And good evening.

You've got more than money.

You've got your indication, your host, your personal financial adviser.

Happy to be with you.

Happy to spend the next half an hour serving you Gives me great joy to answer some of your questions and maybe introduce an idea or two that goes throughout the audience, because so many of you have similar questions.

They're not identical, but similar in similar circumstances.

So since our show is being viewed coast to coast and border to border these days, it is a fantastic opportunity to reach lots and lots of you and hopefully serve you in a positive way.

Between PBS, Passport and our website.

More than Money online dot com and and YouTube and gosh folks following us in many many ways.

We are so blessed.

We are hearing from folks all around the country and that gives us great joy.

All of that happens because PBS 39 is as is our host and has invited us to come and share as much as we possibly can with you.

One of the ways that many of you give back in, in gratitude for the programing from PBS is to support them financially, supporting financially, as we get into our senior years, particularly 70 and over has a potential to be even better than you might suspect.

And as a hybrid little piece of advice to our PBS viewers and supporters and as a taxpayer planning tip.

Tax planning, not preparation preparations.

It's done.

We're just reporting it.

This is a way that you can reduce your income taxes potentially by following a pretty straightforward process.

This process is referred to by the IRS as a q c, d, qualified charitable distribution.

It is available to taxpayers who have qualified money IRAs for one case for three base retirement funds and have attained the age of at least 70 and a half and wish to send some of that money directly to a charity, a qualified charity.

And doing so will become a tax neutral translation.

You do not claim that on your income tax as a deduction or income, and that's the real key, because many of you in that scenario are using what's referred to as the standard deduction.

You're not really getting a benefit from a charitable deduction.

You're not really getting a benefit from an interest payment or a real estate tax bill because you are receiving a chair, a standard deduction.

It's it's in the high twenties, 27, $28,000 for a married couple.

And as a result, if you send PBS either local here, PBS 39 or nationally, $5,000, it has no positive tax impact for you.

But if you use a q, c, d, send it directly from your IRA or 41k to PBS.

It is not taxable income.

It's on top of your standard deduction.

So if the standard deduction is 27,000 and you were to send PBS or any other qualified charity, there are thousands that qualifying cluding churches and synagogues, etc.

If you send $5,000 to one or more of these charities, in essence, your charity, your standard deduction goes from 27 to 32.

And for those of you who are in the and you'll know who you are, the Erma phase of Medicare, it does not affect your ERMA, It doesn't raise your income.

It does not raise your premiums on Medicare.

It's a powerful planning tool for folks who are 70 and over, have retirement funds and have preexisting charitable instincts.

These are folks who you shouldn't do it because you get this this tax treatment.

You should do it because you care about your church or synagogue.

PBS, folds of honor, Whatever charities are important to you, you can get a tremendous tax advantage if you're not sure.

From my brief description of exactly how to do that, send me that email along with any other questions.

You've got to Gene at ask MTM dot com.

We'll help in any way we can to facilitate that, because all of those dollars that might have gone to Uncle Sam are going to really, really powerfully important charities that can do really important work and benefit all of us.

So hopefully you'll take that and run with it.

Speaking of running, Meg, should we run to our first question?

Sure.

Before that, we actually just have a really nice email to start.

It says No questions.

We have a local financial planner that we are pleased with.

Just wanted to say that we faithfully watch your program on PBS 39 and appreciate your mix of wisdom and wit.

Thank you.

Wisdom and wit.

I have been called far worse.

Well, thank you very much.

I wanted this to be highlighted for a very important reason.

There are too many shows to count, financial shows that are on television, on radio, they're everywhere.

And sadly, a huge proportion, if not a huge majority of them, are simply they simply exist in order to sell you something.

And that's just a fact of life.

And you've got to filter everything they say through that while they're trying to sell me.

And if you can find a source of information that is relevant as we are current, as we are, we are hard at work producing new shows all year round.

Bottom line is the important part of this compliment.

We have a local financial advisor we're really happy with.

Fantastic.

And is fantastic.

I would love to tell you that in our and our more than money team, we can handle every American individual as their financial advisor.

All 185 million of you.

Silliest thing you've ever heard.

Finding an advisor that you are comfortable with, that you communicate well with, that you trust is incredibly important.

And if you found one, make sure you hang on to them.

So don't be thinking we're trying to knock you off your path or take you out of that relationship.

