FREE NEWSLETTER

If you smoke two packs a day and fully fund your 401(k), you probably aren’t being entirely rational.

Latest PostsAll Discussions »

Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are a Generational Bargain Right Now

"Thank you! Yes, the TIPS would be held in my IRA, and the plan would be to hold them until maturity. I haven't found any inflation-adjusted annuities, but it looks like I could buy an SPIA with a 2 or 3 percent annual increase. Helpful but not an impregnable defense against 3.5 percent inflation."
- Emily Croy Barker
Read more »

Taking a Loss?

"Randy, I agree you don't buy bonds for price appreciation, though I don't hold them for the dividends either. For me, they’re more of a portfolio ballast to smooth out the ride. Nice lock-in on the 10-year TIPS, by the way."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Go While You Still Can

"Great perspective. " .... are all healthy enough to experience life together is smaller than you think... and it's getting smaller." Most valuable things in life take a long time to achieve and we have precious little time to experience them. Live the moment!"
- V Saraf
Read more »

What I Retired To

"I am the same way, I too have this thing about seeing net worth decline no matter how illogical it is. These past few weeks have not helped has investments have tumbled and taken me from my happy place. My son in law is a managing direct at a Wall Street firm and warned me about this summer, but it doesn’t make me feel any better."
- R Quinn
Read more »

2025 and Medicare Rx

"Applies to all drugs that are on your plans formulary."
- R Quinn
Read more »

Today in Financial History

"Notice that I said I may hire an advisor someday if or when needed? This assumes that I will recognize that time is approaching and have time to interview and hire someone. Life often does not work that way. And you answered my unasked question, that is "why pay someone now to do what I may need someday, but just not yet?" By working with your advisor now, you can reasonably expect that your advisor will continue to follow your preferred strategy in the future, with or without your oversight. Smart move."
- Jack Hannam
Read more »

