Tag Archives: FI for Beginners

Traditional 401(k) Contributions Are Fine for Most Americans (Really!)

Yesterday I posted Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?, arguing that as applied to many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are fine.

Today two very interesting pieces of content hit my radar. First, one of my favorite personal finance content creators, Clark Howard, is advocating for Roth contributions instead of traditional contributions for most Americans.

Second, UBS and Credit Suisse issued their Global Wealth Report for 2023. Allow me to call your attention to page 16. The median American adult has personal wealth just a bit under $108,000. This means almost half of American adults have less than $100K of wealth, and the majority of American adults do not have $200K of wealth. For most Americans, deferred taxation is not the problem! Sufficiency is the problem!

For me this report cracks the case. If the median American adult does not have close to sufficient wealth to comfortably retire, why are they worried about taxes in retirement?

Assuming this report is anywhere near close to a correct measure of adult American wealth, I believe I am correct and personal finance legends Ed Slott and Clark Howard are wrong when it comes to the traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k) debate.

The best way for working Americans to address sufficiency problems is by contributing to traditional, deductible retirement accounts. As demonstrated below, one employing this sort of deduct, deduct, deduct strategy would need to be successful well beyond what most Americans accomplish in order to create a tax problem.

When one has insufficient resources for retirement, the traditional, deductible 401(k) makes the most sense. He or she needs to build up assets, not worry about future taxes! With relatively little in the way of resources, future taxes are not likely to be a problem (especially in retirement when compared to one’s working years). Further, by contributing to a traditional, deductible 401(k) instead of a Roth 401(k), one behind in retirement saving takes home more money to invest in additional saving mechanisms such as Roth IRAs and taxable brokerage accounts.

Let’s Break Down Some Retirement Numbers

I believe we need some numbers to figure out who’s right.

Example 1: I start with Single Sally, who is 75 years old. Since she is somewhat like the median American, but older, let’s assume she has $250,000 of wealth and receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. Assume further that all $250K is in a traditional IRA and Sally, age 75, wants to live for today: she isn’t constrained by the 4% rule but rather decides to withdraw 10 percent per year ($25,000). On that $55,000 annual gross income, Single Sally pays just over $2,000 in federal income taxes (an effective rate less than 4%).

Why would Sally pass on a 10%, 12%, or 22% deduction from a traditional 401(k) contribution during her working years? Why would Single Sally put the money in a Roth 401(k) so as to avoid a less than 4% federal income tax in retirement? And how different is Sally’s situation from that of many Americans?

Update 8/17/2023: Single Sally is in the Tax Torpedo, an interesting tax phenomenon with a modest impact on her total tax liability. I added a spreadsheet to look at this in more detail.

Example 2: But Sean, I’m reading your blog. I’m not shooting for just $250K in retirement wealth! Okay, let’s start testing it by considering wealth significantly above the mean and median adult Americans. Single Sarah is 75 years old. She receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. But now she also has a $1M traditional IRA and takes an RMD ($40,650) based on her age. Single Sarah also has some taxable accounts and thus has $4,000 of qualified dividend income and $1,000 of interest income. On that approximate $76,000 annual gross income, Single Sarah pays just over $7,200 in federal income taxes (an effective rate of a bit more than 9.5%).

In order to grow a $1M traditional IRA (likely rolled over from workplace 401(k)s), she almost certainly was in the 22% or greater federal marginal tax bracket while working. Why would Single Sarah switch from taking a 22% tax deduction (the traditional 401(k) contribution) to a Roth 401(k) contribution to avoid a 9.5% effective federal tax rate in retirement?

Example 3: Example 3 is Single Sarah at age 80. Her investments are doing so well her traditional IRA is still worth $1M, causing her to be required to take a $49,505 RMD. This causes her federal income tax to increase to $9,175, for an effective federal income tax rate of almost 11%.

How many Americans will get to age 80 with $1M or more in tax deferred accounts? Even if they do, how bad is the tax problem? If Single Sarah’s effective tax rate is 11%, a 50% tax hike gets her to about 16.5%. Will she enjoy paying that tax? No. Is it crippling? Hardly!

Still worried about contributing to a traditional 401(k)? I’ve got a video for you!

Conclusion

The next time you hear “30 or 40% of your 401(k) belongs to the government” you should consider my examples. For many Americans, “10%” will be much closer to the mark than 30% or 40%.

It’s time to step back and ask whether prioritizing Roth 401(k) contributions during one’s working career is the best advice for the majority of Americans. As demonstrated above, a tax increase of 50 percent (highly unlikely) would result in most Americans having an effective tax rate below 20% in retirement.

I believe for many Americans, the optimal retirement savings path combines deductible workplace 401(k) contributions with Roth IRA contributions at home.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?

Ed Slott believes most Americans should not contribute to traditional 401(k)s. His recent essay on the subject is a great opportunity for the FI community to reassess its love for the traditional 401(k).

My conclusion is that for many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are still the most logical path when it comes to workplace retirement saving. Below I explain my thinking.

It is important to note it is impossible to make a blanket statement as applied to the entire FI community.

Why the Traditional 401(k) Is Good for the FI Community

Many in the FI community have the very reasonable hope that in retirement they will have years, possibly decades, where their effective tax rate will be lower than their marginal tax rate in their working years.

The above is true of many Americans, but it is particularly true if one retires early by conventional standards. The idea is deduct, deduct, deduct into the 401(k) during one’s working years (particularly the high earning years) and then retire early by conventional standards. Prior to collecting Social Security and/or required minimum distributions (“RMDs”), most retirees look artificially poor on their tax return. This opens up the door to affirmatively convert money from traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts and pay tax at the lowest federal income tax brackets (currently 10% and 12%). For those who deducted contributions into the 401(k) at a 24% or greater marginal federal tax rate, this is great tax rate arbitrage planning.

Minor litigation risks aside, this strategy just got even easier for those born in 1960 and later, who don’t have to take RMDs under SECURE 2.0 until age 75. With the new delayed RMD beginning date, even those retiring as late as age 65 will have a full decade prior to being required to take RMDs to do tax-efficient Roth conversions at low marginal tax rates. For some in the FI community, this opportunity window might not be a decade long but rather a quarter-century long (if they retire at age 50).

How Bad is the Retiree Tax Problem?

As wonderful as FI tax rate arbitrate planning might be, Ed Slott’s concern that retiree taxes will increase is not entirely unwarranted. It is obvious that the government is not fiscally responsible, and it is obvious that tax increases could be coming in the future.

Let’s assess the situation by looking at just how bad the problem of taxes is in retirement.

