I’m a 61-year-old single librarian and ‘proud’ Democrat from Maine. Should I move to Florida like Jeff Bezos?

I finally have something in common with Jeff Bezos. He is moving to Miami. I too am thinking of moving to Florida in the next year or so. My parents retired there 25 years ago; my father passed away in 2019, but my mom is still alive. I am also nearing retirement, and thought I would follow in their footsteps. I have a house in Maine, which I intend to sell when I finally make the move. I’ve lived here for 11 glorious years, and made a lot of friends. I’m a librarian, but don’t believe anything or everything you have heard about librarians, we are a social lot.

I’m 61 and earn $85,000 a year, and have a lot of friends. But I reckon my mom has only a few good years yet, and she is slowing down. I bought my house for $160,000 and it’s now worth $350,000 or thereabouts, if I can sell it with the way interest rates are going. If not, I could rent it out. So my question is: Should I retire to Florida like Jeff Bezos? I’ve been window shopping for properties around Sarasota and Tampa, but I’m flexible. I am proud to live in a blue state, but I also want to be within an hour or so of my mom, so I can see her as often as possible.

I’ve been feeling restless and, frankly, glum lately. And I thought this change would do me good. Am I mad? Is this a good move?

Florida Bound

Related: My ex-husband is suing for half of our children’s 529 plans — eight years after our divorce. Is he entitled to plunder these accounts?

“No matter how many billions of dollars you have in the bank, there’s one thing that money can’t buy — time.”


MarketWatch illustration

Dear Florida Bound,

You and Jeff Bezos do share that one concern about wanting to be near your aging parents. No matter how many billions of dollars you have in the bank, there’s one thing that money can’t buy — time. The Cape Canaveral operations of his space company, Blue Origin, are also in Florida, so it’s a convenient business move and a tax-savvy one. Maine has a capital gains and income tax; but Florida, like Washington, has no state income tax; unlike Washington, it has no capital-gains tax. You and Bezos will be following in the footsteps of former president Donald Trump, who lived in New York before he tax domiciled at his Mar-a-Lago Palm Beach estate.

Billionaires — not unlike retirees — tend to move out of states with estate taxes, according to a recent study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The trend grows stronger as billionaires grow older. But whether you’re a billionaire or a mild-mannered librarian, when you move, you should move. If you spend more than 183 days in Maine per year and/or still have a home there, and you do not spend a similar amount of time in Florida, the tax folks in Maine could ask you to pay Maine income tax. You may have to keep records of your comings and goings (airline tickets and credit-card receipts etc.), but tax agencies can also subpoena your cell-phone records.

Should you move to Florida? Be prepared for the humidity — and the culture shock. You may be used to those lovely 78°F/26°C summers in Maine. Try swapping that for 95°F/35°C. Florida is a very different place to Maine, both culturally and politically. You may find yourself living next-door to an equally proud Trump supporter. If you enjoy living in a blue state, assuming you are a supporter of President Joe Biden, how would that make you feel? Or are you living in a Democratic blue cocoon (or lagoon)? Do you have friends across the political divide? We have a presidential election in November 2024. Expect nerves to be frayed.

The good news — yes, I have good news too — house prices in Maine and Florida are almost identical. The average price hovers at $390,000 in both states, according to Zillow
Z,
-1.58%
.
Just be aware of the rising cost of flood and home insurance in the Sunshine State. You are also likely to be surrounded by people your own age: Florida is the top state for retirees, per a report released this year by SmartAsset, which analyzed U.S. Census Bureau migration data. A warm climate and zero state income taxes consistently prove to be a double winner: Florida netted 78,000 senior residents from other U.S. states in 2021 — the latest year for which data available — three times as many as Arizona, No. 2 on the list.

I spoke to friends who have retired to Florida and they say it’s not a homogenous, one-size-fits-all state. “It’s not all beaches, hurricanes, stifling year-round temperatures, and condos,” one says. “It’s possible to escape northern winters without committing to these conditions.” One retiree cited Gainesville in north-central Florida, the home of the University of Florida, as “diverse and stimulating,” but noted that the nearest airports are in Jacksonville (72 miles), Orlando (124 miles), and Tampa (140 miles). Another Sarasota retiree was more circumspect, and told me: “Be careful how you advertise your political affiliation.”

Perhaps where you belong for now is close to your mother. Spending time with her is a top priority, but brace yourself for a new living experience in Florida (and, while we’re at it, alligators). The siren call of home grows stronger as we get older, but “home” also means different things to different people. For some, it’s a place where they can live comfortably, and within their means. For others, it’s where they have a strong sense of community, be that friends, family, or like-minded individuals, or those with whom we can respectfully disagree. People who have a support system around them tend to live longer, so keep that in mind too.

We can change so much about our circumstances: buy a new car, try a new hairstyle, even go to a plastic surgeon for a new face. There are all sorts of remedies at our fingertips. If all else fails, there’s a pill for that. Or an app that will change our life, or at the very least lull us to sleep with the sound of whales or waves. We may be tempted to believe that if we could change our circumstances, our house, our job, our bank account, or even the town, city, state or country where we live, that we could reinvent ourselves in our own eyes and the eyes of others, and turn our frowns upside down.

There’s just one, not insubstantial problem: we take ourselves — and all of our neuroses — with us.

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell:

If I buy a home with an inheritance and only put my name on the deed, does my husband have any rights? 

I cosigned my boyfriend’s mortgage, but I’m not on the deed. I didn’t want to marry again after a costly divorce. How do I protect myself?

My mother claims I’m in her will but refuses to show it to me. Should she put my name on the deed to her home?



Source link

#61yearold #single #librarian #proud #Democrat #Maine #move #Florida #Jeff #Bezos

‘COVID isn’t done with us’: So why have so many people started rolling the dice?

Hersh Shefrin, a mild-mannered behavioral economist at Santa Clara University, still wears a mask when he goes out in public. In fact, he wears two masks: an N95 medical-grade mask, and another surgical mask on top. “I’m in a vulnerable group. I still believe in masking,” Shefrin, 75, told MarketWatch. It’s worked so far: He never did get COVID-19. Given his age, he is in a high-risk category for complications, so he believes in taking such precautions.

But not everyone is happy to see a man in a mask in September 2023. “A lot of people just want to be over this,” Shefrin, who lives in Menlo Park, Calif., said. “Wearing a mask in public generates anger in some people. I’ve had people come up to me and set me straight on why people should not wear masks. I’ve had people yell at me in cars. It might not match with where they are politically, or they genuinely feel that the risks are really low.”