Widow Tax

THE WIDOW TAX is sold to the wrong households. It gets pitched to affluent couples as the reason to convert to a Roth or buy life insurance. The pitch says that when one spouse dies, the survivor files single, lands in a higher bracket, and gets clobbered. I ran the numbers for three couples at three incomes, and at the comfortable end the widow tax often costs nothing, or even less than nothing. The real cost lands lower down, on households nobody is selling anything to. What follows uses 2026 federal figures to show what the widow tax actually does in dollars, not in scary percentage points. The pattern runs opposite to the marketing. The higher your income, the smaller the hit, and the lower you go, the more it bites. Three Things Move When the first spouse dies, three things change, and they get bundled under one frightening label. One Social Security check stops, and a pension may shrink or end. That is lost income, and it is usually the largest of the three. It is not a tax. Spending shifts as well. The survivor pays one Medicare premium instead of two, but the mortgage still comes out of the same account. The third change is the only one the tax code causes: narrower single brackets, a smaller standard deduction and lower thresholds for the Medicare surcharge. The widow tax is that third piece alone, and the three households below measure how big it really is. The Affluent Couple Both spouses are over 65. Their income is about $360,000: $80,000 from Social Security, $210,000 from a pension and required minimum distributions, plus $30,000 in qualified dividends and $40,000 in long-term gains. They sit in the 24% bracket, and both already pay the Medicare surcharge. One spouse dies. The survivor keeps the larger Social Security check and most of the other income, landing at roughly $308,000. As a couple, they paid about $53,900 in federal income tax and a Medicare surcharge of about $9,240. As a single filer, the survivor pays about $55,000 in federal tax and a surcharge of about $6,355. The effective rate rises from 15.7% to 18.7%, which is the headline people remember. But the federal tax barely moves, up only about $1,100, because the survivor has less income to tax. The Medicare surcharge actually falls about $2,900, because two enrollees in the couple's joint tier cost more than one survivor a tier above. Net it all out, and the survivor pays about $1,800 a year less than the couple did. The rate went up, and the dollars went down. At the high end, the widow tax measured in money hands back a small refund. This is why the Roth conversion pitch aimed at comfortable couples misfires. If converting to Roth would cut the survivor's future taxable income without cutting the couple's lifestyle, the converted money was surplus. Surplus is money the survivor never needed to replace. Edward McQuarrie, a finance professor emeritus at Santa Clara University, made a version of this argument in a 2023 paper. He found the dollar hit inconsequential for affluent couples, and located any real cost lower down, where the Social Security torpedo bites. Where It Actually Bites Drop down to a couple with $180,000 of income: $60,000 from Social Security and $120,000 from a pension and required minimum distributions, all ordinary income. Both are over 65. The couple files jointly at $180,000; the survivor files single at about $150,000. As a couple, they paid about $17,148 in federal tax and no Medicare surcharge. The survivor pays about $22,737 in federal tax and a new surcharge of about $2,885. The federal tax rises about $5,600, and a surprising chunk of that comes from the collapse of the new $6,000 senior deduction, which phases out against a lower income threshold for singles. Then the survivor crosses into a Medicare surcharge tier the couple never paid. The total cost of widowhood here is roughly $8,500 a year, set against a $30,000 income loss. This is the one band where both the dollars and the rate move the wrong way. Now take a couple with $90,000 of income: $38,500 from Social Security, about the national average for two retired spouses, plus $51,500 from a pension and distributions. The survivor keeps the larger Social Security check and the full pension, landing at $73,500. As a couple, they paid about $3,433 in federal tax, at an effective rate of 3.8%. The survivor pays about $5,278, at an effective rate of 7.2%. There's no Medicare surcharge at this income, and there never will be. But the survivor's effective rate nearly doubles, because more of the Social Security benefit becomes taxable, up to the 85% ceiling, when the single thresholds replace the joint ones. The added tax is about $1,845, and the lost income is $16,500. Real money for a household least able to absorb it. It doubles the effective rate, and it hurts.  Read the three together and the widow tax points the wrong way from the marketing. At $360,000 it costs less than nothing, roughly a $1,800 annual saving. At $180,000 it costs about $8,500. At $90,000 it costs about $1,850, but the effective rate doubles. The affluent couples being sold protection don't need it. The middle couples who feel the sting are not being sold anything, and they're the ones for whom a few thousand dollars a year actually constrains a life. The tax code has three different mechanisms, and which one finds you depends almost entirely on your income. At the top, the Medicare surcharge does the work, and it falls. In the middle, the surcharge appears from zero. At the bottom, the Social Security torpedo raises the taxability of the benefit from 75% to 85%. The mechanism changes with the income, and so does the household's ability to absorb the hit. Plan Ahead This is where the widow tax conversation usually stops, and where I think it should start. The moves most likely to leave a survivor better off are the ones you make years before, and they help whether or not the widow tax ever bites. Converting traditional IRA money to Roth over several years before retirement smooths your taxable income. It lowers the required minimum distributions that will later push a single filer into higher brackets. It can also keep a survivor under a Medicare surcharge tier the couple never worried about. Drawing accounts in a sensible order, spending down the right buckets first, reduces the future tax base that a single bracket structure will tax more steeply. Managing required distributions as they grow, rather than letting them balloon off a rising balance, limits the single bracket exposure that builds across a long widowhood. A more tax-efficient bequest helps the people who inherit what is left. None of that is widow rescue. It is good multi-year planning that happens to compound in the survivor's favor. The widow tax is one input to that planning, not the reason for it. The reason is that the year your spouse dies is the worst possible year to be making financial decisions, and the more of those decisions you have already made, the fewer you hand to someone who is grieving. You can do a rough version of this at your own kitchen table, and you should, ideally long before you need to. Estimate the survivor's income after the smaller Social Security check and any pension change, then estimate the survivor's spending from your actual budget, not a generic rule of thumb. Subtract. If reliable after-tax income still supports the life the survivor wants, with margin, the tax rate was never the thing to worry about. Then project the survivor's federal tax, the net investment income tax where it applies and the Medicare surcharge as a single filer, and compare it to the couple. Keep the tax separate from the lost income, so you can see what the tax code actually did. Sometimes, as the affluent couple shows, it does you a small favor. Only then does a planning move earn a look, and only if you can answer what it costs today, what it might save later, who benefits and what has to come true for it to work. The widow tax is real, but it isn't the catastrophe it's sold as. At higher incomes it's not a cost at all. Lower down it is a real cost, and the lower you go, the more it's worth measuring, because the households it constrains have the least margin to spare. The planning that matters most is the kind you do years ahead, smoothing income, holding down future distributions, managing the surcharge tiers and putting the estate in order. Do that, and you've done right by your survivor, for reasons that have little to do with fear and a great deal to do with care. You'll have done it in the years when you still had the time, and the clarity, to do it well. ________________________________________________________________________________ John Urban is the founder of RetireSmartIRA, a retirement tax-planning app. Earlier, he founded GT Nexus, a supply-chain software company acquired by Infor in 2015. He lives in Northern California with his wife, Kathy, and enjoys time with family, travel, reading, Bay Area sports, and the occasional deep dive into the fine print of the tax code.
Read more »