Quite the opposite.

We encourage all of you, if you're with an advisor that you have had great success with, you have great trust in and you have great rapport, make sure you stick with them.

Speaking of sticking with Meg's, let's stick with answering questions.

So right back to you.

Sounds good.

This first question tonight says, I enjoy Mr. Dixon's show.

Recently, I was fortunate to receive an inheritance from my parents.

I am 60 to single own a condo, and I'm retired.

I do not plan on collecting Social Security until I am 65 or 67.

Currently, I have 300,000 in an IRA.

250,000 in a CD.

200,000 in another CD and approximately 100,000 in savings.

As you can see, I am conservative in risk tolerance.

Does this saving strategy look okay to you or do you have better suggestions?

Thank you so much for your time and your help.

Well, in our last show, I shared with you, our audience that one of the most powerful tools that a financial advisor must have in his or her toolbox is the phrase.

It depends.

It depends.

Is is particularly important in this particular case.

This gentleman is is young, has 30 or 40 more good years ahead of him, and perhaps more because things are going so well from a medical standpoint.

He has his own home that he owns and he is retired, does not plan on collecting Social Security for at least three more years, maybe five.

And in my assumption, my assumption is that he can he can foresee delaying his Social Security because he can live within his means from the investments Citi currently has.

If I've added these up correctly and so do the math and yell at me if I got it wrong, it's about $850,000 that he has accumulated in IRAs, CDs, a couple CDs and savings accounts.

If his income from these investments is adequate enough to cover his expenses, he's doing great.

Well, let's be clear, though, relatively conservative.

So let's assume just for the sake of demonstration that he's earning a 4% return and he's spending that 4% of 850 would be about 34,000 bucks a year.

It would be, what, 26, 20 $700 a month?

If his monthly expenses are covered by that amount, he doesn't have to do anything different.

There is no requirement that in retirement that you do anything other than what works for you.

And what works for you is simply determined by is it?

Are you successfully covering your your expenses or not?

Or not?

Let's paint a slightly different scenario.

I'd say that he can't live on 20 $700 a month.

He needs 40 $700 a month, even though he's 62.

His Social Security.

I'm guessing roughly $2,000 a month might be necessary if he takes his Social Security as it to his earnings, even though he's conservatively invested.

He now covers his expenses and life is pretty darn good.

If it's not required, he can then push it off to 6567 to maximize his investment I'm sorry, his Social Security benefit.

He would go to age 70 and might very well want to do that.

He might very well want to dip into some of his savings to carry him through, because if I pick the number of $2,000 as Social Security benefit at age 62, at normal retirement age, that same number, that 2000 would not be 2000.

It would be more in the 27, 20 $800 a month range, a substantial increase.

And if he liked that increase, 2700 waiting until age 70 is going to be more like 33, 3400.

It's not doubling his Social Security benefit, but it's really close.

And if he can, because he's frugal, because he has perhaps he has other income, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps he can bridge from where he is currently until the cash can go to age 70.

I'd be fantastic.

Maximize his Social Security.

He increases dramatically his probability of living a long and healthy life without running out of money, because Social Security, at least as it's currently constructed, is guaranteed for life.

And he will not run out of money.

He will have a much larger monthly income from his benefits.

And even if it ends up that his 850 stays level, he has to consume some of the old, perhaps all the profits, even if it dips a little bit.

If he can buy himself from 2000 and months of benefits to 33 or 3400 a month.

Probably the best idea for him, probably the best idea for it.

Well done, UCERIS, You have done it remarkably well.

Retired early on your own home.

Almost $1,000,000 in savings.

Well done.

Hopefully I can say the same thing about myself after I've answered the next question makes What's next?

We'll find out.

This one says, My full retirement age is 67, wondering if I collect any time sooner than that and make more than 22,000 at a job.

How is the penalty applied?

Thank you.

Yeah.

This is a very, very common challenge conundrum for folks today, far more than it was a thousand years ago when I became an adviser for the first time.

It wasn't exactly thousand.

It's more like 780.

Bottom line is, for many folks, taking their retirement at normal retirement age was mandatory because they had no other income.

They had no other options for income.

Believe it or not, there was a time in America where if you were 5055, certainly and you lost your job, excuse me, you were never employed again because companies would not hire someone at age 55 because their assumption was by the time we get you trained, you will either quit, retire or die.