His experience speaks to America in 2023. Our attitude to COVID-related risk has shifted dramatically, and seeing a person wearing a mask may give us anxiety. But how will we look back on this moment —  3½ years since the start of the coronavirus pandemic? Will we think, “There was a mild wave of COVID, but we got on with it”? Or say, “We were so traumatized back then, dealing with the loss of over 1.1 million American lives, and struggling to cope with a return to normal life”?

We live in a postpandemic era of uncertainty and contradiction. Acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2, is back, yet it never really went away. Roughly a quarter of the population has never tested positive for COVID, but some people have had it twice or three times. Few people are wearing masks nowadays, and the World Health Organization recently published its last weekly COVID update. It will now put out a new report every four weeks.

‘I’ve had people come up to me and set me straight on why people should not wear masks.’


— Hersh Shefrin, 75, behavioral psychologist 

People appear sanguine about the latest booster, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending that people get the updated shot. Fewer than a quarter of Americans (23%) said they were “definitely” planning to get this shot, according to a report released this week by KFF, the nonprofit formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Some 23% said they will “probably get it,” 19% said they will “probably not get it” and 33% will “definitely not get it.”

Do we throw caution to the wind and treat fall and winter as flu, RSV and COVID season? It’s hard both to avoid COVID, many people contend, and to lead a normal life. The latest wave so far is mild, notwithstanding recent reports of extreme fatigue. Scientists have voiced concerns about potential long-term cognitive decline in some severe cases, but most vaccinated people recover. Still, scientists say it’s too early to know about any long-term effects of COVID.

Amid all these unknowns are many risk-related theories: The psychologist Paul Slovic said we evaluate risk based on three main factors. Firstly, we rely on our emotions rather than the facts (something he calls “affect heuristic”). Secondly, we are less tolerant of risks that are perceived as dreadful and unknown (“psychometric paradigm theory”). Thirdly, we become desensitized to catastrophic events and unable to appreciate loss (“psychophysical numbing”).

Shefrin, the behavioral economist, said these three theories influence how we cope with COVID. “Early in the pandemic, the ‘dread factor’ and ‘unknown factor’ meant we all felt it was very risky,” he said. “But we began to see that the people who were most affected were older with comorbidities. The dread factor is way down because of successful vaccinations. We certainly feel that the unknowable factor is down, but with new variants there is potentially something to worry about.”

Hersh Shefrin: “We certainly feel that the unknowable factor is down, but with new variants there is potentially something to worry about.”


c/o Hersh Shefrin

Habituation and status quo lead to inaction

The profile of risk has changed dramatically since the pandemic began. Vaccines protect the majority of people from the most serious effects of COVID — for the 70% of Americans who have gotten the two initial COVID shots. So should we focus on living for today, and stop worrying about tomorrow? Or, given all the unknowns, are we still rolling the dice with our health by boarding crowded subway trains, socializing at parties and stepping into the office elevator?

The number of people dying from COVID has, indeed, fallen dramatically. Weekly COVID deaths in the U.S. peaked at 25,974 during the week of Jan. 9, 2021. There had been 60 COVID-related deaths during the week of March 14, 2020 — when the WHO declared the outbreak a worldwide pandemic — far fewer than the 607 deaths during the week of Sept. 23, the most recent week for which data are available. But in March 2020, with no vaccine, people had reason to be scared.

“COVID deaths are actually worse now than when we were all freaking out about it in the first week of March 2020, but we’re habituated to it, so we tolerate the risk in a different way. It’s not scary to us anymore,” said Annie Duke, a former professional poker player, and author of books about cognitive science and decision making. “We’re just used to it.” Flu, for example, continues to kill thousands of people every year, but we have long become accustomed to that.

A dramatic example of the “habituation effect”: Duke compares COVID and flu to infant mortality throughout the ages. In 1900, the infant-mortality rate was 157.1 deaths per 1,000 births, falling to 20.3 in 1970, and 5.48 deaths per 1,000 births in 2023. “If the 1900 infant-mortality rate was the same infant-mortality rate today, we’d all have our hair on fire,” she said. “We think we would not live through that time, but we would, as people did then, because they got used to it.”

‘COVID deaths are actually worse now than when we were all freaking out about it in the first week of March 2020.’


— Annie Duke, former professional poker player

Duke, who plans to get the updated booster shot, believes people are rolling the dice with their health, especially concerning the long-term effects. The virus, for example, has been shown to accelerate Alzheimer’s-related brain changes and symptoms. Could it also lead to some people developing cognitive issues years from now? No one knows. “Do I want to take the risk of getting repeated COVID?” Duke said. “We have this problem when the risks are unknown.”

When faced with making a decision that makes us uncomfortable — usually where the outcome is uncertain — we often choose to do nothing, Duke said. It’s called “status quo bias.” There’s no downside to wearing a mask, as doctors have been doing it for years, but many people now eschew masks in public places. Research suggests vaccines have a very small chance of adverse side effects, but even that highly unlikely outcome is enough to persuade some people to opt out.

And yet Duke said people tend to choose “omission” over “commission” — that is, they opt out of getting the vaccine rather than opting in. But why? She said there are several reasons: The vaccine comes with a perceived risk, however small, that something could go wrong, so if you do nothing you may feel less responsible for any negative outcome. “Omission is allowing the natural state of the world to continue, particularly with a problem that has an unknown downside,” she said.

Here’s a simple example: You’re on the way to the airport in a car with your spouse, and there’s a roadblock. You have two choices: Do you sit and wait, or do you take an alternative route? If you wait and miss your flight, you may feel that the situation was beyond your control. If you take a shortcut, and still miss your flight, you may feel responsible, and stupid. “Now divorce papers are being drawn up, even though you had the same control over both events,” Duke said.

Annie Duke: “COVID deaths are actually worse now than when we were all freaking out about it in the first week of March 2020.”


c/o Annie Duke

Risk aversion is a complicated business

Probably the most influential study of how people approach risk is prospect or “loss-aversion” theory, which was developed by Daniel Kahneman, an economist and psychologist, and the late Amos Tversky, a cognitive and mathematical psychologist. It has been applied to everything from whether to take an invasive or inconvenient medical test to smoking cigarettes in the face of a mountain of evidence that smoking can cause cancer.