Credit Card Debt.

"I pay off credit debt monthly, but I don’t limit myself to one card because part of your credit score is based on the percentage of credit utilization. Your utilization rate will be lower (and credit score higher) if you have multiple credit card accounts."
- corrupt
Read more »

Can we be completely safe?

"My BIL was a victim of ID theft… They took control of his phone, and resetting all his password's was impossible since he no longer had a phone to use as the second factor. It took months to straighten out."
- corrupt
Read more »

Degrees of Doubt: When Higher Education Misses the Mark

"The widely cast net is catching students that require remedial classes in math, English and reading. Is it any surprise that today’s students are unable to think critically?"
- corrupt
Read more »

Inflation, prices, COLAs, retirement and the last 16 years

"Not early, but when I claimed I was still working and collecting a pension. Otherwise it would be unlikely we could have saved it all, but that stopped several years ago. My point was if a person can delay until age 70 presumably they don’t need SS until then so collect sooner and invest it until you do need it. Of course the tradeoff is a lower SS benefit for life vs accumulated assets that may or may not provide income to offset the lower SS benefit. The gamble also depends on how long the person lives past age 70. On the other hand, the invested funds are always available to someone. I’m not selling the idea, just something I am happy with the result."
- R Quinn
Read more »

FIFA Financials

"Speaking as someone from a less affluent country (which virtually everywhere is relative to the US). I could personally have afforded to fly to the US and even attend matches. But the extraordinary price gouging by FIFA, local hotels, even public transport was something I would have deemed to make it exceptionally poor value . Would I have got $10,000 of value from attending a couple of matches? Highly unlikely. In any event I have a "home" Euros in 2 years which will likely be much more affordable if I really want to see top level international football."
- bbbobbins
Read more »

Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are a Generational Bargain Right Now

"Thank you! Yes, the TIPS would be held in my IRA, and the plan would be to hold them until maturity. I haven't found any inflation-adjusted annuities, but it looks like I could buy an SPIA with a 2 or 3 percent annual increase. Helpful but not an impregnable defense against 3.5 percent inflation."
- Emily Croy Barker
Read more »

Taking a Loss?

"Randy, I agree you don't buy bonds for price appreciation, though I don't hold them for the dividends either. For me, they’re more of a portfolio ballast to smooth out the ride. Nice lock-in on the 10-year TIPS, by the way."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Go While You Still Can

"Great perspective. " .... are all healthy enough to experience life together is smaller than you think... and it's getting smaller." Most valuable things in life take a long time to achieve and we have precious little time to experience them. Live the moment!"
- V Saraf
Read more »

What I Retired To

"I am the same way, I too have this thing about seeing net worth decline no matter how illogical it is. These past few weeks have not helped has investments have tumbled and taken me from my happy place. My son in law is a managing direct at a Wall Street firm and warned me about this summer, but it doesn’t make me feel any better."
- R Quinn
Read more »

