Saturday, December 09, 2017

Trump's tax plan hurts some retirees and is not that good for big business (Forbes)


The pro-business Forbes magazine in an article by John Wasik, is quite critical of the Trump-GOP tax plan, in its various incarnations, especially the Senate bill which has now passed. It's  turnaround from September when the publication had predicted a result good for seniors. 

The article notices the loss of medical expense deductions, which could be hard on seniors just before age 65, still not on Medicare but depending on “private”, often employer-sponsored retiree health insurance.  (Mine with ING, which ended in 2005, wasn’t too bad, but after all I had worked for an insurance company;  they had more incentive to be fair with it.  It turns out United Health Care did take care of a major skin cancer at age 64, almost 100% coverage)   The article gets into other areas, like college financial aid (which affects retired parents and grandparents).   What seems remarkable about this article is that it looks at the GOP’s supposed “pro-rich” tax bill as not very good for most companies and employers at all.   And this is from a publication related to Steve Forbes.

Trump seems to be ignoring the showdown that will come soon with Social Security, the next time we have a debt ceiling crisis. 
 
There are ads that claim that Trump's tax plan will hit Medicare Advantage customers particularly hard. 

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Time Magazine offers special report on growing demographic crisis in eldercare


The Nov. 27-Dec. 4 2017 issue of Time Magazine has a big story complex, “Crisis in Elder Care” (p. 48).  On. p. 50, JoNel Aleccia and Melissa Bailey has an article very critical of the performance of hospices, and Edwards has an article on p. 54 (white on black) explaining how nursing home residents have to sign away their right to sue (and accept arbitration) when they enter.

All this in a Time issue with a cover that reads “The 25 Best Inventions of 2017”.



Edwards’ article focuses particularly on how population demographics have evolved since the 1950s, as well as the changing roles of people in the family, in a society that is less labor intensive in many areas.  There is a federal rule against binding arbitration which the Trump administration seems to have put on hold. 

Monday, November 13, 2017

NYTimes column on structured volunteer work for retirees; more on 401(k) and early Social Security benefits


Glenn Ruffenach has a provocative article about the community engagement issue, “The Best Way for Retirees to Find Meaningful Volunteer Work”, here
  
I wonder about people needing an organization to give them purpose and direction, and as the article says, organizations vary in their ability to do this. 

I rather like the idea of setting up my own initiatives, and I’ll be talking about that soon on Wordpress in conjunction with my own “downsizing”.  I had a meeting about that today, and some of the things that were said were surprisingly sensitive.  Personal engagement in other people’s business is sometimes called for.
  
The article also covers topics already familiar here, 401(k) and taking early retirement benefits at 62.  The decision is not irrevocable, and she says you have 12 months to change your decision and pay it back (but this rule has been changing), 

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Could "community engagement" eventually be required for some social security benefits?


Although Tuesday’s election results may have firmed up Medicaid expansion hopes in some states, a broader issue coming up is the proposals in some more conservative states to require more “community engagement” from Medicaid beneficiaries (as well as welfare).  Robert Pear has an interesting story in the New York Times. 
  
Community engagement usually means at least one or more of the following:  reportable employment, regular volunteer work (that is supervised by a non-profit), taking vocational or college courses, or intensive job hunting.  This sounds a lot like what is usually required to collect unemployment after a layoff (volunteerism may not always count  -- remember that line in the 2002 Minnesota comedy movie “Great Lakes”: “Does this count as a job interview?”

What I wonder is, what if this became a requirement for some social security benefits, at least early benefits or below certain ages, as part of deficit cutting reform (or maybe after another debt-ceiling fight)?  Is it reasonable to expect of able-bodied seniors?

This could certainly have an effect on the kind of journalism I do, which does not pay its own way. 

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Well, I downsized this month, but not until I moved


Well, this month, I “downsized”.  I sold “my” house (belonging to my late mother’s trust), and bought a spacious one-bedroom highrise condo for cash with the proceeds.  I left it in the trust’s name, after some controversy.

There were a lot of things I just didn’t know as I went into this process, and was pretty much committed to it by mid-August.


The actual move happened in mid October and went in several steps.  But dealing with the huge amount of accumulated stuff in the house turned out to be a much bigger problem than I had expected.  That even has moral implications, if you want to think about it.

In the YouTube video above, note that the downsizing really starts before you move, by reducing clutter. 
  
I’ll be covering some of the more detailed and more controversial questions on a newer Wordpress blog in November. 

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Puerto Rico bonds and potential wipeout after Trump's comments, and retirees


Puerto Rico ‘s bonds tumbled further in value after President Trump suggested wiping out their debt, rather than restructuring it with normal bankruptcy procedures.

Some retirees find that financial planners advise them to purchase instruments for developing countries or even US territories for higher yields.  This is obviously risky, as some bonds could be wiped out, which is unusual compared to stocks.


I haven’t noticed any problems in my own stuff.  But it does highlight a problem for retirees who want to “coast” and not work so hard to “make money” which sounds like an ideological issue for some people.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Retirees often become trustees themselves: know the rights of beneficiaries


Often the wishes of people for others (especially family) after they pass away are set up in trusts instead of just traditional wills alone, in order to avoid going through probate. Trusts are often revocable while the original owner is alive and become irrevocable after death. Typically the executor (who will often be one adult child) can then revise and amend the trust and make it a grantor trust to simplify IRS tax filing.

It is becoming more common, as people live longer, for even the adult children to have become seniors themselves, and to be dependent on the trust for their own income.  But there can be tricky areas.

Trusts typically have distribution provisions for various beneficiaries, which start after some number of months for paying claims.  Sometimes one or more family members may continue to live in a particular home owned by the trust.  Typically they have the right to sell and downsize, but sometimes this gets tricky if the new property has to remain within the trust.

A party can be a beneficiary of a trust without necessarily getting a scheduled distribution. Beneficiaries can be removed from or added to trusts when they are revised, although the language of the original trust can make this more difficult.  Beneficiaries may be persons or organizations, typically religious, political, cultural, or other non-profits. 

A beneficiary has a self-interest in the trust even without immediate distribution because of the expectation that it may receive a future benefit when a trustee himself or herself dies. But the beneficiary does not have the same standing as, say, a stockholder in a company.


Elderlaw has a piece on the responsibilities of the trustee to beneficiaries.  Somewhat controversial is the idea that trustees are supposed to report annually to beneficiaries, even those who receive not distributions.  This legal requirement makes more sense for individual beneficiaries than it does for organizations, who really don’t have the time and staff to keep up with estates that may pay them only in the future but not now.  Often a beneficiary gets a monthly small contribution from a trust through an automated process at a bank. Some organizations are not set up well to process these, and they don’t offer the opportunity for matches, and fall outside the usual fundraising for non-profits.  Also, an organizational beneficiary might not be tax-exempt (say, a PAC).

A trustee should be careful about adding a beneficiary if it’s an organization. The organization may believe, somewhat incorrectly, that the beneficiary status and occasional gifts imply absolute loyalty to all of the organization’s political objectives.  An established beneficiary organization in an "inherited" trust could pose ethical dilemmas for a trustee if he/she did not accept the purposes of the beneficiary.