In a series of lottery experiments, Kahneman and Tversky found that people are more likely to take risks when the stakes are low, and less likely when the stakes are high. Those risks are based on what individuals believe they have to gain or lose. This does not always lead to a good outcome. Take the stock-market investor with little money who sells now to avoid what seems like a big loss, but then misses out on a life-changing, long-term payday.

As that stock-market illustration shows, weighing our sensitivity to losses and gains is actually very complicated, and they are largely based on people’s individual circumstances, said Kai Ruggeri, an assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia University. He and others reviewed 700 studies on social and behavioral science related to COVID-19 and the lessons for the next pandemic, determining that not enough attention had been given to “risk perception.”

So how does risk perception apply to vaccines? The ultimate decision is personal, and may be less impacted by the collective good. “If I perceive something as being a very large loss, I will take the behavior that will help me avoid that loss,” Ruggeri said. “If a person believes there’s a high risk of death, illness or giving COVID to someone they love, they will obviously get the vaccine. But there’s a large number of people who see the gain and the loss as too small.”

‘If a person believes there’s a high risk of death, illness or giving COVID to someone they love, they will obviously get the vaccine.’


— Kai Ruggeri, psychologist

In addition to a person’s own situation, there is another factor when people evaluate risk factors and COVID: their tribe. “Groupthink” happens when people defer to their social and/or political peers when making decisions. In a 2020 paper, social psychologist Donelson R. Forsyth cited “high levels of cohesion and isolation” among such groups, including “group illusions and pressures to conform” and “deterioration of judgment and rationality.”

Duke, the former professional poker player, said it’s harder to evaluate risk when it comes to issues that are deeply rooted in our social network. “When something gets wrapped into our identity, it makes it hard for us to think about the world in a rational way, and abandon a belief that we already have,” she said, “and that’s particularly true if we have a belief that makes us stand out from the crowd in some way rather than belong to the crowd.”

Exhibit A: Vaccine rates are higher among people who identify as Democrat versus Republican, likely based on messaging from leaders in those respective political parties. Some 60% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats have gotten a COVID vaccine, according to an NBC poll released this week. Only 36% of Republicans said it was worth it, compared with 90% of Democrats. “When things get politicized, it creates a big problem when evaluating risk,” Duke added.

Risk or no risk, “COVID isn’t done with us,” Emily Landon, an infectious-diseases specialist at the University of Chicago, told MarketWatch. “Just because people aren’t dying in droves does not mean that COVID is no big deal. That’s an error in judgment. Vaccination and immunity is enough to keep most of us out of the hospital, but it’s not enough to keep us from getting COVID. What if you get COVID again and again? It’s not going to be great for your long-term health.”

Source link

#COVID #isnt #people #started #rolling #dice

Lukas Gage’s viral video audition haunts the ‘hot labor summer’ actors’ strike sweeping Hollywood

In November 2020, the actor Lukas Gage was auditioning for a role via video link when he heard the producer make some disparaging remarks about the size of his apartment.

“These poor people who live in these tiny apartments,” the producer said. “I’m looking at his background and he’s got his TV and …”

Gage, who at that time had had a four-episode arc on HBO’s “Euphoria” among other small roles, interrupted the producer — British director Tristram Shapeero, who later apologized for his remarks — to let him know that he was not muted and that Gage could, in fact, hear him.

“Yeah, I know it’s a sh—y apartment,” Gage said. “That’s why — give me this job so I can get a better one.”

Shapeero replied, “Oh my god, I am so, so sorry … I am absolutely mortified.”

Putting together an audition tape can often take up an entire day and involve setting up a studio space for sound and lighting.

“Listen, I’m living in a four-by-four box, just give me the job and we’ll be fine,” Gage responded.

Gage kept his sense of humor, but he also decided to post the video on his Twitter account to show how actors are sometimes treated from the moment they audition for a role — and perhaps to remind people to make sure you’re on mute if you’re trash-talking someone on a Zoom
ZM,
+1.76%

call.

It’s three years later, and members of the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild are on strike, looking for more pay, better working conditions and stricter rules around things like the use of actors’ images in the age of artificial intelligence and the lack of residuals from streaming networks.

The perils of the online audition

Meanwhile, Gage’s 2020 online audition is resonating again.

For a working actor — who, like the majority of SAG-AFTRA members who may not be an A-list star — simply getting in front of a producer as Gage did can be a long and difficult process. And since the start of the pandemic, the nature of auditions has changed dramatically. This has come to symbolize the uphill struggle actors face from the moment they hear about a role.

In May, Ezra Knight, New York local president of SAG-AFTRA, asked members to authorize strike action, saying contracts needed to be renegotiated to reflect dramatic changes in the industry. Knight cited the need to address artificial intelligence, pay, benefits, reduced residuals in streaming and “unregulated and burdensome self-taped auditions.”

In the days of live auditions, actors would read for a role with a casting director. But several actors told MarketWatch that it’s become harder to make a living in recent years, and that it all starts with the audition tape, which has now become standard in the industry.

By the time Gage got in front of producers, for instance, he had likely either already delivered a tape and was put on a shortlist to read in front of a producer, or the casting director was already familiar with his work and wanted him to read for the part.

But an audition tape can often take up an entire day to put together, actors say. When the opportunity to audition arrives, actors typically have to drop everything they’re doing — whether they’re working a side hustle or taking time off or even enjoying a vacation.

Cadden Jones: “All the financial responsibilities have fallen on us. The onus is on us to create our auditions.”


Cadden Jones

They need to arrange good lighting and a clean backdrop — Gage’s TV set became a distraction for the producer during his audition — set up the camera, and scramble to find a “reader” — someone to read the other roles in the scene, preferably another actor.

Then the actor has to edit the audition to highlight their strongest take and upload it. There are currently no regulations on the amount of pages a casting director can send to a candidate, and actors say there’s often not enough time to properly prepare.

“Unfortunately, it’s been going in this direction for some time now,” said Cadden Jones, an actor based in New York who has credits on shows including Showtime’s
PARAA,
-1.47%

“Billions” and Amazon Prime’s
AMZN,
+0.03%

“The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.”

“This was the first year I did not qualify for health insurance in decades,” she told MarketWatch. “I just started teaching.”

To put that into perspective: Members of SAG-AFTRA must earn $26,470 in a 12-month base period to qualify for health insurance. The median annual wage in the U.S. hovers at around $57,000, based on the weekly median as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Jones and her partner, Michael Schantz, an actor who works mostly in theater, are starting a communications consulting company to increase their income.

