Home > Personal Finance > My Smartest Money Move: Taking More From My IRA

Comments 0 Comments

We’re taught to think of retirement savings as a source of last resort — money that we shouldn’t touch until all other resources have been used up. However, given the way the tax rules work in combination with the nature of Social Security benefits, it can often be in your best interest to use your retirement savings (IRAs, 401(k) accounts, and the like) to allow you to delay and maximize your Social Security benefits. Below is a version of a situation that I recently worked through with a client.

Tom, age 60 and recently retired, was in a unique position. He plans to relocate to New Mexico in retirement, and will be purchasing a home there. Tom has a pension of $18,000 with no cost of living adjustments and his needs for income (beyond housing purchase) will be $30,000 per year. Tom’s Social Security benefit is estimated at $12,000 per year if he delays taking the benefit until full retirement age, or $9,000 if he starts at age 62. Delaying his Social Security to age 70 would result in a total benefit of $15,840 per year.

Although Tom hasn’t picked out a home in New Mexico, he’s anticipating that the new home will cost something on the order of $200,000, with a mortgage of approximately $180,000. He’s planning to maintain his home in Ohio, in order to have a place to stay when he visits family, which will be a regular occurrence.

Tom’s Original Plan

Tom also has an IRA worth $300,000. His plan has always been to use the IRA when necessary for living expenses, and pass along the remainder of the account, if any, to his siblings. With the above facts, here’s what Tom had originally planned:
Tom takes out a mortgage on his new home in the amount of $180,000. He can get a 25-year mortgage at a rate of approximately 3.5%, which would add approximately $10,813 to his annual expenses for the payments. Since he doesn’t have a large enough income from his pension to cover his other living expenses, he’ll need to augment the pension with disbursements from his IRA, in the amount of $12,000. When you add the cost of the mortgage, he will need to withdraw a total of $22,813 from his IRA each year. When Tom reaches age 62 he will file for Social Security, and he can reduce the amount of his IRA disbursements annually by the $9,000 that his Social Security benefit replaces.

The Updated Plan

A much better result can be found for Tom if he takes a different tack — one that sees his IRA as more expendable and which maximizes the Social Security benefit that he’ll receive, while at the same time reducing his interest costs for the mortgage. This is a dramatic departure from conventional wisdom — shortening the length of a very low-cost mortgage, and using IRA funds in a much quicker fashion.

We’ll see a bit later that the mortgage and the IRA aren’t the critical components — this updated plan is a much more tax-efficient use of the available resources. Here’s how the numbers play out for this option:
Tom can take out a 10-year mortgage on his home, at a cost of approximately 2.5%, which results in payments of $20,362 per year. Again, since he can’t cover his total living expense requirement with his pension, Tom must augment his income with IRA withdrawals to cover both the expenses and his mortgage payment, so he’ll need to withdraw approximately $32,362 from his IRA each year. In addition, Tom will delay filing for his Social Security benefit in order to maximize it — he won’t file for benefits until age 70, for a benefit of $15,840 per year.

So — if we assume that the IRA grows by a rate of 5% per year, at the end of ten years when Tom is 70, using the first method he will (upon reaching 70½) have to take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from the IRA that are larger than his needs. His IRA will have a balance of roughly $287,665, and the first RMD would be almost $17,000, when he only needs $13,813. This excessive withdrawal requirement will be fully taxed as ordinary income; he can invest the remainder in a taxable account (if there is any after taxes).

Using the second method, Tom’s IRA is down to $81,618 by age 70½, so his RMD is much, much smaller, approximately $3,961. On top of that, he has now paid off his mortgage, so the only amount he needs for expenses is the $30,000. With his pension and the maximized Social Security he has $33,840 coming in, so he has an excess of $7,801 ($3,840 Social Security and $3,961 from his IRA), which he uses to pay his income taxes and invests the remainder in a taxable account.

But here’s the really cool part — because Tom’s RMD is so small, it keeps a large portion of his income at very low tax rates, and much of his Social Security is not taxed at all! Under the current rules, only approximately $2,440 of his benefit is taxed, and that portion is only 50% taxed. As a result, Tom’s total income is only 65% taxed — and his effective tax rate is 2.76%. Under the original plan, more than two-thirds of Tom’s Social Security benefit is taxed, and his effective tax rate is 7.65% at that stage. Plus, he still has 15 more years of interest to pay on his mortgage!

The favorable tax treatment of Tom’s Social Security benefit continues throughout his life — at this stage he’ll wind up paying something around or less than 3% in income tax for the rest of his life. On the other hand, since the first plan resulted in a much larger amount of his reduced Social Security benefit being taxed, and the preserved IRA forces him to recognize additional income that he doesn’t need (but is taxed on, nonetheless!), he will continue to pay taxes at effective rates ranging up to approximately 8.7% for the rest of his life. This doesn’t even address the additional interest he’s paying over the additional 15 years (at a higher rate) for the longer-term mortgage.

The Takeaway

With some shrewd planning, Tom winds up paying $60,000 less in interest, $22,000 less in income taxes, and still has $245,000 left in the combination of his IRA and his taxable account at age 85. By comparison, after paying the additional taxes and interest, Tom would have approximately $251,000 in his IRA at age 85 — and in both cases his home is now paid off. The difference is that his future income will continue to be taxed at nearly triple the rate under the original plan as it is with the revised plan. Tom can enjoy his paid-off home much earlier, and at the same time enjoy nearly tax-free income, and still leave a legacy for his siblings.

Note: the cost-of-living adjustments (inflation and Social Security COLAs) have not been factored in the calculations above. In addition, only the current tax tables (2013) were used for projecting taxation, and the current rules for Social Security benefit taxation have been used. This was done to keep from confusing the process and to preserve clarity. The primary place that inflation, COLAs and tax rates would impact the calculations is in the amount of taxation of the Social Security benefit, but the expectation is that inflation, COLAs and tax tables will increase in tandem, more or less at the same rates over time. The affect is that the second method would still result in lower costs of interest and lower taxes in the long run, but the future numbers are bound to be different from the projections.

Image: iStockphoto

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team