And many, many years ago, that was likely the case.

Not the case today.

Not the case today.

There are companies begging for seasoned employees, employees that are a little further down the road.

5055 is nothing now.

So if you are so inclined and you're in that retirement window but you still want to work, maybe you enjoy the people, maybe enjoy the work, maybe just enjoy the 22,000 bucks a year that you're putting in your pocket.

You can enjoy a lot from this.

But the IRS, the Social Security system has rules that if you are below your normal retirement age now, that's a little different for different ages, different dates of birth.

But we'll use 67 as a good example.

If you take money, take benefits before your normal retirement age and you earn too much.

I'm going by memory.

I think the current limits, about 15, $16,000.

It might be slightly higher.

Let's let's make it easy on Jean and say it's 12,000.

It isn't.

But we're going to you'll see why.

That means he's making $10,000 over the limit.

What the Social Security system will do is that they will reduce his annual benefits $1 for every $2 that he has earned above the benefit that above the the the limit.

The the earnings limit.

So if he's $10,000 over the limit, he will lose $5,000 in benefits.

And if his benefits are I'm picking a number $2,000 a month, he will lose two and a half months of benefits.

Now, losing is an interesting phrase.

Certainly he does not receive them this year.

So he has indeed lost.

From a cash flow standpoint, certainly for the current year.

$2,000 a month times two and a half months.

But he has not lost benefits because those benefits that are not paid out this year become part of his deferral so that his later year benefits will actually be higher than they are currently projected to be, because that extra 5000 that he did not take is deferred, is pushed off into a future set of Social Security benefits.

It may not bump it dramatically.

It may only be 50, 75, $100 a month, but it could be a substantial sum.

And because certainly the academic studies support the fact that retirement it could very well be overrated, that continuing to work, be productive, be of service, be active, be out there as long as you can.

This individual might very well work well beyond normal retirement age.

And then life gets really nice because at normal retirement age, 67 for him, he can earn whatever he wants.

There are no reductions.

So at 67, if he gets a job at 120,000 bucks a year, doesn't affect that at all.

By the way, if he gets a job like that, he should call me.

I got some referrals for him.

Those are cool jobs and he shouldn't be taking Social Security at all at that point.

Interesting question.

Brief.

But it has a lot of impact for a lot of you out there planning what we used to just call retirement.

Now we might call semi-retirement, we might call a quasi retirement, whatever we call it.

It may very well mean that you are far more productive.

You have far more to add many, many years into your life than we would have thought just a few years ago.

Well done, you, Megs.

What's next?

Our next question says, In order to shield my real estate investments from inheritance taxes, should I set up an irrevocable trust and place the properties in this trust?

No.

Next question.

No kidding.

Kidding, kidding.

The issue of inheritance taxes is is one of the most misunderstood in our financial world in as a financial adviser in our world, some very, very smart people.

Lots of very, very smart people.

Lots of very financially successful people do not currently understand how inheritance tax challenges are either presented or met.

Inheritance taxes on a federal level are largely nonexistent under current rules.

The rules are set to change next year, but under current rules, an individual rule could pass an estate of well over $12 million.

And there is no federal estate tax.

Zero.

So any avoidance strategy that you might employ intended to reduce taxes on federal estate taxes, if you have an estate under 12 million, is time and money and resources wasted.

And by the way, just to make it more interesting, if you happen to be married, that is the the the limit.

The exclusion is doubled.

So you're in the 24 and $25 million range that if your estate is not above that number, the federal government has no interest whatsoever.

You pay zero.

Now that's not to say that there are not states that have their own state death tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, car.

What you will.

Florida, for example, is famous.

It's it is a huge draw.

One of the reasons it's a huge draw for wealthy folks is that they have no stake.

Inheritance tax.

Pennsylvania, for example, does.

And it can be onerous if it's a direct descendant, four and a half percent.

If you have $1,000,000 state, 45,000 bucks if it's family, but not direct descendant siblings, for example, it's 12% million dollar estate, 120,000.

And if there's no real blood connection, anyone else, that's the beneficiary.

It's 15%.

So if you have $1,000,000 estate.

Yeah, the state of Pennsylvania is expecting a check for 150,000 bucks.

These are not small numbers.

We don't know what the total value of these properties are or where this individual fits, but I'm going to make some assumptions so I can give you a demonstration.