“Most if not all of my actor friends have had to supplement their income since the pandemic,” she said. “We’re in trouble as a community of actors who used to make a good living doing what we do. It’s not like any of us lost our talent overnight. I, for one, am very glad that we’re striking.”

But Jones said that, with the auditioning process taking place mostly online since the onset of the pandemic, casting agents — who work for producers — are able to see more people for a given role, making the competition for roles even more intense.

‘This was the first year I did not qualify for health insurance in decades.’


— Cadden Jones, an actor based in New York

“We don’t go into casting offices anymore,” Jones said. “All the financial responsibilities have fallen on us. The onus is on us to create our auditions. It’s harder to know what they want, and you don’t have the luxury to work with a casting director in a physical space to get adjustments, which was personally my favorite part of the process — that collaboration.”

She added: “Because the audition rate accelerated, the booking rate went down dramatically for everybody. But don’t get me wrong. Once the strike is officially over, I want all the auditions I can get.”

SAG-AFTRA has proposed rules and expectations to address some of the burden and costs actors bear when it comes to casting, including providing a minimum amount of time for actors to send in self-taped auditions; disclosing whether an offer has been made for the role or it has already been cast; and limiting the number of pages for a “first call” or first round of auditions.

Before the negotiations broke down with the actors’ union, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents over 350 television and production companies, said it offered SAG-AFTRA $1 billion in wage increases, pension and health contributions and residual increases as part of a range of proposals related to pay and working conditions.

Those proposals included limitations on requests for audition tapes, including page, time and technology requirements, as well as options for virtual or in-person auditions, AMPTP said. The producers’ group characterized their offer as “the most lucrative deal we have ever negotiated.”

Michael Schantz: “How does the broader culture value storytelling and the people who make stories?”


Michael Schantz

Jones said she doesn’t blame the casting directors. It’s up to the producers, she said, to be more mindful of how the changes in the industry since the advent of streaming, the decline in wages adjusted for inflation, and poor residuals from streaming services have taken a toll on working actors.

Bruce Faulk, who has been a member of SAG-AFTRA since 1992, said that for work on a one-off character part or a recurring role on a network show, he might receive a check for hundreds or even thousands of dollars in residuals. And — crucially — he knows how many times a particular show has aired.

Residuals are fees paid to actors each time a TV show or film is broadcast on cable or network television. They are based on the size of the role and the budget of the production, among other things. For shows that air on streaming services, however, residuals are far harder to track.

What’s more, residuals decline over time and can often amount to just a few cents per broadcast.

Actor Kimiko Glenn, who appeared on episodes of Netflix’s
NFLX,
-2.27%

“Orange Is the New Black,” recently shared a video on TikTok showing $27 in residuals from her work on that show.

Faulk sympathizes. “A lot of checks from HBO
WBD,
-1.37%

for ‘The Sopranos’ or ‘Gossip Girl’ I get are for $33,” he said. “I never know how many people watched me on ‘Gossip Girl’ in the three episodes I’m in. All we know is whatever the streaming services decided to announce as their subscriber numbers.”

Like Jones, Faulk said this will be the first year he won’t qualify for SAG-AFTRA health insurance, which covers him, his wife and his son. This is despite him having worked enough over the past 10 years to qualify for a pension when he turns 67. “Mine is up to $1,000 a month now,” he said, noting that the pension will keep increasing if he keeps getting acting work.

Schantz, who had a three-episode arc on NBC’s
CMCSA,
-0.74%

“The Blacklist” in addition to his other TV, film and theater credits, finds the recent shifts in the landscape for actors somewhat difficult to reconcile with the way people turned to TV and film during the loneliest days of the pandemic.

“One of the most concerning things I can think of right now is the conversation around value. How does the broader culture value storytelling and the people who make stories?” he said. “The arts always tend to fall to the wayside in many ways, but it was striking during the pandemic that so much of our attention went to watching movies and television. There’s obviously something inside of us that feels like we’re part of the human story.”

Actors battle other technology

While big companies like Disney
DIS,
+1.13%
,
HBO, Apple
AAPL,
-0.62%
,
Amazon and Netflix make millions of dollars from films and TV series that are watched again and again, Schantz said that actors are unable to make a living. “No one wants to go on strike,” he said.

Those five companies have not responded to requests for comment from MarketWatch on these issues.

Since his audition tape went viral, Gage has booked regular work, and he found even greater fame when he went on to star in Season 1 of HBO’s “White Lotus.” In 2023, he will star in nine episodes of “You,” now streaming on Netflix, and in the latest season of FX’s “Fargo.”

Earlier this year, he told the New York Times: “I had never judged my apartment until that day.” He added, “I remember having this weird feeling in the pit of my stomach afterward, like, why am I judging where I’m at in my 20s, at the beginning of my career?”

‘There’s enough Bruce out there where you could take my likeness and my voice and put me in the scene.’


— Bruce Falk, a member of SAG-AFTRA since 1992

But advances in technology are not just hurting actors in the audition process. A debate is raging over the use of AI and whether actors should be expected to sign away the rights to their image in perpetuity, especially when they might only be getting paid for half a day’s work.

“AI is the next big thing,” Falk said. The industry is concerned about companies taking actors’ likenesses and using AI to generate crowd scenes.

“Even an actor at my level — that guy on that show — there’s enough Bruce out there where you could take my likeness and my voice and put me in the scene: the lieutenant who gives you the overview of what happened to the dead body,” he said. “At this point, I could be technically replaced. We have to get down on paper, in very clear terms, that that can’t be done.”

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers also said it agrees with SAG-AFTRA and had proposed — before the actors’ strike — “that use of a performer’s likeness to generate a new performance requires consent and compensation.” The AMPTP said that would mean no digital version of a performer should be created without the performer’s written consent and a description of the intended use in the film, and that later digital replicas without that performer’s consent would be prohibited.

“Companies that are publicly traded obviously have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, and whatever they can use, they will use it — and they are using AI,” Schantz said. “Yes, there are some immediate concerns. Whether or not the technology is advanced enough to fully replace actors is an open question, but some people think it’s an inevitability now.

“To let companies have free rein with these technologies is obviously creating a problem,” he added. “I can’t go show up, do a day’s work, have my performance be captured, and have that content create revenue for a company unless I’m being property compensated for it.”