2025 and Medicare Rx

"Applies to all drugs that are on your plans formulary."
- R Quinn
Read more »

Today in Financial History

"Notice that I said I may hire an advisor someday if or when needed? This assumes that I will recognize that time is approaching and have time to interview and hire someone. Life often does not work that way. And you answered my unasked question, that is "why pay someone now to do what I may need someday, but just not yet?" By working with your advisor now, you can reasonably expect that your advisor will continue to follow your preferred strategy in the future, with or without your oversight. Smart move."
- Jack Hannam
Read more »

Widow Tax

THE WIDOW TAX is sold to the wrong households. It gets pitched to affluent couples as the reason to convert to a Roth or buy life insurance. The pitch says that when one spouse dies, the survivor files single, lands in a higher bracket, and gets clobbered. I ran the numbers for three couples at three incomes, and at the comfortable end the widow tax often costs nothing, or even less than nothing. The real cost lands lower down, on households nobody is selling anything to. What follows uses 2026 federal figures to show what the widow tax actually does in dollars, not in scary percentage points. The pattern runs opposite to the marketing. The higher your income, the smaller the hit, and the lower you go, the more it bites. Three Things Move When the first spouse dies, three things change, and they get bundled under one frightening label. One Social Security check stops, and a pension may shrink or end. That is lost income, and it is usually the largest of the three. It is not a tax. Spending shifts as well. The survivor pays one Medicare premium instead of two, but the mortgage still comes out of the same account. The third change is the only one the tax code causes: narrower single brackets, a smaller standard deduction and lower thresholds for the Medicare surcharge. The widow tax is that third piece alone, and the three households below measure how big it really is. The Affluent Couple Both spouses are over 65. Their income is about $360,000: $80,000 from Social Security, $210,000 from a pension and required minimum distributions, plus $30,000 in qualified dividends and $40,000 in long-term gains. They sit in the 24% bracket, and both already pay the Medicare surcharge. One spouse dies. The survivor keeps the larger Social Security check and most of the other income, landing at roughly $308,000. As a couple, they paid about $53,900 in federal income tax and a Medicare surcharge of about $9,240. As a single filer, the survivor pays about $55,000 in federal tax and a surcharge of about $6,355. The effective rate rises from 15.7% to 18.7%, which is the headline people remember. But the federal tax barely moves, up only about $1,100, because the survivor has less income to tax. The Medicare surcharge actually falls about $2,900, because two enrollees in the couple's joint tier cost more than one survivor a tier above. Net it all out, and the survivor pays about $1,800 a year less than the couple did. The rate went up, and the dollars went down. At the high end, the widow tax measured in money hands back a small refund. This is why the Roth conversion pitch aimed at comfortable couples misfires. If converting to Roth would cut the survivor's future taxable income without cutting the couple's lifestyle, the converted money was surplus. Surplus is money the survivor never needed to replace. Edward McQuarrie, a finance professor emeritus at Santa Clara University, made a version of this argument in a 2023 paper. He found the dollar hit inconsequential for affluent couples, and located any real cost lower down, where the Social Security torpedo bites. Where It Actually Bites Drop down to a couple with $180,000 of income: $60,000 from Social Security and $120,000 from a pension and required minimum distributions, all ordinary income. Both are over 65. The couple files jointly at $180,000; the survivor files single at about $150,000. As a couple, they paid about $17,148 in federal tax and no Medicare surcharge. The survivor pays about $22,737 in federal tax and a new surcharge of about $2,885. The federal tax rises about $5,600, and a surprising chunk of that comes from the collapse of the new $6,000 senior deduction, which phases out against a lower income threshold for singles. Then the survivor crosses into a Medicare surcharge tier the couple never paid. The total cost of widowhood here is roughly $8,500 a year, set against a $30,000 income loss. This is the one band where both the dollars and the rate move the wrong way. Now take a couple with $90,000 of income: $38,500 from Social Security, about the national average for two retired spouses, plus $51,500 from a pension and distributions. The survivor keeps the larger Social Security check and the full pension, landing at $73,500. As a couple, they paid about $3,433 in federal tax, at an effective rate of 3.8%. The survivor pays about $5,278, at an effective rate of 7.2%. There's no Medicare surcharge at this income, and there never will be. But the survivor's effective rate nearly doubles, because more of the Social Security benefit becomes taxable, up to the 85% ceiling, when the single thresholds replace the joint ones. The added tax is about $1,845, and the lost income is $16,500. Real money for a household least able to absorb it. It doubles the effective rate, and it hurts.  