We begin with a baseline case. David and Hannah are in their 70s. They never did Roth conversions in early retirement and have the bulk of their financial assets in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s. During most of their working years, David and Hannah maxed out 401(k)s and got deductions in the 24% bracket or greater. For 2023, they have taxable RMDs of $160,000, Social Security of $40,000, $4,000 of qualified dividends and $1,000 of interest income. How bad is their federal income tax situation?

Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs	$ 160,000
Social Security	$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion	$ (6,000)
Interest	$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends	$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)	$ 199,000
Standard Deduction	$ (27,700)
Additional SD Age 65+	$ (3,000)
Federal Taxable Income	$ 168,300
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)	$ 27,361
Effective Tax Rate on AGI	13.75%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate	22%

Under today’s rules, David and Hannah, who did no tax planning other than “deduct, deduct, deduct” are doing great. Their federal effective tax rate, even with $200K of RMDs and Social Security, is just 13.75%. They incur such a low effective tax rate because their RMDs go against the 10% tax bracket, the 12% bracket, and the 22% bracket.

While I do think David and Hannah would be in a better position had they done some tax efficient Roth conversion planning earlier in retirement, their unbridled enthusiasm for traditional retirement accounts served them well.

Note: David and Hannah are borderline IRMAA candidates: a $199K 2023 AGI might cost them approximately $2,000 in IRMAA surcharges in 2025 (but it is possible that inflation adjustments for 2025 will prevent that from happening). This is another reason to consider pre-RMD Roth conversions at lower marginal tax rates.

Update 8/19/2023: But what about the widow’s tax trap? If David or Hannah die, won’t the survivor get crushed by tax increases? Check out this estimate. Assuming the survivor loses the lower-earning spouse’s Social Security benefits of at least $10,000, the survivor’s marginal federal income tax rate would climb from 22% all the way up to . . . 24%!

But what about future tax increases? Okay, let’s add four tax increases to the picture and see just how bad it looks:

Eliminate the TCJA increase to the standard deduction (the law reverts to pre-2018 lower standard deduction and personal exemptions). This would reduce David and Hannah’s deductions by roughly $2,740, costing them approximately $602.80 in additional federal income tax (at today’s 22% marginal tax rate).
Eliminate the TCJA decrease in the 15% tax bracket to 12%. This would cost David and Hannah $2,023.50 in additional federal income tax. I’m highly skeptical that either of these two tax increases will actually occur, but as written in today’s laws they are scheduled to happen in 2026.
Increase the 15% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate to 25%. While I believe that the real risk is an increase in the 20% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate, let’s stress test things and consider a large increase in the 15% rate. In David and Hannah’s case, this costs them $400 in additional federal income tax.
Increase the 22% tax rate to 33%. Ed Slott is worried about large tax rate increases, so let’s consider one that I believe is politically infeasible, a 50% increase in the 22% tax bracket. This type of tax rate increase would hit millions of voters in a major way. But it’s helpful to consider what could be a worst case scenario. In this case, this tax rate increase costs David and Hannah an additional $8,233.50 in federal income tax.
There’s one more tax hike to consider: the combination of tax increases numbers 1 and 4. If both occurred together, combined they would cost David and Hannah an additional $301.40 in federal income tax.

Here’s what David and Hannah’s federal tax picture looks like if all of the above tax increases occur:

Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs	$ 160,000
Social Security	$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion	$ (6,000)
Interest	$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends	$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)	$ 199,000
Standard Deduction	$ (15,240)
Additional SD Age 65+	$ (3,000)
Personal Exemptions	$ (9,720)
Federal Taxable Income	$ 171,040
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)	$ 38,922
Effective Tax Rate on AGI	19.56%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate	33%

Significant tax increases hurt David and Hannah, but how much? By my math, very significant tax increases, including a 50% increase in the 22% bracket, cost them about 6% of their income. Not nothing, but wow, they’re still doing very well.

Yes, on the margin, the last dollars David and Hannah contributed to the traditional 401(k) were not ideal since they faced a 33% marginal federal tax rate in retirement. But let’s remember (i) their overall effective rate is still more than 4 percentage points lower than their working years’ marginal rate (at which they deducted their 401(k) contributions), (ii) they have income significantly above what most Americans will have in their 70s, and (iii) in my scenario they face four separate tax hikes and still pay a federal effective tax rate less than 20 percent.

Future Retirees’ Tax Risk

Do future tax hikes pose no threat to future retirees? Absolutely not! But my stress test shows that many Americans with substantial RMDs will not get walloped even if Congress enacts unpopular tax increases. Considering many in the FI community will have modest RMDs due to pre-RMD Roth conversions, the threat of future tax hikes is even less perilous for the FI community.

Further, many Americans, particularly those in the FI community, have a great tool that can mitigate this risk: Roth conversions during retirement! With RMDs now delayed to age 75 for those born in 1960 and later, many Americans will have years if not decades where money can be moved in a tax-efficient manner from old traditional accounts to Roth accounts.

Further, many Americans can claim deductions at work and then at home contribute to a regular Roth IRA or a Backdoor Roth IRA. This too mitigates the risk of having all of one’s retirement eggs in the traditional basket.

Last, do we really believe that Congress is just itching to raise taxes on future retirees? Sure, it’s possible. But to my mind taxes are more likely to be raised on (i) those in higher ordinary income tax brackets and/or (ii) long term capital gains and/or qualified dividends (particularly the current 20% bracket). If anything, the most Congress is likely to do to retirees is slightly increase their taxes so as to mitigate the political risk involved in raising taxes on retirees who tend to vote.

The Risks of Not Having Money in Traditional Retirement Accounts

Risk isn’t a one-way street. There are some risks to not having money in traditional retirement accounts. I identify three below.

Qualification for Premium Tax Credits

Picture it: Joe, age 55, retires with the following assets: (i) a paid off car, (ii) a paid off house, (iii) a $40,000 emergency fund in an on-line savings account, and (iv), $2 million in Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. He heard that Roth is the best, so he only ever contributed to Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, including having all employer contributions directed to a Roth 401(k). Having fallen into the Rothification Trap, in retirement Joe must work in order to generate sufficient taxable income to qualify for any ACA Premium Tax Credit.

For at least some early retirees, the ability to create modified adjusted gross income by doing Roth conversions will be the way they guarantee qualifying for significant Premium Tax Credits to offset ACA medical insurance premiums.

