Not sure how much employees have to kick in, but certainly Starbucks pays a lot….
1 Like
Same. I dropped from a silver to a bronze for this year because mine was just getting too high. Plus, the bronze added in a facility I really wanted to be in network.
But, yes, we pay $25k per year. Dh has four more years until Medicare eligible, and I have five.
It does pay to look at the Medicare web site to compare the drug plans each year based on the medications you take. Of course, if you add medications during the year, you could have a high priced medication added and don’t know what you will need to pay out of pocket with that. We have changed drug plans each year for both of us except for this year when I kept on the same drug plan.
I believe Medicare people are going to get some relief for those that pay a lot for medications, as in 2025 I believe the government is capping how much out of pocket a Medicare person will pay for drugs. IDK if this is capped only if you are in a drug plan or under a Medicare plan that covers drugs.
1 Like
I found that the premium differential between Gold & Bronze is more than the Bronze premium + hitting the max OOP each year.
If I were to receive the same amount of health care under Gold that I would to trigger the OOP max on Bronze, the differential widens to favor the Bronze plan. Also need to calculate the tax savings of funding the HSA for the Bronze HDHP.
This pricing differential is not the same at all age brackets, but it has worked for me these past several years, even when I trigger the $7K OOP.
2 Likes
Starbucks, like any employer, has to pay a decent portion of the health care cost - for DH and my employer, it was about 75% of family coverage and 50% of individual coverage. I cannot imagine Starbucks paying more for insurance coverage than that. It also tells you how much overhead costs employers with actual service locations - and how much mark up Starbucks has with their product. But having fresh beans with their machines and variety of their coffee products, it is a little luxury many obviously want.
Starbucks offers insurance for PT employees who work 20 hours a week because that fits their business model – they need stable workers outside of their managers, and probably have only one or two who work 20 hours a week for their small Starbuck locations and the rest working less. And they probably limit many employees to 19 or less hours scheduled. DD2 worked for a franchised Smoothie King over a summer, and all their employees except for a few managers worked four six hour shifts a week – that was the scheduling that worked out for them – and their threshold for insurance probably was 30 hours a week. I know some large companies who offer insurance benefits for 30 hours/week.
You might investigate if your employer or your DH’s employer allows insurance coverage with 30 hours a week of work - or if there is a similar employer which does, so one could retire while the other can ‘scale back’ a bit with work at the right time until you get to both having Medicare. But it also means not doing 40 hours of work compressed into 30 hours either. Have to be careful.
Met up with some friends recently - he retired at 65 and was great; his wife retired but she says she ‘failed’ at retirement - she works 20 hours/week (they are both engineers). So I guess she liked the mix of what she did at work with the rest of her life style.
DH and I both have ‘no looking back’ - we both turn 68 this year. We both are pretty active with volunteer or church activities, while I also am available for out of town family needs.
2 Likes
We have the BCBS Medicare supplement plan (in our state they call that plan C+ but it is essentially Medicare Select Plan G - which is what is on the Card), but we do not carry their drug plan. It is cheaper for both of us to have different drug plans (and neither DH nor I are on the same drug plan).
Insurance for those seeking coverage prior to Medicare, that is a whole different thing. Depending on your state and the federal options for health care coverage. That is a whole different investigation.
I’ve gotten at least two different interpretations on beneficiary IRAs and recent changes to SECURE. Original owner died in 2023 and was taking a RMD. IRS guidance is not yet finalized but our attorney suggests I will need to take a RMD this year instead of waiting until I retire and employment income drops. Is anyone else in this situation? I realize this is a gross generalization but if I do need to start taking one I’m trying to think through what to do with the money.
My dad died early 2021. He had not taken his RMD for that year so I was told I had to take it just for that year but have 10 years to take the rest.
The ten year rule - check. The way I was reading SECURE 2.0 led me to believe I didn’t need to take an RMD for those ten years if I didn’t want to - that if I wanted to, I could cash it all out in year ten if I wanted (which I wouldn’t do). We are doing new trust documents and the attorney suggested a yearly RMD would likely be required. It’s all very confusing.
1 Like
Mine was pre- Secure Act. But because my parent was already taking a RMD, I was required to continue to do so. I was 52.
I have been meaning to check on this, but if someone here knows, that would be great.
I inherited a small IRA in 2015. I was under the impression I could keep getting a little money from it until I die, but I think that may be wrong?
Do I need to liquidate it within 10 years of inheriting or something?
Thanks
Inherited IRA distribution rules are a mess.
The answer depends on:
-
Whether the decedent had started taking RMDs
-
Your relationship to the decedent (spouse or other)
-
The year the decedent died
-
(Sometimes) your own life expectancy.
I tried to dive deep into google to find the answer for an IRA inherited by an adult child in 2016, but ultimately decided to assume the financial advisor is getting it right: RMDs every year; no 10-year-rule for us.
3 Likes
It is definitely confusing. Our FA reads the rules each years and explains our options. (So far it has been no withdrawals needed, but all must be gone within 10 years. I might just cash out this year for simplicity sake… total is under 20k)
1 Like
My dad left me his 401k. He was 75 when he passed away. I had to answer few questions on Fidelity and it was determined I needed to take RMD.
1 Like
@1214mom : hugs for your loss. I inherited an IRA in 2016, so fall under the same rules that you do. Aside from (a) the 2020 abatement of RMDs for the year, and (2) the adjustment of the factors in 2022, we continue with RMDs based on our age - the 10 year rule applies to IRAs inherited after December 31, 2019.
(One clarification: This post refers to non-spouse, non-qualified beneficiaries.)
5 Likes
The Secure Act became law in January 2020. My inherited IRA was inherited in 2003, well before those provisions came into play.
We have discussed this with our FP regarding our IRAs and unless something changes, anything left to our kids will be subject to the 10 year withdrawal rule unless something gets changed again.
For spouses, the ten years does not apply…is what were told.
1 Like
That was well before the Secure Act became law. Hopefully someone with this as expertise will respond, but my understanding is that the 10 year rule applies as of the Secure Act becoming law.
2 Likes
Spouses can treat an inherited IRA as their own so the ten year rule won’t apply post Secure. There are a few other situations that are treated differently as well, but for most the inherited amount must be depleted within ten years. I am 100% sure on this.
I took a small distribution last year to finish drawing the RMD. For those of you drawing a RMD from an inherited account, are you putting it into a Roth or some other investment vehicle?
1 Like
To answer your question, I use the inherited RMD to pay taxes.
I don’t think this is what you are saying above but just want to double check.
You cannot have an RMD go directly from your inherited IRA to your Roth.
If you had other funds in your non-inherited IRA, you could also do a Roth conversion, but both the RMD from the inherited IRA and the Roth conversion would be subject to taxation as ordinary income, both state & fed.
One important feature of RMDs is that you can use them to pay your taxes and have the payment to the IRS be treated as if the money had been remitted throughout the year, even though you could elect to pay it on Dec 29th. I have used this approach when I know I will be close on the Safe Harbor amount and don’t want to be bothered filing quarterly taxes.
I think I have posted this before on this thread, but if not, here it is for anyone reading along.
Although estimated tax payments are considered made when you send in the checks — and must be paid as you receive your income during the year — amounts withheld from IRA distributions are considered paid evenly throughout the year, even if made in a lump sum payment at year-end.
So, if your RMD is large enough to cover your entire tax bill, you can keep your cash safely ensconced in the IRA most of the year, avoid withholding on other sources of retirement income, skip quarterly estimated payments . . . and still avoid the underpayment penalty.
2 Likes