Read the three together and the widow tax points the wrong way from the marketing. At $360,000 it costs less than nothing, roughly a $1,800 annual saving. At $180,000 it costs about $8,500. At $90,000 it costs about $1,850, but the effective rate doubles. The affluent couples being sold protection don't need it. The middle couples who feel the sting are not being sold anything, and they're the ones for whom a few thousand dollars a year actually constrains a life. The tax code has three different mechanisms, and which one finds you depends almost entirely on your income. At the top, the Medicare surcharge does the work, and it falls. In the middle, the surcharge appears from zero. At the bottom, the Social Security torpedo raises the taxability of the benefit from 75% to 85%. The mechanism changes with the income, and so does the household's ability to absorb the hit. Plan Ahead This is where the widow tax conversation usually stops, and where I think it should start. The moves most likely to leave a survivor better off are the ones you make years before, and they help whether or not the widow tax ever bites. Converting traditional IRA money to Roth over several years before retirement smooths your taxable income. It lowers the required minimum distributions that will later push a single filer into higher brackets. It can also keep a survivor under a Medicare surcharge tier the couple never worried about. Drawing accounts in a sensible order, spending down the right buckets first, reduces the future tax base that a single bracket structure will tax more steeply. Managing required distributions as they grow, rather than letting them balloon off a rising balance, limits the single bracket exposure that builds across a long widowhood. A more tax-efficient bequest helps the people who inherit what is left. None of that is widow rescue. It is good multi-year planning that happens to compound in the survivor's favor. The widow tax is one input to that planning, not the reason for it. The reason is that the year your spouse dies is the worst possible year to be making financial decisions, and the more of those decisions you have already made, the fewer you hand to someone who is grieving. You can do a rough version of this at your own kitchen table, and you should, ideally long before you need to. Estimate the survivor's income after the smaller Social Security check and any pension change, then estimate the survivor's spending from your actual budget, not a generic rule of thumb. Subtract. If reliable after-tax income still supports the life the survivor wants, with margin, the tax rate was never the thing to worry about. Then project the survivor's federal tax, the net investment income tax where it applies and the Medicare surcharge as a single filer, and compare it to the couple. Keep the tax separate from the lost income, so you can see what the tax code actually did. Sometimes, as the affluent couple shows, it does you a small favor. Only then does a planning move earn a look, and only if you can answer what it costs today, what it might save later, who benefits and what has to come true for it to work. The widow tax is real, but it isn't the catastrophe it's sold as. At higher incomes it's not a cost at all. Lower down it is a real cost, and the lower you go, the more it's worth measuring, because the households it constrains have the least margin to spare. The planning that matters most is the kind you do years ahead, smoothing income, holding down future distributions, managing the surcharge tiers and putting the estate in order. Do that, and you've done right by your survivor, for reasons that have little to do with fear and a great deal to do with care. You'll have done it in the years when you still had the time, and the clarity, to do it well. ________________________________________________________________________________ John Urban is the founder of RetireSmartIRA, a retirement tax-planning app. Earlier, he founded GT Nexus, a supply-chain software company acquired by Infor in 2015. He lives in Northern California with his wife, Kathy, and enjoys time with family, travel, reading, Bay Area sports, and the occasional deep dive into the fine print of the tax code.
Read more »

Credit Card Debt.

