Chris’s Summary
Jim and I are joined by Steve Sansone as we discuss cash balance plans and explain how they function as hybrid defined benefit plans that present as account-based arrangements. We cover who these plans are designed for, including high-income business owners and professional groups, how age and employee demographics affect feasibility, and why allowable contribution levels can far exceed defined contribution limits. We also outline nondiscrimination rules and how they are applied, employer commitment requirements, and other general setup considerations.

Jim’s “Pithy” Summary
Chris and I are joined by Steve Sansone as we take a deeper dive into cash balance plans and why they show up in very specific situations, not as a one-size-fits-all solution. Steve explains how these plans sit in the defined benefit world but look like a defined contribution account, which is where a lot of confusion starts. We spend time on who they’re actually built for, why high-income professionals tend to be the ones asking about them, and why the contribution numbers can look startling if you haven’t seen the mechanics before.

We also talk through the tradeoffs, because these plans are not free money and they are not magic. Steve walks through how demographics drive everything, why age gaps between owners and employees matter, and how employer contributions to staff are part of the deal. We discuss why, in the wrong situation, these plans can pour fuel on the fire of a future tax problem, and why, in the right situation, they can make sense when paired with intentional planning during the retirement tax planning window before required minimum distributions begin. We frame that discussion around the same planning lens we use elsewhere on the show, including how the 2-1-0 Tax Ordering Number concept helps evaluate whether the front-end tax benefit is worth the back-end complexity.

The post Cash Balance Plans Explained: EDU #2552 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Jim and Chris discuss listener emails on Social Security spousal eligibility and claiming coordination, a listener PSA on Social Security proof of marriage requirements, RMD planning while still working, money market earnings in brokerage accounts, and using QLACs for long-term care planning.
(16:15) Georgette asks whether the repeal of WEP and GPO affects her eligibility for a spousal benefit if her ex-husband worked for the federal government and she did not pay into Social Security.
(26:45) A listener asks how Social Security works when one spouse lacks enough work credits for their own benefit and only qualifies for a spousal benefit, including whether both spouses must claim at full retirement age to access that benefit.
(42:00) The guys address a PSA on why Social Security may already have proof of marriage on file for one spouse due to a name change but still requires documentation from the other spouse when benefits are claimed.
(49:30) Jim and Chris discuss whether maximizing pre-tax retirement contributions and rolling a SEP IRA into a 403(b) can reduce or eliminate RMDs under the still-working exception.
(1:06:45) A listener questions the statement that Money Market earnings are minimal, pointing to current yields in a fund they hold.
(1:12:00) The guys respond to feedback on whether a QLAC could be an effective way to address long-term care planning when self-funding alone does not feel sufficient.

The post Social Security, RMDs, Money Market Earnings, QLACs: Q&A #2551 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.

Chris’s Summary
Jim and I are joined by Jake Turner as we cover the Math Act and a set of shorter EDU topics Jim has been collecting. We start with an SSA-44 update, including listener and client feedback on submitting the IRMAA redetermination form online through an SSA.gov account. Jake explains how IRS “math error” notices work today, why they’re often vague, and what the new law requires for clearer explanations and response deadlines. Jim then walks through the Automatic IRA Act’s proposals, including an annuity-style “protected lifetime income solution” requirement over certain balances, and we close with a quick way to sanity-check MYGA rates using AnnuityRateWatch’s yield curve.

Jim’s “Pithy” Summary
Chris and I are joined by Jake Turner as we bounce from Social Security admin housekeeping to Washington trying, yet again, to make the IRS act like it’s talking to actual humans—starting with the Math Act. If you’ve ever opened one of those IRS letters that basically says “you owe us money” without showing you how they got there, you already know why this matters. Jake lays out what those notices are really doing behind the scenes, why clients forward them to preparers in a panic, and what the new requirements are supposed to force the IRS to include so you can actually understand what they’re alleging and what happens if you don’t respond.

Then we pivot into the Automatic IRA Act, and I’ll be honest: I’m less interested in the political theater than I am in what it signals. There’s the small-business auto-enrollment concept—opt-out, no match requirement, and all that—and then there’s the part that made me laugh out loud when I saw who was cheering it on. Once you cross a certain 401(k) balance, the proposal would require employers to offer a “protected lifetime income solution,” which is just a polite way of saying “annuities are trying to get a bigger seat at the 401(k) table.” That opens up all the practical questions: what counts, who defines it, and how this intersects with the slow drift of defined contribution plans trying to behave a little more like pensions.

The post Math Act and Automatic IRA Act: EDU #2551 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show.