Schantz said he believes there’s still time to address these technological issues before they become a widespread problem that makes all auditions — however cumbersome — obsolete.

“We haven’t crossed this bridge as a society, but God only knows how far along they are in their plans,” he said. “All I know is it has to be a choice for the actors. There has to be a contract, and we have to be protected. Otherwise, actors will no longer be able to make a living doing this work.”



Source link

#Lukas #Gages #viral #video #audition #haunts #hot #labor #summer #actors #strike #sweeping #Hollywood

‘I’m 62 and ready for my golden years’: I’ve $1.7 million in annuities, Roths and index funds. Can I afford to never work again?

I’m going to preface this by saying that I know I am in a great long-term position. It’s the short term that is of concern.

I am 62, single with no dependents. I own my smallish home outright and it’s worth $1 million due to the location. I own my car outright and I have no debt. My IRA and small Roth accounts have about $350,000 with an additional $840,000 in two guaranteed-income deferred annuities rolled over from a couple old 401(k)s in 2020. There’s $520,000 in my regular brokerage accounts (mostly Vanguard Index funds). I have $42,000 invested in two eReits and $10,000 in Series I Bonds. I have $71,000 in a higher-yield savings account and $12,000 in a checking account.

I had always planned to retire at 65 and live off my savings until filing for SSI between 67 and 70 (approx $3,400 to $4,100, depending on when I file). A year ago at 61, I abruptly quit a good-paying new job due to a bad work environment, and a week later, my elderly parent had a serious medical issue. I decided to take time off to help navigate care, and just be present — without all of the stress of a pretty demanding job. A year after quitting, I figured out that I have no desire to go back to what I was doing and, quite frankly, have to desire to work at all!

‘I’m not afraid of running out of money long term. It’s the next 5 to 7 years that are really causing me heartache.’

So here (finally) is my concern. My expenses are at least $3,000 per month give or take. Given what I have in savings and no plans to file for Social Security Insurance for at least five years, what do I continue to live on, especially if I don’t go back to work? I most likely have some house expenses (new roof, garage door, etc.) in the near future, plus, I want to travel sooner than later so $71,000 won’t last that long especially with this inflation. Do I sell off some of my mutual fund shares to boost my savings?

At some point (most likely in the next two years) there may be about $75,000 of inheritance, but I’m not factoring that into the equation for now. I think I’ve done almost everything right, and I’m ready for my golden years. I’m not afraid of running out of money long term. It’s the next five to seven years that are really causing me heartache. What are your thoughts?

Short-term Angst

Dear Angst,

Life is short, but we all hope for a long retirement, and it’s easy to lose sight of what’s important when we are “nose-down” in the rat race. We only have one life, and most of us, if we’re lucky, have two parents and/or sometimes one good parent. If we are blessed with one or both, it’s a gift if we can afford to take that time with them, especially if they have pressing medical issues. Thankfully, you had planned ahead, and you were able to do just that.

Many people reevaluated their relationship to work in recent years. You did so because you became a caretaker. The most fortunate among American workers were allowed to work from home from 2020, and where their work was the umbrella that protected their financial life and gave them the funds to live their life, by the end of the pandemic, that umbrella became their life which gave them the ability to work. It’s a profound change.

I’m going to take a wild guess here — well, not so wild — and say that a lot of people are reading your letter with their mouths agape, with not a small amount of envy. Some may see a touch of humble bragging to your financial achievements, but you acknowledge that you are in a healthy financial position, and have endeavored to do everything right. That, I’m sure, involved sacrifices along the way. So bravo to you. From a gratitude point of view, your financial list is a good one.

There are a couple of wrinkles, which may be useful for others to be aware of. Robert Seltzer, founder of Seltzer Business Management in Los Angeles, said he would not recommend a client to roll their 401(k)s into annuities due to their higher fees and lack of flexibility. Without working, your only taxable income would be derived from retirement account distributions and investment income — but if your taxable income is less than $41,675, therefore, you would pay no capital gains tax.

Is it a good time to liquidate some stocks? You’ve played the long game. The S&P 500
SPX,
-0.29%

is up 2.7% over the past year; many people close to retirement have been spooked by stock-market volatility since 2020, but the S&P has increased more than 30% since the last trading session of 2019 — before the pandemic. Assuming you’ve been investing for the past three decades or more, and have experienced the miracle of compounding over that time, the time to enjoy your life is nigh.

‘Assuming you’ve been investing for the past three decades or more, and have experienced the miracle of compounding over that time, the time to enjoy your life is nigh. ‘


— The Moneyist

Something to consider as you age: “As you transition from the accumulation stage of life to the distribution stage, it is important to recognize that your risk tolerance is changing,” says Mel Casey, a senior portfolio manager at FBB Capital Partners. “If the brokerage account index funds are all in stock funds, this should be addressed. A rebalancing over time to reduce stocks and increase bonds may lower the risk and prepare the account for eventual distributions.”

Meet with a financial adviser and work out your short- and long-term needs: what your income looks like before and after you tap your Social Security benefits. The good news is you have a healthy income awaiting you when you finally start drawing down money from your retirement accounts. It helps enormously that you have paid off your home — property taxes, insurance, food prices, car payments, gas, health insurance, etc. notwithstanding.

About that health insurance. No doubt you are already aware that this will be an extra expense before you qualify for Medicare at age 65. The average annual health-insurance premium for 2022 was $7,911 for single coverage, up slightly from $7,739 in the prior year, according to KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco, Calif. (You can read more about signing up for Medicare and what it will cost here.)

Casey also has thoughts on healthcare costs as you get older. “You have three years until you can apply for Medicare and that will be an important time in terms of choosing the appropriate path,” he says. “In the meantime, some form of health insurance is advisable, if only to eliminate the ‘tail risk’ of a serious injury or illness which could erode this healthy savings very quickly.”

Withdrawing money for retirement

You could cover a substantial part of your expenses from your brokerage account and Roths ($870,000) or annuities ($840,000). While you have done a great job in growing long-term assets, there are relatively few liquid, short-term assets (emergency reserves), says Randall Watsek, financial adviser with Raymond James. “For someone in retirement without earned income to draw on for living expenses, having at least five years of reserves might greatly lower their stress level,” he adds.

