Retirement Targets

[BCClone]

Got it. I was talking only about the lawyer fees, not the probate cost you were referring to.

That’s an important part to understand. Why I mentioned getting an hourly attorney (will preface this that it’s for estates a million or over for sure). If it’s a very small estate line 100k then the percentage probably works. The executor can charge up to 2% also. I didn’t charge on my moms since it was my family and I felt I was a loser if I did that. So fees can add up quick.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I don't think that's true. Cyclone Fanatic's advertiser Hope Wood states this on her website. The reason to create a trust is to avoid probate. If your estate is high enough, it will save money. My lawyer friend says anything that goes through probate, they charge 2% of the value. So, if you have 1 million go through probate, that's 20,000 that the lawyer takes.
https://www.hopewoodjd.com/answers-on-probate#:~:text=Real estate: A will does,value of the real estate.

Our lawyer told us that going the will route would cost our kids around $24,000 from our estate, which is why they were suggesting set up a trust now and avoid all of that cost for your kids down the road. I believe it costing us 2 grand to set up the trust, we will find out the exact amount on Friday when we meet with them and sign all the paperwork.
Like I said before, my mom's attorney fee was $9,000 and she had the house and less than $50 grand in savings at the time of her passing.
Many people set up the will because its cheap to do, not worrying about lawyer fees when they pass, and what we are finding out, are unbelievable high.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

That’s an important part to understand. Why I mentioned getting an hourly attorney (will preface this that it’s for estates a million or over for sure). If it’s a very small estate line 100k then the percentage probably works. The executor can charge up to 2% also. I didn’t charge on my moms since it was my family and I felt I was a loser if I did that. So fees can add up quick.

You have to remember that a million-dollar estate is not as difficult as many people think anymore. We reached that figure easily when you figured in the value of your home, savings, retirement plan and other funds. It was that reason alone we decided to go with a trust.

 

[Mr.G.Spot]

You have to remember that a million-dollar estate is not as difficult as many people think anymore. We reached that figure easily when you figured in the value of your home, savings, retirement plan and other funds. It was that reason alone we decided to go with a trust.

I would never pay a lawyer a percent fee of anything. Hourly charge only.

 

[KnappShack]

I would never pay a lawyer a percent fee of anything. Hourly charge only.

Is LegalZoom still a thing?

Did my divorce on that one.

 

[Mr.G.Spot]

Is LegalZoom still a thing?

Did my divorce on that one.

That's awesome. I hope everything worked out.

 

[KnappShack]

That's awesome. I hope everything worked out.

Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it's worth every penny.

 

[Jayshellberg]

You have to remember that a million-dollar estate is not as difficult as many people think anymore. We reached that figure easily when you figured in the value of your home, savings, retirement plan and other funds. It was that reason alone we decided to go with a trust.

Your lawyer gave you good advice. Moving assets into a revocable trust makes it much smoother and cheaper for survivors. The only thing I wound point out is the financial accounts with named beneficiaries will trump any named beneficiaries in a will or trust. For example, if your IRA or 401K names certain individuals as the beneficiaries, they will receive the funds, regardless of what your will or trust states.

That is one of the reasons we still have wills and have not YET set up revocable living trusts. Specifically, over 90 percent of our assets have named beneficiaries. Such assets will NOT go through probate.

In the future, we will likely have a larger percentage of our assets outside of beneficiary-type accounts (e.g. IRAs and 401s). This will nudge us into drawing up revocable living trusts and re-titling assets.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Your lawyer gave you good advice. Moving assets into a revocable trust makes it much smoother and cheaper for survivors. The only thing I wound point out is the financial accounts with named beneficiaries will trump any named beneficiaries in a will or trust. For example, if your IRA or 401K names certain individuals as the beneficiaries, they will receive the funds, regardless of what your will or trust states.

That is one of the reasons my will and I have not YET set up revocable living trusts. Specifically, over 90 percent of our assets have named beneficiaries. Such assets will NOT go through probate.

In the future, we will likely have a larger percentage of our assets outside of beneficiary-type accounts (e.g. IRAs and 401s). This will precipitate us into drawing up revocable living trusts and re-titling assets.

Good advice but we have no IRA's and very little in a 401K, most of your funds are controlled by our financial advisor that we have worked with for over 30 years, actually now it's his son that we work with. Most of the funds are in zero interest bonds and blue chip stocks. The way it was set up in the 80's is that it pays any taxes that is owed, and we just take a set amount out of it each month. We have a smaller cash account with we can use for emergencies with 30 or 40 grand in it.
The idea of the trust is once those funds are placed in the trust, on our death all the stocks and bonds will be liquidated, and those funds will move to our three remaining children. Since we are far below the estate tax level, they should not end up paying any tax on those funds or the sale of our house.

 

[Mr.G.Spot]

Your lawyer gave you good advice. Moving assets into a revocable trust makes it much smoother and cheaper for survivors. The only thing I wound point out is the financial accounts with named beneficiaries will trump any named beneficiaries in a will or trust. For example, if your IRA or 401K names certain individuals as the beneficiaries, they will receive the funds, regardless of what your will or trust states.

That is one of the reasons my will and I have not YET set up revocable living trusts. Specifically, over 90 percent of our assets have named beneficiaries. Such assets will NOT go through probate.

In the future, we will likely have a larger percentage of our assets outside of beneficiary-type accounts (e.g. IRAs and 401s). This will precipitate us into drawing up revocable living trusts and re-titling assets.