Charitable Contributions

Many Americans are at least somewhat charitably inclined. Starting at age 70 ½, Americans can transfer money directly from a traditional IRA to a charity, exclude the distribution from taxable income, and still claim the standard deduction. Essentially, if you’re charitably inclined, at a minimum you would want to go into age 70 ½ with enough in your traditional IRAs (likely through contributions to traditional 401(k)s that are later transferred to an IRA) to fund your charitable contributions from 70 ½ until death.

Why ever pay tax on that money (i.e., by making contributions to a Roth 401(k) that are later withdrawn to be donated) if the money is ultimately going to charity anyway?

Unused Standard Deductions

Currently, the government tells married couples, hey, you get to make $27,700 a year income tax free! Why not take advantage of that exclusion every year, especially prior to collecting Social Security (which, in many cases will eat up most, if not all, of the standard deduction).

Why be retired at age 55 with only Roth accounts? By having at least some money in traditional retirement accounts going into retirement, you ensure you can turn traditional money into Roth money tax-free simply by converting (at any time) or even distributing (usually after age 59 1/2) the traditional retirement account against the standard deduction.

Deduct at Work, Roth at Home

I think for many it makes sense to max out traditional 401(k)s at work and contribute to Roth IRAs or Backdoor Roth IRAs at home. Why? As discussed above, traditional 401(k)s can set up tax rate arbitrage in retirement, help early retirees qualify for Premium Tax Credits, and make charitable giving after age 70 ½ very tax efficient. At home, many working Americans do not qualify to deduct IRA contributions, so why not contribute to a Roth IRA or Backdoor Roth IRA, since (i) you aren’t giving up a tax deduction in order to do so and (ii) you establish assets growing tax free for the future.

In this post I discuss why deduct at work, Roth at home can often make sense and I provide examples where Roth 401(k) contributions are likely to be better than traditional 401(k) contributions.

Conclusion

I believe that for many in the FI community, a retirement savings plan that combines (i) traditional deductible 401(k) contributions during one’s working years and (ii) Roth conversions prior to collecting RMDs is likely to be a better path than simply making all workplace retirement contributions Roth contributions.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Medicare Resources

You know what doesn’t get enough coverage in the personal finance space: Medicare! It’s complicated, and frankly, I have neither the time nor the mental bandwidth to become a Medicare expert.

However, recently I have seen some excellent YouTube Videos on the topic. I believe all the links provided below are worthy of consideration. That consideration should, of course, include critical analysis: these videos are great, but they didn’t come down the mountain with Moses (neither did any of my blog posts or YouTube videos).

Further, none of the videos should be relied upon as advice for any particular person. They are all educational resources.

Sarasota Tim on Medicare Basics and Enrolling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNCk7x26i_M

Clark Howard Shares His Concerns with Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C): https://youtu.be/QUSdn7nGXvQ?t=192

Danielle Kunkle Roberts on Medigap Part G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtqfO22-Tss

Danielle Kunkle Roberts on Medigap High Deductible Part G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2aRGN7pR1Q

MedicareSchool on Medigap Part G Versus Medigap Part N: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYXvKvMPbpI

MedicareSchool on Medicare Part D (Prescription Drugs): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSLx-lFr-DM

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

A Critical Look at the 529

Thanks to the SECURE 2.0 bill, it’s time for the FI community to reexamine 529 plans. This post shares my two cents on 529s in general, and specifically as applied to the FI community. The next post, dropping February 15, 2023, addresses in detail the new 529-to-Roth IRA rollover enacted in SECURE 2.0.

Financial Independence

Before we talk about 529s, we have to talk about the primary goal of financial independence. For young parents, the primary goal is to secure Mom & Dad’s financial independence.

Achieving the parents’ primary goal has an incredible secondary effect. Mom and Dad buy Junior an incredible gift by securing their own financial independence. That gift is that Junior will never have to worry about Mom and Dad’s financial security as an adult. The greatest financial gift parents can ever give their children is the parents’ own financial stability.

Second, where possible, money and financial assets should be able to support multiple financial goals. We should be at least somewhat hesitant before locking up money such that it can only support one highly specific goal without incurring a penalty.

529s

529s are tax-advantaged savings accounts generally run by states to facilitate college savings. 529s are best understood as a Roth IRA for college education with far greater contribution limits. Sure, that is an overstatement of how they work, but that gives us a good conceptual framework from which to start the analysis.

A quick note on terminology: The IRS often refers to 529 plans as “Qualified Tuition Programs” or “QTPs.” I will use the more commonly used colloquialisms, 529 and 529s.

Contributions to a 529 are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. At least initially, there’s no federal income tax benefit to making a 529 contribution. However, money inside a 529 grows federal and state tax-free and can be withdrawn tax-free for qualified education expenses (such as college tuition).

Contributions are generally not limited by federal tax law, though contributions above the annual exclusion gift tax limit ($17,000 per donor per beneficiary per year in 2023) generally trigger Form 709 reporting requirements (though in 99.99% of cases there should not be a gift tax liability). States generally have lifetime contribution limits per beneficiary. Usually these limits are far in excess of what one would normally need for undergraduate college tuition.

Very generally speaking, qualified education expenses can be directly paid from the 529 to the educational institution or such expenses can be reimbursed from a 529 in the year the expenses are incurred. Payments for qualified educational expenses are generally tax and penalty free. 529s do not enjoy the rather unlimited reimbursement deadline that HSAs enjoy.

529s get similar tax treatment to the federal income tax treatment in most states. However, there can be an additional benefit: an annual state tax deduction or credit for some 529 contributions to the state’s own 529 plan (note 8 states allow a 529 tax deduction or credit for contributions to other states’ 529 plans). However, for many readers this will either be irrelevant or only of minor importance. Of the four most populous states (CA, TX, FL, NY), only residents of New York can obtain an up-to $5,000 per person per year state tax deduction for contributions to a home-state 529. California has no 529 tax deduction and Texas and Florida do not have an income tax.

Okay, sounds great! Clearly there are tax benefits for 529 money used for qualified education expenses. But what about distributions that are used for anything other than qualified education expenses? Well, they are going to be subject to an income tax and likely a 10 percent penalty, in the following manner. A non-qualified distribution is deemed to come ratably out of the contributions to the 529 (tax and penalty free) and earnings of the 529 (subject to income tax and the 10 percent penalty, some penalty exceptions may apply).

Here’s an example illustrating the application of the nonqualified distribution rules:

Hal, the owner of a 529 account, takes $1,000 out of the 529 to help pay for vacation expenses. Previously, he had made $60,000 of contributions to the 529, and it had grown to $100,000 ($40,000 of earnings) prior to making the $1,000 non qualified distribution. Sixty percent of the distribution ($600) is a nontaxable return of contributions and 40 percent ($400) is subject to both income tax and a 10 percent penalty.

