Think twice about asking adult children to avoid selling family home
Q: I have two grown children, neither of whom owns a home, and three grandchildren. I would very much like to keep my house in the family for all to use, if and when needed. It is not large, and it would be somewhat difficult for two families to ...
Q: I have two grown children, neither of whom owns a home, and three grandchildren. I would very much like to keep my house in the family for all to use, if and when needed. It is not large, and it would be somewhat difficult for two families to live here at the same time. I have a trust that splits everything between the two children. I also have handwritten a note and had it notarized explaining I would like the house kept in the family and not sold or mortgaged. Can you advise me?
A: Please think long and hard before you try to restrict what the next generation does with a bequest, particularly when it's real estate. Is your desire to keep the house in the family worth causing rifts in that family?
It would be hard for two families to share even a large home. You could be setting up epic battles, not only over who gets to live there but how much is spent to maintain, repair and update the home. It's difficult enough for married couples to own property together; siblings are almost certain to disagree about how much to spend and the differences may be even greater if only one family is actually using the house.
If your house is sold, on the other hand, it could provide nice down payments for each family to buy its own home. Alternatively, one family could get a mortgage to buy out the other and live in the house. Or the home could be mortgaged to provide two down payments and then rented out. Your notarized note wouldn't prevent your children from doing any of these things, but it may cause them unnecessary guilt and disagreements about honoring those wishes.
Q: I am paying rent for my adult son in another state. He gets occasional help from various services, but if I don't want him to sleep on the street, I have to pay his rent and send some emergency food. I don't see this changing. Can I claim him as a dependent or would that make me responsible for his health insurance, which I cannot afford?
A: Yes, you would be responsible for your son's health insurance coverage if you claimed him as a dependent, said Carolyn McClanahan, a certified financial planner with Life Planning Partners in Jacksonville, Fla. That would mean either paying for coverage or paying the fine for not having coverage. The fine for 2016 is $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of your household adjusted gross income, whichever is greater. The penalty is capped at $2,085, which is likely much more than what you'd save with an additional exemption. If you're in the 25 percent tax bracket, a $4,050 personal exemption is worth a little over $1,000.
The IRS has many rules about dependents, and standards for claiming adult children are much higher when they're over 19 (or over 24 for full-time students). To qualify, your son would have to earn less than the amount of the personal exemption ($4,050 in 2016), and you must have provided more than half of his support, among other rules.
Q: If you have all your required obligations covered during retirement, is having 70 percent of your portfolio in equities too risky?
A: Probably not, but a lot depends on your stomach.
Retirees typically need a hefty dollop of stocks to preserve their purchasing power over a long retirement, with many planners recommending a 40 to 60 percent allocation in early retirement. A heftier allocation isn't unreasonable if all of your basic expenses are covered by guaranteed income, such as Social Security, pensions and annuities. Ideally, those pensions and annuities would have cost-of-living adjustments, especially if they're meant to pay expenses that rise with inflation.
Historically, retirees have been told they need to reduce their equity exposure as they age, but there's some evidence that the opposite is true. Research by financial planners Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces found that increasing your stock holdings in retirement, where the allocation starts out more conservative and gets more aggressive, may reduce the chances of running short of money. Their paper, "Reducing Retirement Risk with a Rising Equity Glide-Path," was published in the Journal for Financial Planning and is available online for free.
That said, you don't want your investments to give you ulcers. If you couldn't withstand a big downturn - one that cuts your portfolio in half, say - then you may want to cushion your retirement funds with less risky alternatives.
Liz Weston, certified financial planner, is a personal finance columnist for NerdWallet. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the "Contact" form at asklizweston.com. Distributed by No More Red Inc.