"I pay off credit debt monthly, but I don’t limit myself to one card because part of your credit score is based on the percentage of credit utilization. Your utilization rate will be lower (and credit score higher) if you have multiple credit card accounts."
- corrupt
Read more »

Can we be completely safe?

"My BIL was a victim of ID theft… They took control of his phone, and resetting all his password's was impossible since he no longer had a phone to use as the second factor. It took months to straighten out."
- corrupt
Read more »

Free Newsletter

Get Educated

Manifesto

NO. 13: FACED with an unknown future, we should diversify our investments, buy insurance, keep some cash—and accept that, in retrospect, these precautions will often seem unnecessary.

think

ASSET ALLOCATION. This is a portfolio’s split among the four asset classes: stocks, bonds, cash like savings accounts and money market funds, and alternatives such as gold and real estate. It’s arguably the most important decision an investor makes. The more a portfolio has in stocks, the higher its expected return, but the greater the volatility.

act

CALCULATE YOUR monthly nonmortgage debt payments as a percentage of your pretax monthly income. We’re talking here about car payments, student loans and minimum credit card payments. Aim to keep these payments to less than 10% of monthly income, though that can be a tough target to hit if you’re a new college graduate with student loans.

Truths

NO. 44: GOOD companies can be bad stocks. Why? Investors bid up the share prices of widely admired, fast-growing companies—but the stocks often falter when the companies fall short of investors' lofty expectations. Meanwhile, investors shun troubled, slower-growing companies, so even so-so corporate performance can result in strong market returns.

Estate planning

Manifesto

NO. 13: FACED with an unknown future, we should diversify our investments, buy insurance, keep some cash—and accept that, in retrospect, these precautions will often seem unnecessary.

Spotlight: Advisors

Your Results May Vary

“SELL THE SIZZLE, BOYS.” With those words from the sales manager at a big insurance company, the 2003 class of newly minted registered representatives were off to the races, extolling the virtues of the firm’s products to family, friends and anyone else who would listen.
I still vividly remember that moment. Yes, I was there.
To become registered reps, the 2003 class had to pass the necessary exams to get a Series 6 securities license and a license to sell life and health insurance.

Read more »

Among Friends

ONE OF THE PERILS of being a HumbleDollar contributor is that you sometimes get hit up for advice that you aren’t necessarily qualified to give.
Such was the case recently when I was having breakfast with an old buddy. The topic turned to money and investments. Joe and I have been good friends since the days when we played on the high school basketball team. We try to get together every month or so to catch up and reminisce about old times.

Read more »

Advice at a Price

THE PREDOMINANT WAY financial planners get paid is by charging a fee based on the amount of money they’re managing. The typical industry fee I’ve seen is 1%, and it’s been that way for years. Under this model, a financial planner managing a client’s $1 million portfolio would charge $10,000 a year.
Charley Ellis’s recent article explained how this approach came into being. His article also demonstrated how a seemingly innocuous 1% fee can actually consume a large portion of a portfolio’s return.

Read more »

Thanks for Nothing

AFTER TAKING THE Series 65 exam in February, I set a goal for 2019: Help 10 friends and family members with their finances. Instead of giving specific investment advice, I wanted to educate them on money matters. I knew that they would benefit from one-on-one discussions, well-regarded books, educational videos and credible websites. But I also suspected that some might hesitate to talk to me about their finances. Nonetheless, I gave it a try.

Read more »