The taxation of non-qualified distributions is a significant drawback of using 529s.

529s and the FI Community

Let’s remember what is going on with a 529. It is a gift to the next generation. It comes with very modest tax benefits.

My thesis on the 529 is this: for most parents, including most of those in the FI community, the tax benefits offered by 529s are not sufficient to compensate for the use restrictions on 529s. Thus, my view is that 529s should generally be deployed once Mom and Dad are financially independent (or close to it), not when they are on the path to financial independence.

The idea behind the 529 is to provide tax-free growth for college savings. It solves for something that, frankly, isn’t much of a problem. Taxes are not why college is unaffordable for many Americans. College tends to be unaffordable not because investment taxes are high, but because tuition and fees are out of control.

One thing in parents’ favor when thinking about funding college educations is that income taxes on investments are relatively modest over a child’s childhood due to low long term capital gains rates and qualified dividend income rates. Hopefully, by age 22 or 23, the child’s undergraduate education is completed, providing a relatively modest investment time horizon (i.e., a modest tax exposure horizon), even if the parents start saving for college at birth.

Contrast that to the retirement time horizon of a 20-, 30- or 40-something parent saving for his or her own retirement. The money invested for retirement at age 25 might be accessed at age 60, 70, 80, or 90. Compared to educational savings, retirement savings (which are usually far greater than educational savings) are much more vulnerable to income taxes for a much longer time frame. Even at long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rates, exposing retirement savings to decades of taxation could be very expensive. Retirement savings are also exposed to tax law change risk for a much longer period of time. For example, there’s no guarantee that there will be favored long term capital gains and qualified dividend tax rates 30 years from now.

The tax risk profiles on educational savings and retirement savings are much different. Based on those risk profiles, for most I believe aggressive retirement tax planning makes sense. But I don’t see educational tax planning making as much sense, for the reasons discussed below.

Of course, tax-advantaged retirement savings can come with a juicy up-front federal income tax deduction. 529s do not offer the possibility of a federal income tax deduction, making them less impactful than tax-advantaged retirement savings regardless of the time frame involved.

Young Parents and 529s

Let’s consider young parents. Say Junior is born when Mom & Dad are age 30 and have saved 10 times their annual expenses in financial assets. Many, myself included, would say Mom and Dad are doing well with their finances. Here’s where I diverge from some others in the personal finance space: I would not recommend Mom & Dad save in a 529 shortly after Junior’s birth.

Notice I’m not saying Mom & Dad should not pay for Junior’s college. What I’m saying is Mom and Dad should stay flexible for their own financial future.

What’s so horrible about Mom & Dad starting to save for Junior’s college in a taxable brokerage account under their own names? At birth, they have no idea if Junior will get a scholarship, go to trade school, how Mom & Dad’s finances will be when Junior is ready to go to college, etc. By saving in financial assets that are in their own names–perhaps mentally segregated as potentially being for Junior’s college–Mom & Dad maintain great flexibility without sacrificing too much tax benefit.

If Junior gets a scholarship, great, the financial assets stay with Mom & Dad. If Mom & Dad are not financially successful when Junior goes to college, great, the financial assets can support Mom & Dad and Junior can figure out other ways to pay for college.

The Value of the 529’s Tax Benefits

How bad is the tax hit on holding investments for a child’s college education? Imagine owning a 60 / 40 equity to bond portfolio of $100,000 for a child’s college education. If held in the parents’ taxable brokerage account, how much taxable income might that generate annually? Very roughly, if dividend yields are 2 percent, the $60,000 in equities would produce $1,200 of dividend income, most of which is likely to qualify for qualified dividend income tax rates. The $40,000 of bonds would produce $1,800 of ordinary income at a 4.5 percent yield.

Is it desirable to add $3,000 of income to Mom and Dad’s tax return? Surely not. Cataclysmic? Also surely not.

Consider what a small amount of additional taxable income buys. If the money is held in the parents’ names, it can be used for anything without penalty. Perhaps Mom and Dad have not been financially successful. That $100,000 could help the parents achieve their own financial goals and retirement. What if the child gets a scholarship and does not need much in the way of tuition assistance from his or her parents? What if the child doesn’t go to college?

In exchange for paying tax on $3,000 of income annually (some of it at tax-favored QDI rates), and some long term capital gains when used to pay tuition, Mom and Dad have incredible flexibility with the $100,000. Maybe $50,000 goes for Junior’s college tuition, and $50,000 goes for Mom and Dad’s retirement. Further, for many it won’t be $3,000 of income annually. It will take most parents years before they could accumulate the sort of balance that would generate $3,000 of taxable income from educational savings. Thus, the tax hit for not using the 529 is likely to be that much less in the years well before the child is close to college age.

Outside of the handcuffs of the 529, assets can support multiple financial goals. Even better, as one financial goal is met, the money can be shifted to support another financial goal. Perhaps Mom and Dad are behind in their own savings when Junior is age 10. But things go well, and when Junior turns 16 Mom and Dad have wealth in excess of their FI number. In that case, money that might have been needed for the parents’ retirement now can be used for college tuition.

Use Restrictions

We need to consider the use restrictions on 529s. If not used for qualified education expenses, the growth is subject to both ordinary income tax and usually the 10 percent penalty.

Compare the tight use restrictions on 529s to the use restrictions on the other most prevalent tax baskets: taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, Roth accounts, and health savings accounts. Generally speaking, all of them (even HSAs) are not use-restricted or only partially use-restricted. All four of those tax baskets have a significant advantage over 529s in terms of use restrictions.

In many cases, I believe that the 529’s significant use restrictions are not adequately compensated by its tax advantages.

The 529 has rather onerous time restrictions, as distributions of earnings are generally subject to tax and the 10 percent penalty in those years there are no qualified education expenses.

Feeding the Beast

As much as we might want to, we can’t turn a blind eye towards hyperinflation in college tuition. With that in mind, shouldn’t we ask: Isn’t a hyperfocus on college savings feeding the beast?

It’s time to scrutinize American higher education. It’s not good for the country to have students graduating with mountains of debt. This is happening for many reasons, including significant administrative bloat in higher education. Clearly, American higher education is failing too many of its students. Is now the time to set aside money to pay American colleges and universities?

I get it: no one reader funding a 529 is the cause of the problems of American higher education.

But, if I’m a university used to collecting soaring tuition and fees, I’m all for 529s. 529s subsidize what has become bad behavior by university administrators. Less focus on 529s helps move the needle towards universities needing to act responsibly in order to attract students.