Ideally, you want to take Social Security between 67 and 70. “From an average life expectancy basis, it works out roughly the same, whether you take Social Security at 62 or 70,” Watsek says. “You get more small payments if you take it earlier, or fewer large payments if you take it later. It makes most sense to delay Social Security if you have a family history of living into your 90s or 100s or if you’re still working.”

But if your parents have a history of living a long life, and you currently have good health, Seltzer said he would be open for more discussion about what age you should start claiming Social Security, and he would explore whether you are comfortable waiting until you reach 67 or 70 years of age. (This would warrant further discussion with your own financial adviser, and you can reevaluate your position every 12 months.)

As my colleague Alessandra Malito points out, help comes in many forms: financial consultant, wealth manager and investment adviser. Choose a fiduciary who is required to act in your best interests (rather than giving you advice with one eye on your needs and another eye on their commissions). In order to become a certified financial planner or CFP, you must complete a certificate or degree program, 6,000 hours of related experience and have passed an exam.

“Broker-dealers are advisers who primarily sell securities and often charge commissions on their recommendations. Commissions aren’t inherently bad, but clients should understand what they’re being charged for and feel comfortable with those fees before proceeding with the advice,” Malito writes. Certified public accountants, chartered life underwriters, certified employee benefit specialists respectively deal with accounting, life insurance and benefits.

“The rule of thumb for taking distributions during retirement is 4%,” Seltzer added. “If you took a very conservative distribution rate of 3%, it would amount to $52,500 which is almost 50% higher than your expenses of $36,000. So, by living off of a mix of savings, distributions from the annuities and capital gains from your brokerage account, you should meet his cash-flow needs with paying very little tax.”

You’re doing just fine. Your $75,000 inheritance will also give you some freedom for the next year or two, and help you get over the finish line. If you travel, think about Airbnb-ing
ABNB,
+1.69%

your home, which would cover your accommodation costs. It may also encourage you to try living in a place for a month or more. As a cardiologist might tell a patient when they’re putting them on medication for the first time, “Start low, go slow.” Take your time. Don’t make any big decisions.

As one member of the Facebook
META,
-0.50%

Moneyist Group said, “If you’re a man please marry me!” I’ll leave that with you with God’s and your fiduciary’s blessings.

“Assuming you’ve been investing for the last three decades or more, and have experienced the miracle of compounding over that time, the time to enjoy your life is nigh.”


MarketWatch illustration

Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. 

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

By emailing your questions, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch. By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

‘He’s content living paycheck to paycheck’: My husband won’t work or get a driver’s license. Now things have gotten even worse.

My wife wants us to spend $5,000 to attend her cousin’s destination wedding. I don’t want to go. Am I being selfish?

‘I feel used’: My partner stays with me 5 nights a week, even though he owns his own home. Should he pay for utilities and food? 



Source link

#ready #golden #years #Ive #million #annuities #Roths #index #funds #afford #work

‘I worry about outliving my money’: I’m a 65-year-old widow in good health. Should I wait until 70 to collect my pension?

I am a 65-year-old widow in good health, and just started collecting my late husband’s Social Security benefit of $4,000 per month. When I turn 70, I will switch to my benefit since it appears it will be around $100 higher every month at that time. My current expenses are running high at about $10,000 per month due to some house maintenance projects I am doing. My son and his family will inherit everything when I’m gone.

I estimate my monthly expenses will drop to $5,000-$6,000 within the next year. I supplement my monthly income by drawing off interest, dividends and some profit-taking from my traditional IRA account which is worth about $2.5 million. I also have a Roth IRA of about $60,000 and bank CDs of $200,000. I also have another traditional IRA account worth $350,000, which I have designated as my long-term healthcare account in case I have to go into a nursing home at some point.

‘I’m not sure if it makes sense to wait two to five years to collect my pensions if I am going to be drawing my RMD just a few years later.’

I have two pensions that I am debating about when I should start collecting. If I collect now, I will receive $1,400 per month. If I wait until I am 67 it will be $1,620 and at 70 the pension will pay $2,100 per month. However, when I turn 73 and start my minimum required distributions from my IRA, the annual RMD along with my Social Security should be more than enough for me to live on.

I’m not sure if it makes sense to wait two to five years to collect my pensions if I am going to be drawing my RMD just a few years later. If I collect my pensions now, then it would reduce the amount of money I need to siphon off of my investments and could leave them relatively untouched for a few more years.

‘Money was always tight for us growing up and a struggle for my parents as they got older and needed healthcare assistance.’

So the question is, should I collect my pensions now and reduce the amount of money I am currently drawing off of my IRA? Or wait a few years and get the higher monthly payout? Everything I read encourages people to wait as long as they can to collect their retirements. My calculations show that if I collect now, my break-even point is about age 82. If I live longer than that, then waiting to collect would pay me more over the long term. Both my parents lived into their early 90s so longevity is a potential concern.

I realize that I’m in a good financial situation, which is the result of my husband and I working extremely hard all of our lives and consistently saving and investing during good times as well as during recessions, job losses, and raising a family. But money was always tight for us growing up and a struggle for my parents as they got older and needed healthcare assistance, so I don’t think I will ever shake that off. I worry about outliving my money. I just want to make the right decision.

Thank you for your help.

To Withdraw or Not Withdraw

Dear Withdraw or Not Withdraw,

Let’s start with the good news. Whatever you do — start withdrawals now or wait — you are in a pretty strong financial position. If you can afford to wait — and you can — and you expect to live into your 90s, do that. That extra $700 a month will give you comfort as you age. You have $2.5 million in your IRA, and you will pay tax on those withdrawals regardless, but you can afford to use that as a buffer before your higher pension payments kick in.

A financial adviser will help you crunch your numbers, but $4,000 a month in Social Security is a good start. Cutting your $10,000 monthly expenses to $6,000 is smart, and an adviser can help you see where you could make further cuts in your expenses, especially as you age. For some perspective: This survey found that working Americans ages 45 and older on average believe it will take $1.1 million to retire comfortably, yet only 21% say they’ll reach $1 million.

Another reason to withdraw from your IRA now? Gains from an IRA, as you know, are taxable. Gains from a Roth IRA are not taxable if the account has been up and running for five years and you are over 59½. One of the big advantages to a Roth is the flexibility it affords. If you have a medical emergency, you could use your Roth IRA as a backup. (CDS are not typically useful for this as cashing out early results in a penalty, which could negate your interest earned over the period of the CD.)

‘Whatever you decide will be the best decision for you at this time.’