I'm going to assume that the total estates, about 3 million, I'm going to assume it goes directly to the children.

I'm going to assume that there's about $1,000,000 of real estate here in terms of rentals.

So are we going to put our million dollars into an irrevocable, irrevocable, unable to be changed trust to avoid four and a half percent inheritance tax?

Maybe.

Maybe you might find that perfectly appropriate for you.

You may so find that $45,000 offensive that you will spend a chunk of that.

Setting up an irrevocable trust is not free.

There are legal fees.

There are accounting fees.

There are reportings that must be done on an annual basis.

So there will be a cost involved.

And the younger you are, the higher the cost, because there will be costs annually for as long as you live that.

But you may be so offended by that 45,000.

You absolutely want to do that.

Excellent.

Oswego or you may very well look at this and say, Now, wait a second.

Talk to me again about irrevocable.

What if I want to do something with it?

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

It's not yours.

You do not own this property.

It is in a trust.

The trustee will decide if the properties are bought or sold.

The trustee will decide if the rents are raised or lowered.

The trustee will decide all those things.

You don't own it.

You have no control.

And that's enough for about 80, 85% of the folks who really begin to understand irrevocable trust to say, All right, I'm 60 years old, over $3 million estate.

I've done very well.

But I expect to be here for another three or four decades.

What if I need that money back while irrevocable, doesn't do it and they wash their hands of it?

They're not interested in going any further.

Understandably so and intelligently so.

So irrevocable trusts are generally done or limited liability companies LLC in order to protect from liability lawsuits, bankruptcies, etc.

during a person's lifetime in general.

Rarely used in general.

Good, because rarely appropriate.

But make sure that you're you're counseling with a trusted, experienced estate planning attorney before you make any decisions about that.

Next, we have one more.

We do.

Our last question says I'm a big fan of your show and watch every chance I get.

I'm a widower 75 year old retired Pennsylvania resident thinking about selling my home in which I own to move closer to my daughter, who's in South Carolina.

I have a question about capital gains tax.

Wondering, is there a $250,000 capital gains tax exemption when selling your primary home?

I have tried to research this topic, but I am sorry to say I have not been successful.

Any and all information you can provide is greatly appreciated.

Well, I am.

I'm happy to give you all the information that you need, and I think you're going to be very happy.

The whole South Carolina thing.

Why would you leave the glorious state of Pennsylvania for that?

It's really not very.

Are you kidding?

South Carolina is gorgeous.

Now, personally, I'm never live in P.A..

I love travel.

I love seeing everything.

I love coming home.

And now that I have a grandbaby, yeah, I'm not going anywhere soon.

But you have, in my opinion, an outstanding reason for moving south.

You want to be closer to your daughter?

It's the father of daughters.

It's a good move.

It's a very wise thing you're doing.

So the question is capital gains, is there a $250,000 exception?

The answer is yes.

And it's on the gain.

It's not on the sale price.

So let's I'm picking numbers out of thin air.

You pay 200,000 for your house.

It's worth 400.

You're going to sell it.

The gain is approximately 200.

No tax.

No tax at all.

You'll walk away with all those proceeds in your pocket.

Uncle Sam doesn't take any of that.

It's a pretty cool thing.

It's a pretty cool thing indeed.

Research on the Internet can be challenging.

So the fact that you couldn't find these answers is not surprising.

I want to caution folks who do research on Google, on Internet, any search engine, be very cautious, be very vigilant about identifying the date that something was posted.

We recently had a audience member reach out to us because they were very distraught.

They had put in $7,500 into their IRAs and they went online and found out that the limit was four.

They didn't notice that the article had been published 20 years ago.

Once it's on the Internet, stays on the Internet, But it doesn't make it correct.

It doesn't bring it up to date.

It doesn't refresh.

You need to do that.

And of course, if you bump into something, just as this gentleman did reach out to us, that's what we're here for.

Hopefully you enjoyed some or all of the show.

Hopefully you picked up a couple ideas.

If you have questions for us, if you would like to help us stay the most relevant financial show on radio and television, because we answer your questions, your priorities, your most important questions directly back to you.

Send this to me.

Gene, at ask MTM dot com.

One of our team will be very happy to return that message back to you and give you all the help we can.

Hopefully enough that you'll want to come back next week when we're back here behind this podium for another edition of more than money.

Good night.