Camilla Jeffs raises an interesting point on her LinkedIn page: Part of the reason college is so expensive is because in many cases the customer (the student) does not bear the cost. 529s feed into that problem. Camilla’s recent podcast episode on 529s is also full of good food for thought.

529 Use Cases

The above limitations of the 529 noted, I do believe there are good use cases for the 529. These cases assume that the parents have decided to pay for their child’s college education.

Financially Independent Parents

Joe and Sally are married and 45 years old. They have saved 30 times their annual expenses in retirement accounts and taxable brokerage accounts. They have a 10 year old daughter they are reasonably sure will go to college, and they would like to pay for her college education.

This is a great use case for the 529. Mom and Dad’s financial future largely secured (generally speaking), it’s time to focus on (i) college savings, since they want to pay for college, and (ii) tax planning. Joe and Sally, already holding substantial taxable brokerage accounts, benefit from saving through the 529 so they avoid adding more dividend, interest, and capital gains income to their annual tax return.

Capturing State Tax Benefits

Aaron and Amanda are married and are 50 years old. They have saved 20 times their annual expenses in retirement accounts and taxable brokerage accounts. They have stable jobs. They have a 16 year old son who is very likely to go to college. Aaron and Amanda want to pay for their son’s college education. Since they live in New York State, if they contribute $10,000 annually to the New York 529 for his benefit ($5K each), they get an annual $10,000 state tax deduction on their New York state income tax return.

Aaron and Amanda are not financially independent by many metrics, but they are doing pretty well, and are likely (though not guaranteed) to be financially successful. In their case, paying for college is not financially ruinous. If Aaron and Amanda are going to pay for college, they might as well utilize the 529 annually to scoop up state tax deductions, particularly in a higher income tax state like New York. Further, beginning the 529 much closer to the start of college decreases the odds that the 529 will become over funded.

Contrast Aaron and Amanda to parents of newborns. Newborns’ parents are closer to the beginning of their financial journey. In most such cases, state tax benefits would not, in my opinion, be valuable enough to justify the use restrictions on 529 contributions.

Conclusion

My view is that the detriments of the use restrictions on 529s are not adequately compensated by the federal and state tax advantages offered by 529s in most cases. That’s certainly not to say there are not good use cases for the 529, but my view is that most parents should prioritize saving in their own names (even in taxable accounts) before making contributions to 529 accounts.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Sean Presentation at CampFI

These are the slides for my presentation at CampFI in Julian, CA on October 8, 2022.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Three Ways the Solo 401(k) Supports Financial Independence

Financial independence encourages thinking about one’s financial future in a different way. You were told to “build a career and retire at age 65.” Financial independence says you should write your own financial script. The system, your parents, and a large employer should not be the authors of your financial future.

Guess what goes perfectly well with a financial independence mentality? The Solo 401(k)! The Solo 401(k) helps you control today’s tax burden and helps you plan for your retirement your way.

Here are three ways the Solo 401(k) can support the financial independence journey.

Choice and Low Fees

One advantage of working for yourself is you gain control over your workplace retirement account. Solopreneurs themselves determine where their Solo 401(k) is established and the investment options available to them. They determine contribution levels and whether or not to contribute to a Roth account.

Solopreneurs are no longer at the mercy of a large employer’s 401(k) plan, which may not have the investments they want, a Roth option, and/or low fees.

Further, many Solo 401(k) providers offer low or no fees to establish a Solo 401(k) with their institution. For example, today neither Schwab nor Fidelity charges Solo 401(k) fees, other than the fees of the underlying investments (such as mutual fund expenses). Vanguard charges $20 per mutual fund inside a Solo 401(k) (other than the underlying fund fees), though the $20 fee can be waived if the solopreneur has enough qualifying assets invested with Vanguard.

Tax Rate Arbitrage

The Solo 401(k) supports very significant tax deductions. For those at their peak earning years, contributions to Solo 401(k)s can benefit from high marginal tax rates. Further, in certain circumstances, traditional deductible Solo 401(k) contributions can help solopreneurs qualify for the qualified business income deduction, increasing the marginal tax rate benefit of traditional, deductible Solo 401(k) contributions.

During early retirement, retired solopreneurs can convert traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts. Those Roth conversions can be sheltered by the standard deduction, and then taxed at the 10 percent and 12 percent marginal federal income tax rate. This arbitrage opportunity (deduct contributions at high marginal rates, later convert the contributions and earnings to Roth accounts at lower tax rates) can supercharge the journey to financial independence.

Reducing MAGI for PTC Qualification

Many solopreneurs have their medical insurance through an Affordable Care Act plan. These plans often have hefty annual premiums. However, there is a Premium Tax Credit (“PTC”) that can significantly reduce the cost of those premiums.

PTCs decline as modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) increases. Very generally speaking, from a planning perspective, as MAGI increases, PTCs decline by approximately 10 to 15 percent. Solopreneurs can reduce MAGI by contributing to a traditional deductible Solo 401(k). That decrease in MAGI can significantly increase the PTC, defraying their ACA medical insurance premiums.

Conclusion

The Solo 401(k) can help solopreneurs achieve financial independence. Chapter 13 of my new book, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account, goes into further detail about marrying the Solo 401(k) with one’s own FI journey. The book is available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other outlets.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Four Ways to Fight Inflation

Decisions you make today can subject you to more inflation tomorrow! Read below about ways to increase or decrease your exposure to inflation tomorrow.

Watch me discuss fighting back against inflation.

Tax Planning

As a practical matter, most Americans have the majority of their retirement savings in traditional, pre-tax vehicles such as the 401(k). Having money in a traditional 401(k) is not a bad thing. However, the traditional 401(k) involves trade offs: an upfront tax deduction is the primary benefit in exchange for future taxation when there is a withdrawal or Roth conversion.

Having money inside traditional retirement accounts subjects future inflation to taxation. Some of the future growth in a traditional retirement account is likely to be attributable to inflation, and thus there will be a tax on inflation. Further, there are no inflation adjustments when it comes to the taxation of traditional IRA and traditional 401(k) withdrawals.

An antidote to this problem is the tax free growth offered by Roth accounts and health savings accounts. Getting money into Roths and HSAs excuses future growth from taxation, including growth attributable to inflation.

Roth 401(k) versus Roth IRA

Of course, inflation is only one consideration. Many will do some traditional retirement account contributions and some Roth retirement account contributions. The question then arises: which Roth account to use?

My view is that for many a Roth IRA contribution (whether a direct annual contribution or a Backdoor Roth IRA) is better than a Roth 401(k) contribution. Many do not qualify to deduct a traditional IRA contribution but can deduct a traditional 401(k) contribution. Considering that reality, why not combine a deductible traditional 401(k) contribution and a Roth IRA contribution?