Dan Herron, a partner at Better Business Financial Services in San Luis Obispo, Calif., agrees you should wait. “Since longevity appears to be on your side thanks to good genes from your family, it is probably beneficial to postpone taking benefits as long as you can to maximize your pensions,” he says. “The reason being is that given the uncertainty surrounding Social Security, your pension may be your best hedge against any potential Social Security cuts down the road.”

He also sees the tax benefits in siphoning funds from what is already a very healthy IRA. “While you draw from your IRA now, you are reducing the balance of the IRA, which then (potentially) reduces the required minimum distribution amounts,” he says. “This could potentially be beneficial from a tax perspective.” And he suggests staggering your pension benefits, making withdrawals from one in two years, while leaving the other until you hit 70.

Whatever you decide will be the best decision for you at this time. No future is guaranteed, but your No. 1 priority right is peace of mind to secure a long and healthy retirement.


MarketWatch illustration

Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. 

You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at [email protected], and follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitter.

By emailing your questions, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch. By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.

Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.

More from Quentin Fottrell:

‘How to travel for free’: I spent $500 hosting my friend for a week. Should she have paid for food and utilities?

‘I’m 63 and desperately hate my work’: Should I pay off my mortgage, claim Social Security and quit my job?

‘He’s content living paycheck to paycheck’: My husband won’t work or get a driver’s license. Now things have gotten even worse.



Source link

#worry #outliving #money #65yearold #widow #good #health #wait #collect #pension

‘Gaslighters have two signature moves’: Are you being gaslighted at work? Here’s how to recognize the signs.

Are you less happy at work since you befriended that new recruit? Have they told you stories about how colleagues have constantly undermined them? Maybe you have a boss who excludes you from key meetings and then asks why you did not attend a meeting even though you are pretty sure you were not invited to begin with. If any of this rings true, you may be working with a gaslighter.

Gaslighters, as the name suggests, cast themselves in a positive light — friend or confidante who is here to help — but actually are manipulating or undermining others, usually from the shadows, which adds to their potential power.

Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” the word of the year. Searches for the word on Merriam-Webster.com surged 1,740% in 2022 over the prior year, despite there not being an event that the publisher — known for its dictionaries — could point to as a cause of the spike.

It defines gaslighting as “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”

The term was coined in a 1938 play, “Gas Light,” a psychological thriller set in Victorian London and written by Patrick Hamilton.

George Cukor’s 1944 film, “Gaslight,” based on the play, further popularized the term. In that film, Gregory (Charles Boyer) tries to convince his wife Paula (Ingrid Bergman) that she has lost her reason. When he turns on the lights in the attic in his search for a treasure trove of hidden jewels, the gaslight flickers in the rest of the house. He tells Paula that she is merely imagining the dimming of the lights.

‘Jerks at work’ or actual gaslighters?

The workplace is fertile ground for such behavior, given what’s at stake: money, power, status, promotion, rivalry and the intrigue that often comes with office politics.

I’m in the business of helping people work out their conflicts at work. In fact, I dedicated a whole chapter in my book, “Jerks at Work,” to gaslighters.

‘For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first.’

What has surprised me is how wide-ranging the definition of “gaslighting” has become. Everything from “not respecting personal boundaries” to “talking so much shit about me I couldn’t get hired for two years” seems to fall under the “gaslighting” umbrella.

What I’ve learned from my doom scrolling on social media is that the word “gaslighter” — probably the worst name to bestow on a colleague or boss — seems to refer to anyone who’s done a whole bunch of bad things to us at work, especially things that involve humiliation.

So what really is a gaslighter, and why is it important to distinguish one from, say, a demeaning boss with a chip on their shoulder and a penchant for public shaming?

If we stick to the clinical definition, gaslighters have two signature moves: They lie with the intent of creating a false reality, and they cut off their victims socially.

They position themselves as both savior and underminer, creating a negative and fearful atmosphere, spreading gossip and taking credit for other people’s work. They are often jealous and resentful, and aim to undercut others in order to further their own position.

In the workplace, you may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague.

You may also be an unwitting pawn in the gaslighting of another colleague. The gaslighter might try to convince you that Johnny is trying to steal your leadership role on a project, and encourage you to freeze him out in the cafeteria at lunch time, or simply be extra wary about sharing important information.

For gaslighters, slow and steady wins the race, and the best ones make friends with their victims first. For this reason, it could also be considered a form of workplace harassment.

They often flatter them, make them feel special. Others create a fear of speaking up in their victims by making their position at work seem more precarious than it is. And the lies are complex, coming at you in layers. It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.

‘It takes a long time to realize your status as a victim of gaslighting, and social isolation is a necessary part of this process.’

Take smart action — no direct confrontration

There’s a difference between an annoying coworker or micromanaging boss, and a gaslighter, who lies and conspires to undermine your position. “The gaslighter doesn’t want you to improve or succeed — they’re out to sabotage you,” according to the careers website Monster.com. “They will accuse you of being confused or mistaken, or that you took something they said the wrong way because you are insecure. They might even manipulate paper trails to “prove” they are right.”

Examples cited by Monster.com: “You know you turned in a project, but the gaslighter insists you never gave it to them. You can tell someone has been in your space, moving things around, or even on your computer, but you don’t have proof. You are the only one not included in a team email or meeting invite, or intentionally kept out of the loop. Then when you don’t respond or show up, you are reprimanded.”

Knowing this, what can you do to prevent yourself from becoming a target? First, recognize that gaslighters don’t wear their strategy on their sleeve. Flattery, making you feel like you’re a part of a special club, or questioning your expertise are not things that raise gaslighting alarm bells.

Rather than looking out for mean behavior by a boss or coworker, look out for signs of social isolation. A boss who wants to cut you off from coworkers and other leaders should raise red flags, even if the reason is that “you’re better than them.”

Second, recognize that lie detection is a precarious — and from a scientific perspective, almost impossible — business. Don’t try to become a lie detector, instead take notes, so you can put your “gaslighter” on notice that you are wise to their tactics. You can also use the notes as evidence if you decide to later raise the situation with your human resources department.

Here are some ways to beat the gaslighter: Send emails with “a summary of today’s meeting” so you can document the origin of ideas and make sure they don’t steal credit from you. Furthermore, document things that happened in person, and share it with your would-be gaslighter. And speak up at meetings. Don’t allow yourself to be browbeaten into submission.