Spotlight: Rohleder

Giving Thanks

AS WE CELEBRATE Thanksgiving, I’m reflecting on what I’ve learned over the past year or so from HumbleDollar—both as a reader and as one of the site’s writers. An article I wrote about claiming Social Security bounced back and forth a few times between me and HumbleDollar’s editor, Jonathan Clements. The breakthrough came when Jonathan referred me to a free online calculator built by financial blogger Mike Piper. I’d been trying to do my own calculation in Excel. Working through the calculator greatly reduced my anxiety about picking the right date to pull the Social Security trigger. I realized that a wide range of dates were pretty much equally good. Meanwhile, an article by Charley Ellis helped me rethink my asset allocation. The key insight: Predictable income such as a pension and Social Security can be considered part of your bond allocation. This gave me the comfort to increase my allocation to stocks. Luckily, this past year has been an good time to add to my stock holdings, thanks to the market decline. Other pieces on the site prompted me to rethink how I invest my cash. John Lim’s article was the first place I read about the handsome yield available from Series I savings bonds. His article led me to open a TreasuryDirect account, so I could purchase I bonds. That account came in handy when a reader, in response to one of my articles, suggested I consider Treasury bills as an attractive alternative for my cash investments. Not every insight is life-changing. Finding ways to tweak my personal finances can be just as satisfying. Jonathan had an article on check washing that opened my eyes. I’ve had my own frustrations with the post office, but I didn’t fully appreciate the risk of sending checks through the mail. Based on…
Read more »

Walking Away

IN PROFESSIONAL sports, superlatives are often overdone. Even the GOAT designation—greatest of all time—is sometimes applied prematurely. But love him or hate him, Tom Brady is arguably the GOAT among NFL quarterbacks and perhaps among all NFL players. For proof, look no further than his collection of record-breaking statistics, Super Bowl rings and most valuable player awards. Could it be that he has added another GOAT designation with his epic fail at retirement? Brady reversed his retirement announcement from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers after just 40 days. What did he figure out in those 40 days that changed his plans? The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the median NFL player career is six years. Brady has played for 22. Didn’t he know that retirement was coming? Maybe it’s a matter of finances. Despite earning in a few years what most people earn in a lifetime, an unfortunate number of NFL players file bankruptcy after their football days are over. Tom and his wife Gisele reportedly have $26 million worth of homes in various states. Perhaps they neglected to factor the mortgage payments into their retirement plan. Maybe they miscalculated how much early retirees pay for health coverage. Perhaps they forgot to fund 529 plans for the kids’ college. Still, with a reported individual net worth of $250 million, coupled with his wife’s $400 million, I’m guessing Brady doesn’t need the paycheck. In a HumbleDollar article last October, Mike Drak described “failing” retirement because he didn’t recognize in advance what retirement would mean for his identity and sense of purpose. For Brady, maybe we shouldn’t discount the feeling that comes with having millions of fans scream his name at every snap. Brady’s stated reason for reversing his retirement decision was “unfinished business.” The fans take this to mean he wants another…
Read more »

On the House

WANT A CONSERVATIVE strategy that can help you prepare for college costs? Consider prepaying your mortgage. In 1992, when my oldest was 10 years old, we moved to a new home. We opted for a 15-year mortgage at 7.625% with 33% down. With our son’s graduation set for 2000, we began to prepay the mortgage so the last payment would coincide with the month before he began his freshman year. Thereafter, the payments previously sent to the mortgage company were instead directed to the college. Our aggressive repayment plan was made possible by buying enough house for our needs but less than we could afford. On top of that, the large down payment ensured that the required monthly payments were relatively low. Financial planners might say a better strategy would be to take out a 30-year mortgage with, say, a 10% down payment and then pay only the minimum required. The notion: You could take the money that isn’t going to the mortgage company—the difference between the 30-year loan’s smaller down payment plus lower monthly payments and the 15-year mortgage’s larger down payment and higher monthly payments—and instead invest in the stock market. As it turns out, I was able to make a direct comparison of the two approaches. We had money provided by a grandparent for our son’s college, which was invested in a stock mutual fund. For most of the 1990s, it looked like a great strategy. Then the dot-com bubble burst and a big chunk of the fund gains were erased just as college was starting. Meanwhile, the money prepaid on the mortgage effectively earned 7.625% a year. What are the lessons here? With a long time horizon, mortgage prepayments aren’t that burdensome. Imagine a family buying a home with a 30-year mortgage when their first child…
Read more »