Yes. Banks and wealth mgmt firms have standard "payment upon death" forms that designate where the money goes.. For the most part, POD documentation is acceptable to stop the probate bs. I am not sure about hard assets, real estate etc. Any lawyers or people with experience on POD forms? Is this only for certain size of estates or liquid assets?

 

[Stormin]

If you have one big hunk of wood, you don't need three legs though.

Most people are not inheriting farms. That big chunk of wood. 4 legged stool better than 3 legged. Social Security is an insurance program.

 

[cyclonemagic]

Thanks, but since I am going through all of this with my mom, we decided not to make our children have to do the same with us. Our goal originally was just to redo our wills which were 30 years old and were written when our children where small. Now they are grown, married and have children of their own, so it should be updated. When we spoke to our lawyer, she said that many people including her parents have moved to a trust for their estate, the main reason is cost after your death. Drawing up a new will would have cost us a couple hundred dollars, but she stated many lawyers today will charge a percent of the estate if there is just a will, which in my mother's case is costing us $9,000, ours would be well over double that. So, we figured it's a lot cheaper to spend the $2,000 now, then have our kids pay out the much larger number in the future. If having a trust shields our assists from nursing homes in the future, I can live with that also.

My wife and I were in a similar situation. We had an old and somewhat outdated will created when our son (only child) was young. Many years later we are approaching retirement and my son is an adult. We moved to trust a couple of years ago to avoid probate. We are going to discuss Medicare planning in relation to our trust at our next review in 2024.

 

[Stormin]

The employer still logs that 6.2% they pay as employee benefits. If they weren’t paying that, it would be made as a benefit or additional pay to the employee. Every company I’ve been at as factored it in as a benefit and calculated when COL raises and other benefits are brought up.

BS. Eliminate those taxes and benefits and there is NO guarantee at all that there would be a 6.2% increase in wages.

Social Security is an insurance program. And benefits receive COLA. Eliminate the SS earnings cap for SS tax. Solution is pretty simple.

 

[Stormin]

My wife and I were in a similar situation. We had an old and somewhat outdated will created when our son (only child) was young. Many years later we are approaching retirement and my son is an adult. We moved to trust a couple of years ago to avoid probate. We are going to discuss Medicare planning in relation to our trust at our next review in 2024.

Lawyers are not allowed to charge more than 2% of estate value for fees. The 2% is negotiable. Larger estates negotiate the attorney fees. Lawyers like to give impression that fee is fixed at 2% that they must get. That is not true.

 

[cyclonemagic]

The American Council on Aging has excellent information on Medicaid Long Term Care including state requirements:

Medicaid Planning Strategies: Approaches to Qualify for Medicaid Long Term Care

The site discusses several asset planning strategies that are important when one is over the Medicaid limits. This is very useful to consider for your own or your parent's estate planning in order to protect assets (especially for the spousal protections for the spouse that does not require long term care). It's also important to know your state's requirements. Medicare via its estate recovery program can take a lien against one's home or make claims against the estate to pay for the costs of the while under Medicare.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

BS. Eliminate those taxes and benefits and there is NO guarantee at all that there would be a 6.2% increase in wages.

Social Security is an insurance program. And benefits receive COLA. Eliminate the SS earnings cap for SS tax. Solution is pretty simple.

I agree, anyone that thinks businesses would start giving out 6% raises if they did not have to pay into SS own the business. They may raise benefits a little, but the business would also take some if not all the 6% that they do not have to pay into SS.

Eliminating the cap brings in the most money, effects the fewest people, many of which would not be harmed by the increase. But those on the right want working class folks to put in a few more years working to protect the interests of the wealthy.

 

[BCClone]

I agree, anyone that thinks businesses would start giving out 6% raises if they did not have to pay into SS own the business. They may raise benefits a little, but the business would also take some if not all the 6% that they do not have to pay into SS.

Eliminating the cap brings in the most money, affects the fewest people, many of which would not be harmed by the increase. But those on the right want working class folks to put in a few more years working to protect the interests of the wealthy.

I never said they would hand it out immediately, over a few years businesses would end up paying out most of it. One business would need employees and that would be the first place they would pull from to make their wages attractive. Then it becomes a ripple effect.

 

[SCNCY]

I agree, anyone that thinks businesses would start giving out 6% raises if they did not have to pay into SS own the business. They may raise benefits a little, but the business would also take some if not all the 6% that they do not have to pay into SS.

Eliminating the cap brings in the most money, effects the fewest people, many of which would not be harmed by the increase. But those on the right want working class folks to put in a few more years working to protect the interests of the wealthy.

Agreed. Case in point, the Turmp tax cuts. Businesses were giving out small bonuses to their employees as a result of it. However, after that first year, did those bonuses continue as a result of the continued tax cut? Not from what I can tell.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I never said they would hand it out immediately, over a few years businesses would end up paying out most of it. One business would need employees and that would be the first place they would pull from to make their wages attractive. Then it becomes a ripple effect.

I think you are greatly overestimating the generosity of businesses and corporations all across this great nation. Most view the workers as nothing more than a piece of equipment to be used and then disposed of when they no longer have much value. Those same businesses are not now going to do a 180 and start handing out raises because they are not giving that money to the government. Corporations would see it as way to funnel even more money to stockholders or into stock buybacks.
The average worker would see very little of that money, let alone a 6% raise of benefits.

 

[yowza]

Nothing gets done because the Senate rules make it basically impossible for anything major to pass without 60 votes to bring it to a vote. Which is a silly rule, that neither side is willing to do away with.

If you don't it basically turns into the House. They just have longer terms. The Senate was intended to temper the whims of the House which was elected every 2 years.

Extending that out a bit, then also for just having simple majorities override Presidential vetoes?