Articles Posted in Financial Planning

The Daily Jeffersonian published a story recently on the bizarre details of a case involving a lottery winner’s apparent murder and the subsequent estate battle. Like the plot of a Hollywood crime drama, the tale includes a mysterious death, a series of hidden family feuds, and considerable money on the line. While quite dramatic, it is a vivid example of the difference that common sense estate planning can make in the aftermath of a death.

Money & Murder

The case centers of the estate of Urooj Khan who immigrated from India in 1989 and established several successful businesses. In 2010 he hit a jackpot and won a state lottery; his actual take-home from the winnings were about $425,000. According to reports, he planned on using the windfall to pay off his mortgage, expand his business, and donate a sizeable sum to a local children’s hospital.

Timing is of critical importance with estate planning matters. Obviously, a plan must be in place early enough to be of use before one falls ill or suffers from mental issues. For example, creating a will or trust may be impossible after one suffers a stroke or succumbs to serious effects of Alzheimers. This is why we continue to encourage residents to make plans early and consistently update them.

Time also factors into matters after a death. Many beneficiaries may face hardship if they are forced to wait months (or even years) to have an estate settled. One of the key benefits of an inheritance plan is to minimize the risk of a long delay between the actual passing on of assets, often focused on avoiding probate and preventing feuding.

Celebrity Example

Virtually everyone agrees that it is important to invest for retirement, take care of inheritance details, prepare for long-term care, and otherwise plan for the future. But there is a big difference between understanding the value of these tasks and actually taking the time to do it. Considering the financial and political stresses that come with caring for an aging population, figuring out how to motivate community members to do what is necessary to plan for the future is drawing more and more attention.

One new tactic stems from unique psychological research on financial motivation. In previous studies out of Stanford, experts found that one way to spur real action on long-term planning was getting individuals to visualize their future, elderly selves. Interestingly the researchers found the most benefit not when people just imagined themselves in old age but actually saw digitally enhanced images of themselves when they were older. The surprise of seeing their own face in old age was a real spur to stop putting off the necessary planning.

The lead researcher in the Stanford experiment summarized that, “People who see an age-progressed rendering of themselves are more likely to allocate resources to the future.”

You cannot turn on the TV, flip open a newspaper, or pull up a news website this month without seeing the words “fiscal cliff.” As many are aware, this refers to sweeping, mandatory federal tax and budgetary changes that are set to take effect January 1st unless the Congress and White House pass legislation with an alternative plan. Essentially the “cliff” is about $7 trillion worth of tax increases combined with significant spending cuts across the board–including everything from Medicare and Medicaid to the military.

What is interesting about the cliff is that virtually no one on either side of the aisle actually wants it to take effect. Instead, it was only put into place as a compromise over a previous debt ceiling legislative fight. The idea was that that the cliff would be so abhorant to both sides that its impending appearance would force a compromise. However, as the end of the year gets closer, more and more observers are worrying that even with the serious consequences of the cliff, no compromise is in sight.

Currently, the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders (most notably, the Republican House leaders) are trying to reach agreement on an alterantive to prevent the mandataory changes. As part of that effort, President Obama recently released his “first offer.” As summarized in a recent article, the offer is far from what the Republican leaders have proposed, so it is unlikely that it will be taken seriously. Essentially, it calls for around $1.6 trillion in tax increases over a ten year period–mostly related to expiration of the so-called “Bush tax cuts.” In addition, it calls for modest stimulus spending. The proposal would also permanently eliminate Congressional control over the debt ceiling level (which caused the current crisis to begin with).

Medical and technological breakthroughs in recent decades have impacted virtually every facet of life–estate planning is no exception. For example, many rules in the field hinge on definitions of legal heirs. In the past, it was pretty clear who those heirs were, typically biological or legally adopted children. When an indiviual dies intestate (without a will), then each state has specific default rules regarding what to do with the individual’s assets. Often the biological or legally adopted children receive part or all of those assets.

But it doesn’t end with inheritance rules. Many state and federal programs also use these definitions to make decisions about who qualifies for certain benefits. This includes the federal Social Security program. In many cases, when a parent dies, a family eligible for Social Security assistance for the minor children that remain following their parent’s passing. In the past there as little confusion over when a child did or did not qualify for those survivor benefits.

No longer. As recent of improvements in medical research have changed reproductive technology, the line between when a child is considered an heir and when they are not is blurred. That is perhaps best evidenced by a new case that is slated to go before one state court.

One question many New York seniors (and their loved ones) considered during the presidential campaign was how each candidate’s election might affect programs like Medicare and Medicaid. While it is hard to say with certainty what changes, if any, will be made to these areas, much of the discussion between candidates centered around general approaches to tackling financial problems as they relate to Medicare and Medicaid.

