Widows beware!

Sandy & Shirley

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
238
Location
North East
Many widows and widowers will retire at an early age on either their own or their spouse’s survivor Social Security benefits and then switch to the opposite benefit when they turn 70. This is a very normal and legal process to follow.

The problem is that many who do this only consider their financial picture at the age when they plan to retire early. The fatal flaw comes when they turn 70 and did not plan for that situation in advance.

The problem exists when their increased SS benefits plus their required MRDs push them into the 25% Federal tax bracket.

Assuming that your FRB, Full Retirement Benefits, and you late spouse’s FRB are about the same. At age 62 you can retire on about 81% of your survivor benefit at say $20,000, then at age 70 switch to 129% of your own benefit at about $32,000.

Basically, at age 70 you are getting a $12,000 increase in your benefit income plus you are now required to start taking Minimum Required Distributions (MRDs) from your taxable traditional IRA accounts. The annual percentage for the MRDs increases with age, starting at age 70 that is 3.65%, 3.77%, 3.91%, 4.05%, 4.20% continuing to increase each year.

At the beginning of your personal 25% Federal bracket, the basis for the taxation of your Social Security benefits probably puts you in the 85% taxability bracket. This means that a $100 withdraw from a taxable source, your IRA, results in an additional $85 of your SSB also becoming taxable income. You will pay an additional 25% of $185 or $46.25 for each additional $100 you withdraw, each $100 of MRD.

The important thing to consider here is that you should do the math, don’t just calculate what your income and taxes will be at age 62, but also calculate what they will probably be at age 70 and beyond. Once you have this information you will know in advance if you need to take steps before the age of 70 to avoid paying the 46.25% marginal tax rate.
 
A nice explanation of the reason for the steps.

The steps you are probably alluding to would be to convert some IRA money to ROTH accounts as early as possible within the 15% tax bracket (or even higher if you have a lot and big SS coming).
 
The important thing to consider here is that you should do the math, don’t just calculate what your income and taxes will be at age 62, but also calculate what they will probably be at age 70 and beyond.
Good advice, even for those of us who are not widows or widowers. Those who delay SS to age 70 need to remember that RMD's hit at age 70 1/2, too. It's a "tax bomb" of sorts.
 
That makes me think that I'll be better to take my SS at 62 and the same for my wife who is 5 years behind me. Am I missing something?
 
That makes me think that I'll be better to take my SS at 62 and the same for my wife who is 5 years behind me. Am I missing something?
Yes, that there are many, many reasons to take SS or not at various ages. This is only one factor of many.
 
....

At the beginning of your personal 25% Federal bracket, the basis for the taxation of your Social Security benefits probably puts you in the 85% taxability bracket. This means that a $100 withdraw from a taxable source, your IRA, results in an additional $85 of your SSB also becoming taxable income. You will pay an additional 25% of $185 or $46.25 for each additional $100 you withdraw, each $100 of MRD, for the $5806 dollars between AGI of $49,900 and 55,706 (assuming standard deduction and no dependents).

The important thing to consider here is that you should do the math, don’t just calculate what your income and taxes will be at age 62, but also calculate what they will probably be at age 70 and beyond. Once you have this information you will know in advance if you need to take steps before the age of 70 to avoid paying the 46.25% marginal tax rate.

Source: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Taxation_of_Social_Security_benefits

At least it is transitory. Compared to paying 25%, that's an extra $1233.78 in taxes at the maximum.
 
Source: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Taxation_of_Social_Security_benefits

At least it is transitory. Compared to paying 25%, that's an extra $1233.78 in taxes at the maximum.

If you re going to look at that bogleheads page, SMILE, look at mine also!

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Social_Security_tax_impact_calculator

As to what exactly to do, it is totally a personal thing based on your own personal situation.

In our case we are delaying my GFs annuity, using her TIRA and Roth converting the rest. Her tax levels will be 0%, 10%, 15% and 22.5%.

Also, by delaying her Annuity for 8 years, her annual amount will literally double. And during the delay the death benefit of her annuity will remain at its maximum level.
 
I'm a widow, collecting benefits on late DH's record and planning to file for my own at 70. I know that's a minefield due to RMDs but prefer to maximize the life annuity with the (measly) built-in COLA I get from SS.

Tax laws change, too. I have 6 years to go till I'm 70.
 
I see a big tax torpedo coming down when we each reach 70 1/2 the result being that almost all of our SS will go to paying taxes on the extra income plus Medicare part B.

Fortunately our IRAs are only ~10% of our retirement assets.

But we can't really do anything about converting to Roth without paying ~30% tax now on that additional income plus it may drive up Medicare part B. So we'll just wait for that torpedo. Really - all we expect is that it will at least cover the additional taxes and Medicare part B and maybe part D. Neither of our SS income is that large, because we retired very early. We made good money, but not for 35 years.

This is a "too high income" problem, so one is hard pressed to complain. We're well past any "hump".
 
Last edited:
I know a lot of people who would love to have the 'tax bomb' problem caused by a higher income at 70. The usual complaints are that the SS check is 'not enough to live on'.

For many of us there is not good way to avoid the problem. If possible we convert to Roth IRA and fill up the 15% bracket. But, if one has a descent pension or other source of income, the 15%bracket can fill up before much money can be converted. OTOH, having a descent source of income that fills up most of the 15% bracket is a problem many people would love to have.
 
I'm a widow, collecting benefits on late DH's record and planning to file for my own at 70. I know that's a minefield due to RMDs but prefer to maximize the life annuity with the (measly) built-in COLA I get from SS.

Tax laws change, too. I have 6 years to go till I'm 70.