Long Term Fixed Rate Debt

Often we discuss how inflation hurts Americans, and we should be concerned about the bad effects of inflation. However, there is a way to become a beneficiary of inflation: using long-term, low interest fixed rate debt to your advantage.

That’s right: hold onto that low rate 30 year mortgage like it’s a life raft! Okay, that’s a bit hyperbolic, but the overall point holds. Inflationary environments are great for debtors, particularly those debtors who have locked in a low interest rate for a long term.

Here is an example: Sarah and Mike have a 30 year, $400,000 mortgage on their primary residence at a 2.9% fixed interest rate. By paying the required monthly payment, and no more, they benefit from any future inflation. By paying off the mortgage later rather than sooner, they are using devalued future money to pay the mortgage rather than more valuable current day dollars.

Sarah and Mike benefit from inflation! Are there reasons to pay off a mortgage early? Sure. But in an inflationary environment, paying off the mortgage early gives the bank more valuable dollars to satisfy the debt.

To my mind, a fixed rate, long term mortgage is a great hedge against inflation.

That said, there are few perfect financial planning tactics. Most involve risk trade offs. One risk Sarah and Mike assume by not paying down the mortgage early is the risk of deflation. To obtain this inflation hedge, they expose themselves to the risk of deflation. If the U.S. dollar starts to deflate (i.e., it appreciates in value), Sarah and Mike will find themselves paying more valuable dollars to the bank in the future.

Travel Rewards

Travel rewards can help fight inflation. One way is using sign-up bonuses and other accrued points to pay for hotel room nights or flights. Using points gets out of cash paying and thus inflation of the dollar hurts a bit less.

However, keep in mind that travel reward points are subject to their own inflation! The hotel chain or airline can devalue the redemption value of points at any time. Thus, if everything else is equal, those with significant travel rewards point balances might want to spend those points sooner rather than later for travel.

A second consideration are the features of credit cards. Some travel branded credit cards come with certificates for free nights or a companion pass for a companion to receive free or discounted flights. If flighting inflation is a key goal, favoring cards that offer free-night certificates or companion passes can be a way to fight inflation.

Spending that Leads to More or Less Future Spending

We’re used to assessing the price tag. $28,000 for that brand new car: “that’s a great deal!” or “that’s a terrible deal!” But the price tag is only one part of the financial picture.

If you buy a black cup of coffee at Starbucks, it might cost you $2.65. Fortunately, that’s it. The cup of coffee isn’t likely to cause you to incur later costs.

What about a $45,000 SUV? That purchase will cause later costs, many significant. For example, the cost to insure a $45,000 SUV might be significantly more than insuring a $22,000 sedan. What about gas? By purchasing a larger, less fuel-efficient car, you lock in more future spending, and thus more exposure to future inflation.

Think about buying a large home with a pool in the backyard. That square footage attracts property tax, heating and cooling costs, and inflation in both costs. The pool in the backyard requires constant upkeep, subjecting the homeowner to another source of inflation.

To my mind, food is a big one in the fight against inflation. What you eat today could very well translate into medical costs tomorrow, exposing you to significant inflation. Spending on foods with vegetable oils and sugars today is likely to increase your future exposure to medical expense inflation.

The lesson is this: you can use today’s spending to reduce your exposure to future inflation.

Conclusion

Is there a perfect answer to inflation? No. But with some intentional planning and spending today, Americans can reduce their exposure to the harmful effects of future inflation.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Sean Discusses the Four Percent Rule on the ChooseFI Podcast

Why was your grandparents’ furniture horribly out of date? There’s a reason that has to do with financial independence!

I had a great conversation about grandparents’ furniture, inflation, and the four percent rule with Brad and Jonathan on the ChooseFI podcast. You can access the episode on all major podcast players or on the ChooseFI website: https://www.choosefi.com/the-four-backstops-to-the-four-percent-rule-sean-mullaney-ep-376/

During the episode, we reference my recent blog post, The Four Backstops to the Four Percent Rule.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

The Four Backstops to the Four Percent Rule

Introduction

Worried about an early retirement based on the Four Percent Rule? Might the 4% Rule work because of natural backstops most early retirees enjoy?

The 4% Rule

The 4% Rule is a rule of thumb developed by the FI community. For example, JL Collins writes extensively about the 4% Rule in Chapter 29 of his classic book The Simple Path to Wealth.

Boiled down, the rule of thumb states that an investor can retire when he or she (or a couple) has 25 times their annual expenses invested in financial assets (equities and bonds). They would then spend down 4% of their wealth annually in retirement. The first year’s withdrawal forms a baseline and is increased annually for inflation.

The idea behind the 4% Rule is that the retiree would have a very strong chance of funding retirement expenses and never running out of money in retirement. As a result, some refer to 4% as a safe withdrawal rate.

Here’s how it could look:

Maury is 50. He has $1M saved in financial assets. He can spend $40,000 in the first year of retirement. If inflation is 3% at the end of his first year of retirement, he increases his withdrawal by 3% ($1,200) to $41,200 for the second year of retirement.

The 4% Rule has a nice elegance to it. Most investors aim for a greater than 4% return. In theory, with a 5% return every year, the 4% Rule would never fail a retiree. If you spend approximately 4% annually, and earn approximately 5% annually, you have, in theory, created a perpetual money making machine and guaranteed success in retirement.

Watch me discuss the Four Backstops to the 4% Rule

The theory is great. But in practice we know that investors are subject to ups and downs, gains and losses. What happens if there is a large dip in equity and/or bond prices during the first year or two of retirement? What if there are several down years in a row during retirement?

As a result of these risks, and stock market highs in late 2021, some are worried that the 4% Rule is too generous for many retirees. Christine Benz discussed her concerns on a recent episode of the Earn and Invest podcast.

This post adds a wrinkle to the discussion: the four backstops to the 4% Rule for early retirees. What if worries about the adequacy of the 4% Rule for early retirees can be addressed by factors outside of the 4% Rule safe withdrawal rate? And what if those factors quite naturally occur for early retirees?

Resources for the Four Percent Rule
These are links to articles addressing the 4% Rule and safe withdrawal rates
Cooley, Hubbard, and Waltz (Trinity University) 2011
Bengen 1994

Below I discuss what I believe to be the four natural backstops to the 4% Rule.

Spending

A 4 percent spending rate in retirement is not preordained from on-high. Spending in retirement can be adjusted. Those adjustments can take on two flavors.

The first flavor are defensive spending reductions. As Michael Kitces observed on an episode of The Bigger Pockets Money podcast, retirees will not blindly spend 4 percent annually without making adjustments in down stock markets.