In general, Governor Romney’s approach was more far-reaching, favoring structural changes to the programs, including shifting more responsibility to the states. It was claimed that this would result in more flexibility on top of cost savings. Conversely, President Obama was more inclined to focus on attacking “waste” within the system as well as fully implementing Obamacare to lower healthcare costs overall by better insuring all Americans.

Of course, with the President’s re-election, Obamacare is preserved and the approach championed by his opponents is less likely to become law. In fact, a new report out last week from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suggests that the administration may be going strong with its attempts to root out overbilling, waste, and fraud in the system.

Concerns are rising among many in the financial and estate planning fields as the year winds down without any more clarity on the future of the estate tax. A recent post from Advisor One, for example, explained that the shrinking 2012 calendar means that there are less than three months until the “ticking estate tax time bomb” explodes.

Here’s the reality: without Congressional action, on January 1, 2013 the current $5.13 million exemption level will drop to $1 million and the current 35% top tax rate will increase to 55%. In other words, many more families will face an inheritance tax and the bite will be much stronger than in the past. While it may seem like any time is a good time for estate planning (that is true), it is undeniable that taking proactive steps in the next few months to plan for possible estate tax changes may prove incredibly beneficial down the road.

As the Advisor One post explains, that need to plan is critical because changes are undoubtedly coming no matter who wins the elections next month. Each Presidential candidate has very different ideas about the estate tax. On top of that, of course, a President cannot make changes to these laws on their own. The final partisan make-up of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate will play into any ultimate resolution. In addition, it is not just exemption levels and tax rates that are at issue. Different policymakers also have different ideas about what assets are or are not included in the “gross estate” which determines the amount to be taxed. For example, the President has suggested that he supports including certain assets held in grantor trusts in the estates.

Life insurance is an important piece of long-term financial security for local families. It is entirely reasonable for parents and family breadwinners to wish to provide some security to their loved ones in case the unthinkable happens. However, with money tight and uncertainty about financial security remaining, some are unsure about the benefits of life insurance. Those in the life insurance industry have argued recently that their market is shrinking and returns are dropping. To jump-start the industry, some are now turning to a new product to sell to more community members.

A recent story in “The Motley Fool” provides some context for the product that may or may not be a good fit for some local families. This unique insurance option is actually a prepaid life insurance policy. It has been called the “marvel of simplicity.” The product, spearheaded by a unique collaboration between MetLife and retail giant WalMart, is essentially a short-term one year life insurance policy that provides up to $25,000 in coverage. These are not huge sums, but the idea is to open the insurance up to a much larger market. MetLife likely sought out the arrangment so that they could tap into Walmart’s large consumer base while saving costs of middlemen broker fees.

Interstingly, this approach is not the first of its kind. In the past Canadian insurer Manulife offered life insurance products through the U.S.-based big retailer Costco. In addition, in the past Walmart has sold customer various financial products, even including things like mortgages.

The acting commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Services for Aging, Veterans and Youth penned an article this week on the toll that elder caregiving takes on family members throughout the state. The purpose of the piece was two-fold: to recognize the amazing work done by so many local residents and to remind community members of the immense benefit of planning for the elder care they will likely need down the road.

The article, published in the Poughkeepsie Journal this week, refers to the recent AARP study which found that a staggering 42% of working-age U.S. citizens provided some form of unpaid elder care, with half of all citizens expecting to do that in the coming five years. In other words, this is not an isolated concern that affects “other people.” All of us, at one time or another, will have to deal with this situation.

Sadly, as noted in the AARP Report, the effect of providing this care (averaging 20 hours per week) is often more far-reaching than many suspect. It is not uncommon for elder caregivers to face limited work flexibility, denied leave, or even termination from their own paid job as a result of the care they are providing to their senior friend or family member. All of this is on top of data which suggests that senior caregivers has negative health consequences of their own. A MET Life study on the issue found that poor health was more common among those helping senior in poor health themselves.

In recent years there has been a push to alter care for seniors with dementia. Most arguments about superior elder care focus on limiting medication-only treatment options. These “chemical restraints” are still overused, with seniors in many nursing homes lulled into a near-stupor as a result of antipsychotic medication. In overcrowded or understaffed long-term care facilities, these drugs are often the only way that caregivers feel that they can handle the challenges that come with dementia and Alzheimer’s care.

However, just because medication is the most common way to deal with a resident with dementia does not mean that it is the best way. In fact, many elder care advocates argue that the best care steers clear of overuse of medication and provides tailored care that focuses on the individual senior and not the cognitive disease.

What does that individual care look like? One Bronx nursing home is receiving national plaudits for its work on the issue.

Contact Information