The more you document, the more difficult it will be to be victimized. But a word of warning: Don’t try to confront gaslighters — instead, go to your social network to build your reality back up. Trying to beat these folks at their own game is a losing strategy.

Any of these actions, and especially a combination done early in a professional relationship, can work wonders protecting yourself and your career.

Tessa West is a New York University social psychology professor with a particular interest in workplace behavior, and author of “Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them.

Related stories:

‘We’re like rats in a cage’: Sick and tired of their jobs, American workers strive to regain their agency, their time — and their sanity

People are seeking a genuine connection with their colleagues’ — one that goes beyond ‘Hollywood Squares’ Zoom meetings. Not all workers are happy with remote work.

The backlash to quiet quitting smacks of another attempt by the ruling class to get workers back under their thumbs:’ Am I wrong?

We want to hear from readers who have stories to share about the effects of increasing costs and a changing economy. If you’d like to share your experience, write to [email protected]. Please include your name and the best way to reach you. A reporter may be in touch.

Source link

#Gaslighters #signature #moves #gaslighted #work #Heres #recognize #signs

Financial Face-off: Should you opt for a high-deductible health plan with lower monthly costs?

Hello and welcome to Financial Face-off, a MarketWatch column where we help you weigh financial decisions. Our columnist will give her verdict. Tell us whether you think she’s right in the comments. And please share your suggestions for future Financial Face-off columns by emailing our columnist at [email protected]

It’s the time of year to sign up for a new health insurance plan, either through an employer or through the government’s Health Insurance Marketplace.

The decision may feel especially fraught this year. High inflation, layoffs and a potential recession are weighing on people’s minds and finances. Americans have been tightening their budgets and may be looking for ways to save money on their health-insurance costs. One way to do that, at least in terms of upfront costs, could be to sign up for a high-deductible health plan. These plans typically have lower monthly costs (premiums), but they have higher deductibles, or, the amount of money that you have to pay out of your own pocket before the insurance kicks in to cover healthcare costs.

So is this the year to try to save some cash by signing up for a high-deductible health plan?

Why it matters

It’s no secret that healthcare is expensive in the U.S., but the language of health insurance often obscures that reality with euphemisms such as “cost-sharing,” “coinsurance,” “copay” and “deductible.” Here’s a quick translation: if you see one of those terms, just mentally replace it with a dollar sign, because it means you will be paying money.

Choosing a healthcare plan is important. Medical bills can strain a household’s finances, and healthcare debt is very common. More than half (57%) of Americans have incurred debt caused by a medical or dental expense in the last five years, according to a nationally representative survey released in June by KFF, an independent nonprofit that researches healthcare issues.

One of the survey’s more troubling findings was that even people who have health insurance fall into debt, with more than four in 10 insured adults reporting that they currently had health-related debt.

In other words, the decision about which health-insurance plan to choose can have far-reaching unintended consequences.

How much can you expect to pay for health insurance? If you get yours through your job, it depends on several factors including the size of your company and the age of its workforce. On average, workers with employer-based health insurance paid $6,106 per year toward family coverage and $1,327 for individual coverage, according to KFF. People at smaller companies typically have higher premiums and bigger deductibles.

The federal government defines a high-deductible health plan as one with a deductible of at least $1,400 for an individual and $2,800 for a family.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) often — but not always — come with a health savings account (HSA) where people can store money tax-free to pay for medical expenses.

‘Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving.’


— Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF

HDHPs have lower premiums, but are they more affordable in the long run than traditional health plans? ValuePenguin compared HDHPs vs. traditional plans in three scenarios and found that the HDHP plan holder would end up paying more overall than the traditional plan holder if they had medical expenses of $5,000 or $10,000 in a year.

However, the HDHP holder had lower overall costs than the traditional plan holder if their medical expenses were $1,000. “But banking on such an outcome — and such low need for medical care — can be a gamble in an unpredictable world,” ValuePenguin wrote.

The verdict

If you can pay the higher monthly costs, avoid a high-deductible health plan.

My reasons

“It’s very difficult to accurately predict what your healthcare needs are going to be for the coming year. And for that reason, it’s a good idea to sign up for the most comprehensive plan option that you can afford,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF. Buying the cheapest option can open you up to the possibility that something is going to happen — you’ll get hit by a car, find a lump — and then “you’re going to find out the hard way how much your plan doesn’t cover and what you’re going to owe out of pocket,” Pollitz said.

As the KFF survey found, medical debt is common even among people with health insurance, she noted. “There are lots of reasons for that, but high deductibles are one culprit,” Pollitz said.

That debt can have serious long-term consequences, including wrecking your credit score or forcing you to cut back on other household expenses including essentials like groceries, utilities, and rent. You may even get into a situation where doctors refuse to treat you if you’re not paying your bills on time, leading you to delay needed health care. “Medical debt really can be the gift that keeps on giving,” Pollitz said, referencing the ongoing negative impacts on people’s finances.

Is my verdict best for you?

On the other hand, HDHPs with health savings accounts attached to them can make good financial sense for “one group,” Pollitz said: people who are “wealthy enough to need a tax-preferred savings mechanism” and can afford to pay whatever health costs may arise. “Partners in law firms usually sign up for them, but the associates and secretaries usually would prefer not to,” she added.

Health savings accounts (HSAs) are a great way to grow wealth over time, said Eric Roberge, a certified financial planner and founder of Beyond Your Hammock, a Boston-based fee-only financial planning firm. “You get to contribute pre-tax dollars, and any growth on the money you invest within the HSA is tax-free as well,” he told MarketWatch. “If you withdraw money and use it on qualified medical expenses, that is also tax-free. It’s the only account that provides this triple tax advantage.” After age 65, you can use your HSA money for anything, not just medical expenses, but you will have to pay taxes on the withdrawals.

A high-deductible health plan with an HSA can work well if you are young, and healthy and don’t incur a lot of medical costs. But if you use medical services frequently or have a lot of high-cost prescriptions, for example, this might not be the best option, because the cost of the high-deductible health plan might not be worth the access to the HSA, Roberge noted. “For folks who can manage their healthcare bills without issue while they’re earning an income from their job and don’t usually have a lot of medical costs each year, opting for the HDHP can not only save you on premiums each year, but it also gives you a chance to grow wealth for the long-term in a highly tax-advantaged way via an HSA,” Roberge said.

Source link

#Financial #Faceoff #opt #highdeductible #health #plan #monthly #costs