See that the stock market is down 10 percent this month? Okay, take a domestic vacation for 6 days instead of an international vacation for 9 days. Buy a used car instead of a new car. Scale down and/or delay the kitchen remodel.

There are levers early retirees can pull that can help compensate for declines in financial assets while not too radically altering quality of life.

The second flavor is, from a financial perspective, even better. As early retirees age, there will be natural reductions in spending. How many 80 year-olds decide to take a 12 hour flight to the tropics for the first time? There is a natural reduction in energy and interest in certain kinds of spending as one ages. It is likely that many retirees will experience very natural declines in expenses as they age.

Social Security

For the early retiree under 62 years old, the 4% Rule must disregard Social Security. Why? Because Social Security does not pay until age 62, and many in the financial independence community delay Social Security payments beyond age 62, perhaps all the way to age 70 (to increase the annual payment).

Here is an example of how that works.

Melinda is 55. She has accumulated $1.5M in financial assets and can live on $60,000 per year. If she retires at age 55 and lives off $60,000 a year increased annually for inflation, the only financial resources she has are her financial assets (what I refer to as her 4% assets). She cannot live off Social Security payments until age 62, and may choose to defer receiving Social Security up to age 70.

If Melinda defers Social Security until age 70, and receives $2,500 per month at age 70 from Social Security, her 4% assets now do not need to generate the full 4% once she turns 70, since Social Security will pay her $30,000 a year at age 70.

In theory, under the 4% Rule, Melinda’s Social Security is play money. Melinda funds her lifestyle with withdrawals from her financial assets, and now she’s getting additional Social Security payments. But, if her portfolio is struggling to produce the amount Melinda needs to live off of, Social Security payments provide a backstop and can help make up the difference.

You might think “but wait a minute, didn’t Melinda significantly lower her Social Security benefits by retiring early by conventional standards? The answer is likely no, as I described in more detail in my post on early retirement and Social Security. First, only the 35 highest years of earnings count for Social Security benefits. At age 55 is it possible Melinda has 35 years of work in.

Second, and more importantly, Social Security benefits are progressive based on “bend points.” The first approximately $12,000 of average annual earnings are replaced by Social Security at a 90 percent rate. The next approximately $62,000 of average annual earnings are replaced by Social Security at a 32 percent rate, and remaining annual earnings are replaced at a 15 percent rate. This is a fancy way of saying that reducing later earnings, for many workers, will sacrifice Social Security benefits at a 15 percent, or maybe a 32 percent, replacement rate. Even early retirees are likely to have secured all of their 90 percent replacement bend point and a significant amount of their 32 percent replacement bend point.

I previously wrote the following example:

Chuck is 55 years old and has 32 years of earnings recorded with Social Security. Those earnings, adjusted for inflation by Social Security, total $2,800,000. Divided by 35, they average $80,000. This means Chuck has filled the 90 percent replacement bend point (up to $12,288) and filled the 32 percent replacement bend point (from $12,288 to $74,064) of average annual earnings. If Chuck continues to work, his wages will be replaced at a 15 percent replacement rate by Social Security.

An additional year of work for Chuck at a $130,000 salary netted Chuck only $557 more in annual Social Security benefits at full retirement age!

Real Estate

Most early retirees own their own primary residence, usually with either significant equity or no mortgage. That primary residence can be a backstop to the 4% Rule.

For example, a retiree might live in a 2,000 square foot, $500,000 home with no mortgage. During their retirement, they might decide they don’t want to maintain such a large home, so they sell the 2,000 square foot home and move into a 1,000 square foot condominium at a cost of $350,000. The $150,000 difference in sale prices can become a financial asset to backstop 4% Rule assets and help the retiree succeed financially.

Alternatively, the early retiree could sell the $500,000 home and move into a smaller apartment with a $2,000 per month rent. While the retiree has increased their expenses, they also have created $500,000 worth of financial wealth to help pay that rent and fund their other expenses.

A third option is a reverse mortgage where the retiree stays in their primary residence but gets equity out of the home from a bank.

Real estate can serve as a natural backstop to help ensure retirees have financial security and success.

Death

It’s wet blanket time. You may be considering a 30, 40, or 50 year retirement. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that you will not live that long. Sadly, not all early retirees have a long retirement.

As demonstrated in these tables, there is a real chance that an early retiree will not live for 25 or 30 years. That factors into whether or not the 4% Rule will work for an early retiree.

Let’s consider a 55 year old considering early retirement using the 4% Rule. He believes that he will live 30 more years and there is a 95% chance that his assets will last 30 years. He believes that the 4% Rule has a 5% chance of failing him. Further, assume that he believes there is a 30% chance that he will die prior to age 85.

His own potential death reduces the chance that the 4% Rule will fail. Remember, failure requires that he has to both run out of assets and live long enough to run out of assets. By his estimation, the odds that both events will occur are just 3.5 percent. To figure this estimated probability, multiply the probability that he will run out of assets (5%) by the probability that he will live long enough to run out assets (70%).

A not insignificant number of early retirees will have an early retirement that lasts (sadly) only 10 years, 15 years, or 20 years. That (again, sadly) backstops the 4% Rule.

Early Retirees vs. Conventional Retirees

I’ve contended that early retirees have four natural backstops to the 4% Rule. What about more conventional retirees? I’ll define a “conventional retiree” as one who collects Social Security soon after retiring.

I believe conventional retirees enjoy three of the four backstops. Sadly, they “enjoy” the mortality backstop to a greater degree than early retirees.

Conventional retirees retiring on Social Security do not enjoy Social Security as a backstop to the 4% Rule in most cases. Here’s an example:

Robert is age 65 and is planning to retire on financial assets and Social Security. He will collect $36,000 a year in Social Security and will spend a total of $76,000 a year. To facilitate this, he will initially withdraw $40,000 from his $1M portfolio.

In Robert’s case, Social Security is not a backstop to the 4% Rule. Rather, the 4% Rule is simply one of two necessary but not sufficient sources of funds for his retirement. A failure of the 4% Rule in Robert’s case would not be backstopped by Social Security.

Conclusion

While there are no guarantees when it comes to safe withdrawal rates in retirement and the 4% Rule, it is possible that many early retirees will succeed with the 4% Rule, for two reasons. First, the 4% Rule may, by itself, be successful for many early retirees. The second reason is that even if the 4% Rule fails, there are four natural backstops in place for many early retirees that can step in and help retirees obtain financial success even if the 4% Rule fails on its own.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

Early Retirement and Social Security

UPDATE October 20, 2023: This post has been updated for the 2024 Social Security numbers.

