off pension funds.” And for once, put some teeth in the law.

03/26/06

 

[Home] [About] [Contact Us] [Taxtime 2005] [Services] [College Plans] [Client Knowledgebase] [Tax Calendar] [Newsletter] [Amigos latinos bienvenidos] [FAQ] [IRS News] [VA Tax News] [Specialized Topics] [Non U.S. Nationals] [Managing Marketing] [Retirement] [Gift Taxes] [Home Office] [Entity Selection] [Home Price Tips] [Watch Out!] [Opinion] [Legal]

© 2002-2006 Community Accounting & Tax, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Our Web Site provides our clients and visiting friends with information about taxes.  Do not apply this general information to your specific situation without additional details and/or professional assistance.