Posts tagged income1
Retirees, here’s how the Secure Act 2.0 can positively impact your RMDs and retirement plan
 

A newly passed bill known as Secure Act 2.0 will change how retirees withdraw from their retirement nest eggs. This fundamental change increases the age at which investors must take money from their retirement accounts, bringing about some impactful financial planning opportunities.

What is an RMD?

Once an investor reaches a specific age, they must withdraw a required minimum distribution (RMD) from their retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k). The RMD amount is determined by the account holder's age and account balance at the end of the previous year. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires RMDs to ensure account holders pay taxes on their retirement savings. RMDs, therefore, can be taxed on both federal and state taxes.

After reaching their RMD age, account holders must begin taking withdrawals from retirement accounts by April 1. Each subsequent year, RMDs must be taken by December 31st of that same year. The IRS may levy a sizable penalty for failure to take the mandatory distribution.

Good news, RMDs will be delayed by a year

A notable update from Secure Act 2.0 is the delay of RMDs. RMDs will start at age 73 instead of 72 for those born in 1951-1959. For those born in 1960 or later, RMDs will be delayed even further to age 75.

For those who turn 72 in 2023, you will not need to start your RMDs this year. Your first RMD can either be taken by December 31, 2024 or delayed until April 1, 2025.

There is no impact on a retiree if they have already started taking their RMDs or need their IRA to cover their cost of living. For others, who only take RMDs because they are required to, this significant modification to the RMD age provides additional retirement planning opportunities.

Retirement Planning opportunities

There will be more time for growth.

The new RMD regulation will give retirees a simple yet powerful benefit, more time for compounding growth. As the billionaire investor Charlie Munger states, “The first rule of compounding is to never interrupt it unnecessarily.”

This benefit must be highlighted, especially after a year of market losses.

An 8% return on a million-dollar IRA is $80,000. Additional returns undisturbed by an unnecessary RMD can have a snowball effect, providing an exponential lifetime benefit.

A longer window before RMDs can allow for additional planning and time, the essential ingredients in building wealth.  

QCDs can still be maximized.

Amidst the RMD age adjustment, the age at which account holders can use their IRAs to make Qualified Charitable Contributions (QCDs) was untouched. Thus, preserving one of the most powerful tax-saving strategies available to charitably inclined retirees 70.5 and older.

A QCD is a tax-free transfer of funds from an individual's IRA directly to an IRS-recognized charity. This charitable distribution allows taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on the withdrawn funds.

Retiree “Gap Years” are extended.

"Gap Years" are the years that occur between a person's retirement and the beginning of their RMDs. These Gap Years are often the years with the lowest taxable incomes in a person's adult life. As a result, they frequently serve as ideal years for accelerating income that would otherwise be taxable in a subsequent, higher-income year. The Secure Act 2.0's changes will give additional time for Tax Bracket optimization strategies such as Roth Conversions and Capital Gain Realization to reduce an investor's lifetime tax bill.

You may be pushed into a higher tax bracket in your later years.

Like all financial planning strategies, there is no one-size fits. The unanticipated pitfall of postponing RMDs can lead to more significant withdrawals in subsequent years when RMDs do start. An unexpected boost in income from RMDs might push you into a much higher tax bracket, phase you out of a tax credit, or trigger a surtax. Taking the time to understand the applicable tax implications are crucial when building a tax-sensitive retirement income plan.

This is a great time to reevaluate your retirement plan

The retirement system has undergone numerous changes due to Secure Act 2.0's policy reforms, adding to the difficulty of retirement planning. Recognizing the planning opportunities and risks that relate to you and your financial plan is essential.

 

 
 

Related Articles

Closing The Gap For The Retirement Haves And Have-Nots
 

This article was originally published on Forbes.

Shutterstock

Shutterstock

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was established in 1974 to give employees retirement income security. Why, then, after 40-plus years, are Americans so underprepared for retirement?

According to a 2015 study from the Government Accountability Office, "About half of households age 55 and older have no retirement savings (such as in a 401(k) plan or an IRA)." Even those who have saved have saved poorly. Among those households of residents ages 55 to 64 with some retirement savings, the median amount saved is $104,000. For those 65 to 74, the amount is roughly $148,000 per household. And, with 70% of the civilian population having access to a retirement plan and 91% access for government employees, it’s a wonder there is such a lack of retirement readiness.

There is no shortage of financial and intellectual capital being spent on a solution for retirement readiness. But most solutions have fallen short of narrowing the gap between the retirement haves and have-nots. So, what is the solution? My thoughts follow:

Government Plus Employer Plus Employee

First, the government is already involved in the regulation of retirement plans, as well as allowing for employers to deduct the expenses of having a plan, so why not go all in? Why not tell employers, “If you are going to get the deduction, you need to meet certain requirements that are great for employees, great for your business and great for our country”?

Those requirements could include auto-enrollment (as this has been a home-run for participation), auto-increase (as individuals get raises, they add a little more to their retirement) and an eligible age-based default option (eligibility for a great default option would be low-cost and diversified as you get from the likes of popular mutual fund providers with their index retirement glide path funds).

In order to qualify for a business deduction or incentive from the government, an employer would be required to match a certain amount. I’d propose 5%, with the employee required to commit 5% to get that amount. Why these amounts? Because if someone has a job for 40 years and invests in a basket of mutual funds growing at or around 8%, with both the employee and employer contributing at 5% each, they end up a millionaire (assuming a $36,000 annual salary, or $300 per month contributions, compounded monthly for 40 years.)

The Industry

In a recent Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) study, more than 70% of HR professionals surveyed emphasized the importance a retirement savings plan. So, at a minimum, employees are aware of the need to save and desire to do so. While there is definitely a need amongst employees to save for retirement, there are several barriers that impact participants interest and willingness to save. First, trust among advisors is low. Second, many plans have a dizzying array of options, which negatively impacts deferral rates. Finally, not all employers offer to match contributions, which minimizes the incentive for employees to contribute to the 401(k) versus less automated choices, like an IRA.

So, what can the industry do to partner with employers and their workforce? There are two things in my view:

1. Understand the heart of ERISA. Advisors and their firms are to put the interests of the employee and their income security at the center of everything they are doing. If, somehow, the advice we are giving in any way conflicts with the employee and their security, then we should reassess what we are doing and meet the stated purpose of ERISA -- it doesn’t need to be any more complex.

2. In order to minimize the potential for anything but the fiduciary standard, any firm operating in the retirement space should be required to be a fiduciary and have no ability to be dually registered or receive commissions, kickbacks, trips or any other super-secret benefit.

Join the small percentage of firms that are truly fee-only and have no way of receiving any form of compensation other than from the client. Disclosing away conflicts is not the answer for the clients, as few read the disclosures they are provided. If we are going to serve clients well, eliminating the ability for the conflict to exist is the only reasonable route to go.

In conclusion, the government is already involved in both rule-making and incentives for companies and their employees to offer and invest in retirement plans. A model for offering a retirement plan that meets certain criteria in order to fully receive the incentive should be outlined and adhered to by companies and their employees. In partnership with the government, employers and employees, the financial services community should be held to a higher standard to eliminate the conflicts that keep retirement plans for becoming all they could be, which is for employee retirement income security.

 

 
 

Related Articles