I’m not an accountant, but what you might want to do is look at what your tax situation will be in 6 years. If you are at or slightly in the 25% Federal, 46.25% marginal, think about withdrawing up to that point from your TIRA every year until that point. Take it out today at 27.75%, 15% * $185, to avoid 46.25% later.

If you just don’t need the extra cash today, do a series of Roth Conversions up to that limit, get the extra cash out at the lower rate, store it in Roth were it will grow tax free and you can take it as needed tax free. That is basically what my GF will be doing.

As for the tax laws on taxability of your SS benefits, those laws were written in 1983 and 1993. The single person income limits were set at $25,000 for the 50% bracket in 1983 and $34,000 for the 85% bracket in 1993. They were written in stone with no adjustments for cost of living and have not changed in 34 years!

The average income back in 1983 was less than $20,000 a year and the government “truthfully” told us they were only writing those laws to “tax the rich”. I’m sure we all agree that anyone earning over $25,000 today is filthy rich!
 
I know a lot of people who would love to have the 'tax bomb' problem caused by a higher income at 70. The usual complaints are that the SS check is 'not enough to live on'.

For many of us there is not good way to avoid the problem. If possible we convert to Roth IRA and fill up the 15% bracket. But, if one has a descent pension or other source of income, the 15%bracket can fill up before much money can be converted. OTOH, having a descent source of income that fills up most of the 15% bracket is a problem many people would love to have.
Even I have problem paying up to 15%. I don't like to pay that much tax up front. Originally I thought of just converting mine and spend down my husband's IRA. Now it looks like I need to do both. But I might have to bite the bullet now or face a bigger bullet later on. Especially all this money will most likely not be used, possibly inheritance money for my kids.
On top of that, people who have rental income, the depreciation will be depleted, i.e. More income on top of income. It sounds nice except when it comes to tax issue.
 
Last edited:
As for the tax laws on taxability of your SS benefits, those laws were written in 1983 and 1993. The single person income limits were set at $25,000 for the 50% bracket in 1983 and $34,000 for the 85% bracket in 1993. They were written in stone with no adjustments for cost of living and have not changed in 34 years!

What about the supposed rich and powerful AARP? What the heck are they doing about this if anything? I would rather they tackled this issue than send me more 'invitations' to buy life insurance that I don't need.

And, the powers-that-be tactfully avoid mentioning this fact. A tax increase due to inflation. Aren't we lucky!!!!!
 
A lot of suddenly widow or widower filers could find themselves bumped from the 15% to 25% bracket simply because they would go from filing "Married Filing Jointly" to filing "Single".

That could happen at any age. :(
 
A lot of suddenly widow or widower filers could find themselves bumped from the 15% to 25% bracket simply because they would go from filing "Married Filing Jointly" to filing "Single".

That could happen at any age. :(



We have had that situation a couple of times this year at our AARP tax prep site. Widows come in to have their taxes done and can't understand why they owe income tax this year when they haven't owed in the past ten years. It takes us a few extra minutes to explain the difference in standard deduction and having one fewer exemption.
 
A lot of suddenly widow or widower filers could find themselves bumped from the 15% to 25% bracket simply because they would go from filing "Married Filing Jointly" to filing "Single".

That could happen at any age. :(

Yep. That is what is makes me unhesitant about our conversion strategy. Still unlikely to get any survivor below the 28% bracket, but will minimize the amount taxed in excess of that when RMDs hit. Granted, a nice problem to have.
 
Yeah, I'm gonna get killed next year when I file as Single for 2017, but at least I see it coming. I'm
 
Yeah, I'm gonna get killed next year when I file as Single for 2017, but at least I see it coming. I'm

OMG! We lost Athena mid-sentence :LOL::blush::(
 
Last edited:
So, my strategy to minimize this issue is for both of us to live a long time, then die pretty close to each other. They might get a year or two of higher taxes out of us, but in the long run we'll win. Haha!
 
I know a lot of people who would love to have the 'tax bomb' problem caused by a higher income at 70. The usual complaints are that the SS check is 'not enough to live on'.

For many of us there is not good way to avoid the problem. If possible we convert to Roth IRA and fill up the 15% bracket. But, if one has a descent pension or other source of income, the 15%bracket can fill up before much money can be converted. OTOH, having a descent source of income that fills up most of the 15% bracket is a problem many people would love to have.

My "attitude of gratitude" reminder. thank you. I became a widow at 51, my wonderful husband loved us enough to set us up for life, after attending grief counseling groups I know for a fact that this is not always the case.

Unless something changes and it could, I will start hubby's benefits in a few years when I hit 62 and turn mine on at 70.
 
My pension puts me in the 25% tax bracket. Always has and likely always will. :) I could have delayed that pension. The kind folks at Megacorp would have increased my pension something like $5 per month per year of delay. I decided it would be better to just take the pension. So when I retired, I had the choice of taking the late DW's SS or mine. I chose to take hers and let mine grow to 70. Hers was about 66% of mine at retirement. Like others in this situation, the SS will pretty much pay for taxes for the rest of my life. (The Gubmint giveth and the Gubmint taketh away. :D) I can't say I calculated all the alternatives. It just seemed that the fact that I would never be below 25% (and thus always paying taxes on 85% of any SS) put me in a place where it was best to maximize the SS payments and pay the taxes. I don't think I screwed this up and am loosing out on a bunch of money, but if you disagree, please let me know.

I do have one strategy for getting around this. I plan to give my RMDs to charity in the form of QCDs for quite a few years when I turn 70 1/2.
 
Back
Top Bottom