I can’t retire early! I’ll destroy my Social Security!

Is that true? What happens to Social Security benefits when retirees retire early? Are significantly reduced Social Security benefits a drawback of the financial independence retire early (FIRE) movement?

Below I explore how Social Security benefits are computed and the effects of retiring early on Social Security.

Social Security Earnings

Form W-2 reports to the government one’s earnings during the year. For the self-employed, the Schedule SE performs this function. The Social Security Administration tracks those earnings.

Only a limited amount of earnings every year count as Social Security earnings. There is an annual maximum on the amount of earnings that can go on one’s Social Security record, regardless of the number of jobs one has. For 2024, the Social Security cap is $168,600. The cap is increased most years for inflation. Payroll taxes for Social Security (FICA for W-2 workers, self-employment taxes for the self-employed) are not due on earnings above the cap.

Social Security Benefits

A few very general rules need to be established as we consider the amount Social Security pays.

Only the highest 35 years of earnings during one’s working years count in determining Social Security benefits.

For most Americans reading this, full retirement age is 67. This means a person can collect his or her “full” Social Security benefits at age 67.

Social Security benefits can be collected as early as age 62 and can be deferred as late as age 70. Collecting early reduces annual benefits (by roughly 5 to 7 percent per year) and collecting late increases benefits (by 8 percent per year).

Annual earnings used in determining benefits are inflation adjusted through age 59. Earnings earned at age 60 and later are not inflation adjusted for purposes of computing Social Security benefits.

Very roughly speaking, the annual benefit is computed as follows: accumulated earnings (computed based on the rules described above) in the high 35 years are summed and then divided by 35. The resulting average annual earnings are applied against the Social Security “brackets” or “bend points.” Up to $14,088 (using 2024 numbers) of computed average annual earnings is replaced by Social Security at a 90% rate. The next $70,848 of average annual earnings are replaced at a 32% rate. Any additional amount of average annual earnings is replaced at a 15% replacement rate. The bend points are adjusted for inflation.

One need not be an expert on Social Security to see directionally how early retirement might impact Social Security benefits. Because of the progressive nature of Social Security benefits, leaving work early (by conventional standards) tends to reduce benefits less than one might initially expect. Additional earnings later in life tend to only slightly increase Social Security benefits.

Early Retirement Social Security Example

Here’s an example to help us understand the impact of an early retirement on Social Security benefits.

Chuck is 55 years old and has 32 years of earnings recorded with Social Security. Those earnings, adjusted (thus, nominally increased) for inflation by Social Security, total $3,100,000 as of 2024. Divided by 35, they average $88,571. This means Chuck has filled the 90 percent replacement bend point (up to $14,088) and filled the 32 percent replacement bend point (from $14,088 to $84,936) of average annual earnings. If Chuck continues to work, his wages will be replaced at a 15 percent replacement rate by Social Security.

If Chuck retires now and earns nothing more, his annual Social Security benefits, expressed in 2024 dollars, will look something like this at full retirement age:

Replacement Rate	Replaced Annual Income	Annual Social Security at Full Retirement Age
90%	$14,088	$12,679
32%	$70,848	$22,671
15%	$3,635	$545
Total	$88,571	$35,896

Note that I rounded each bend point’s calculation. With the cents Chuck gets in each bend point, his total is increased by almost a full dollar. Similar rounding applies to the examples below as well.

At age 67, Chuck’s annual Social Security will be $35,896 (expressed in 2024 dollars).

If Chuck continues to work for one more year at a $130,000 salary, and then retires his annual Social Security benefits at full retirement age, expressed in 2024 dollars, looks something like this:

Replacement Rate	Replaced Annual Income	Annual Social Security at Full Retirement Age
90%	$14,088	$12,679
32%	$70,848	$22,671
15%	$7,349	$1,102
Total	$92,285	$36,453

Interestingly, an additional year of work only increased Chuck’s annual Social Security benefit by $557. Why is that? Remember that every dollar earned is divided by 35 for purposes of computing Social Security benefits. You can see that Chuck’s replaced income increased by $3,714 (from $88,571 to $92,285). By earning $130,000 in 2024, Chuck increased his Social Security average annual income by $3,714, which is $130,000 divided by 35.

Multiplying the increase in replaced income ($3,714) by the replacement rate (15%) gets us the additional $557 in annual Social Security benefits.

Okay, but what about three more years of earnings. Say Chuck can work for three more years at an average annual salary of $135,000. What result (in 2024 dollars) then?

Replacement Rate	Replaced Annual Income	Annual Social Security at Full Retirement Age
90%	$14,088	$12,679
32%	$70,848	$22,671
15%	$18,920	$2,838
Total	$103,856	$38,188

Where I come from, $1,735 ($38,188 minus $36,453) in increased annual Social Security benefits at full retirement age is not nothing. But is it worth delaying retirement for three full years if one is otherwise financially independent? To my mind, probably not.

Spousal Benefits

What if Chuck is married to Mary? How does that impact the analysis?

During Chuck and Mary’s joint lifetimes, it depends on whether Mary collects spousal benefits. If Mary has Social Security earnings of greater than 50 percent of Chuck’s Social Security earnings, she will likely collect benefits under her own earnings record, and not a spousal benefit. Thus, Chuck’s Social Security earnings will be irrelevant to the Social Security benefit Mary collects.

If, however, Mary’s lifetime Social Security earnings are less than 50 percent of Chuck’s, Mary is likely to collect a spousal benefit of roughly half of Chuck’s annual benefit. In this case, Chuck working 3 more years creates $2,603 of additional annual Social Security income ($1,735 for Chuck and $868 as Mary’s spousal benefit). Even $2,603 in additional annual income isn’t likely to justify Chuck working for three more years.

At Chuck’s death, assuming Chuck predeceases Mary, Mary will collect the greater of her own Social Security benefit or Chuck’s Social Security benefit. Thus, Chuck increasing his Social Security earnings could increase Mary’s Social Security benefit as a widow.

I’ve got a plan to save Social Security and Medicare.

Resource

Most people I know cannot tell you their Social Security earnings record off the top of their head. But, this information is accessible by creating an account at ssa.gov. From there, Americans can obtain their Social Security statement which includes their Social Security earnings (though the statement does not adjust those annual earnings for inflation). The 2024 factors to increase annual earnings for inflation can be found by entering “2024” in the search box at the bottom of this SSA.gov website.

Conclusion

There are many factors to consider before retiring early. It is helpful to understand how Social Security benefits are computed so early retirees can understand the potential impact of retiring on their Social Security benefits.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.