Driving Me Happy

MY CAR EMAILED ME to say its tire pressure was low. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say it this way: An email from Subaru was triggered by data uploaded from my 2020 Forester, all part of the automatic safety and maintenance technology built into the vehicle. The email confirmed the dashboard light indicating the same problem. My frugal friends and I have had friendly debates about car buying. Is it better to buy a used car and avoid the instant depreciation when you drive off the dealer’s lot? Or should we pay more to purchase a new car, with a plan to drive it for many years? This same debate was featured in the book The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko. Their research for the 2010 edition found that the millionaires surveyed were split on the issue, just as my friends and I are. The book said 63.4% of millionaires were buying new, versus 36.6% choosing used. Historically, I’ve bought new vehicles. The Subaru replaced a 2008 Mercury. Our second car is a 2010 Honda. Like the Subaru, we purchased both the Mercury and Honda new. I dislike the car-buying experience, so I want our vehicles to last. I buy new and keep up with routine maintenance to delay the need to replace them. My push to shop for a new car in 2020 was because of the new safety technology now available. Many studies have shown that 80% to 90% of Americans feel they’re “above average” drivers—a statistical impossibility. Based on my wife’s reactions in the passenger seat, I’ve concluded that I must be average at best. When Consumer Reports began touting the many safety improvements available today, I couldn’t ignore the opportunity to improve our safety. After buying the Forester, I became…
Read more »

Taxing Situations

As an AARP volunteer Tax Aide for a second tax season, I completed about 100 returns and reviewed many others prepared by other volunteers. I volunteer two days a week from February 1 to April 14 at two different senior centers and continue to make observations based my clients’ tax situations. The Tax Aide program is free and not limited to seniors or AARP members. Even though most clients are retired seniors, we can serve all ages and incomes. Only more complex returns are out of scope. It is not unusual to be helping someone whose spouse has recently passed away. I had a couple of situations where the death was in 2023 which had allowed them to continue to file “married filing jointly” last year. As I prepared the 2024 return, they were hit with the implications of now filing “single.” Their standard deduction is essentially cut in half. If their income and withholding stayed the same, this meant a big tax bill. This led to difficult conversations where I explained that: 1) they had to come up with the money to pay this year’s taxes; 2) they were potentially on the hook for penalties associated with under withholding because they owed more than $1000; and 3) they had to consider increasing withholding for the current year to avoid a penalty next year. As many of our clients have low incomes, these prospects were daunting. If I saw someone where the spouse died in 2024, I was able to counsel them to increase their withholding now so they did not get caught short next year. I saw a smattering of W-2G forms. These represent gambling winnings, usually from one of our local casinos. Not surprisingly, the state and city have taken their cut and this is disclosed on the…
Read more »

Meeting Demand

OUR HIGH SCHOOL principal returned from a teacher recruitment fair and announced to the school board, “Tell your children or grandchildren: Do not get a degree in elementary education.” He went to the recruitment fair looking to hire some very specific specialty teachers for the high school. He mostly met new grads with credentials to teach elementary school—who were looking for jobs that simply don’t exist in our region. Our superintendent explained that our region had several large, well-known schools of education that turned out far more teachers than were needed locally. But he also noted that this was not a national issue. Ample signing bonuses were available for elementary school teachers in high-growth southern and western states. New college grads are living in Mom and Dad’s basement because the degrees they earned didn’t translate into jobs. Career planning, preferably conducted in high school, should include an understanding of in-demand jobs. There are certain jobs where the openings greatly exceed the supply and where future growth is expected. In many cases, these in-demand jobs don’t require a college degree—and yet they’re more lucrative than many jobs that do. In our heavy-manufacturing area, employers are begging for welders and machinists. Skilled trades are another in-demand route. As the elementary school teacher issue shows, “in demand” can vary geographically. As young people think about their career, they need to honestly assess where they’re willing to live. If they’re truly willing to move, it opens up more opportunities. For instance, there might be a huge need for aerospace engineers, but there are just a few specific areas of the country where those jobs will be plentiful. In Ohio, where I live, the state jobs agency, Ohio Means Jobs, points students and adults to in-demand jobs in our state. Web searches can yield similar…
Read more »