countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,889
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Oct 19, 2019 20:48:28 GMT -5
Hubs was making to much money back then to put money into Roths, he kept trying for several years I kept telling him he couldn't and they would send it back to us, so he finally listened.
Now having to pull out of pretax RMD's is a pain. I set it up for automatic as you will have a PENALTY OF 50% OF WHAT YOUR REQUIRED WITHDRAWAL WAS IF YOU DON'T. You have to watch and not have to much income or you will pay through the nose for increased medicare, supplement, and drug premiums and they are substantial and in effect till you can prove your income dropped. We almost got stuck but we had a "life changing event" is all that saved us. It was spelled out but only 1 lady at the SS office understood it, took us almost a year to get it resolved. Had all kinds of issues because hubs worked till age 69 and didn't take medicare, a nightmare.
Now our income is down but still have to watch if we sell a property that bumps that income up. If you are single the threshold, of course, is much lower for all the penalties. Believe me the IRS wants your money. To bad the billionaires can afford all the tax people to get around it.
But we are ok, with the rentals. We would be ok without them but as it is this is better.
I would suggest people do not go into retirement with debt and would have hope they learned long ago to live within their means.
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,937
|
Post by MN-Investor on Oct 19, 2019 21:04:09 GMT -5
My job has Roth 401k. But only doing regular so far for tax advantages. How does roth 401k work? Is it combined limits? What happens with matches? The conventional 401(k) limit is identical to the Roth 401(k) limit. It's a combined limit between the two. Company matches have to go into a conventional 401(k) even if you're contributing to the Roth 401(k). I don't know when my husband's company started offering the Roth 401(k) option, but he switched to contributing to it in 2011. Since my sweetie retired in 2016, that was during his highest earning years. However, we had so very much in conventional retirement plans that it didn't make sense to more money in them. (By the way, my sweetie passed away unexpectedly in 2018. This will be my first year filing with single taxpayer rates. They suck!) My portfolio is: 36% taxable accounts 56% tax-deferred accounts 8% Roth IRAs (The taxable would have been 12% and tax-deferred would have been 80% if I hadn't done a net unrealized appreciation transaction wherein I moved highly appreciated company stock from my 401(k) to a taxable account and paid the tax on its basis at that time.)
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Oct 19, 2019 21:30:29 GMT -5
Yes we definitely are
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 19, 2019 23:13:10 GMT -5
Can you explain? What is wrong with an IRA? If you have zero balances in traditional IRAs, then you can contribute to a non-deductible tIRA and immediately convert it to Roth. You got no tax deduction, so you owe no taxes on the conversion (or a tiny bit on any growth before the conversion). If you have any tIRA balances, your conversion is pro-rated over the entire tIRA balance. So if you have $95k in tIRA, contribute $5k non-deductible and convert the $5k, only 5% is tax free, and 95% is taxed on conversion. You also have the ongoing fun of tracking the non-deductible balance vs deductible balance every year going forward for the IRS. If you leave 401k balances where they are (instead of rolling them to tIRA), there's no problem. 401k balances aren't subject to the pro-rata rules. If you can roll a tIRA into an employer's 401k, that can clear the decks for a backdoor Roth IRA. So why would you put non-deductible money in the IRA? Because you are over income limits to deduct it? We've never been over the limit as far as deductibility. I've mostly contributed to our IRAs and taken the deductions. I'm trying to convert some of that to our Roths while the tax rates are low. Now I have to pay the taxes on it, but we are in a lower bracket now than we were when working.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 19, 2019 23:18:42 GMT -5
Hubs was making to much money back then to put money into Roths, he kept trying for several years I kept telling him he couldn't and they would send it back to us, so he finally listened. Now having to pull out of pretax RMD's is a pain. I set it up for automatic as you will have a PENALTY OF 50% OF WHAT YOUR REQUIRED WITHDRAWAL WAS IF YOU DON'T. You have to watch and not have to much income or you will pay through the nose for increased medicare, supplement, and drug premiums and they are substantial and in effect till you can prove your income dropped. We almost got stuck but we had a "life changing event" is all that saved us. It was spelled out but only 1 lady at the SS office understood it, took us almost a year to get it resolved. Had all kinds of issues because hubs worked till age 69 and didn't take medicare, a nightmare. Now our income is down but still have to watch if we sell a property that bumps that income up. If you are single the threshold, of course, is much lower for all the penalties. Believe me the IRS wants your money. To bad the billionaires can afford all the tax people to get around it. But we are ok, with the rentals. We would be ok without them but as it is this is better. I would suggest people do not go into retirement with debt and would have hope they learned long ago to live within their means. We bought a new house with a 30 year mortgage and a new car with a 5 year loan after we retired. Having some debt doesn't bother me a bit. Of course, like you said, you have to learn to live within your means. That part is very easy for me. I've never been a big spender.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2019 23:26:14 GMT -5
If you have zero balances in traditional IRAs, then you can contribute to a non-deductible tIRA and immediately convert it to Roth. You got no tax deduction, so you owe no taxes on the conversion (or a tiny bit on any growth before the conversion). If you have any tIRA balances, your conversion is pro-rated over the entire tIRA balance. So if you have $95k in tIRA, contribute $5k non-deductible and convert the $5k, only 5% is tax free, and 95% is taxed on conversion. You also have the ongoing fun of tracking the non-deductible balance vs deductible balance every year going forward for the IRS. If you leave 401k balances where they are (instead of rolling them to tIRA), there's no problem. 401k balances aren't subject to the pro-rata rules. If you can roll a tIRA into an employer's 401k, that can clear the decks for a backdoor Roth IRA. So why would you put non-deductible money in the IRA? Because you are over income limits to deduct it? We've never been over the limit as far as deductibility. I've mostly contributed to our IRAs and taken the deductions. Now I'm trying to convert some of that to our Roths while the tax rates are low. Of course, now I have to pay the taxes on it. If someone is over the income limit for a Roth IRA then they don't qualify for a deductible IRA either (unless they don't have access to a retirement plan at work), but they can put money in a non-deductible IRA and then immediately convert it to a Roth.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 19, 2019 23:33:14 GMT -5
They always have to make it complicated!
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 20, 2019 4:25:13 GMT -5
We're on track at age 42 at about 4.5 times our annual salary. I am concerned about our tax diversification though because I've heard many retirees say they wish they had less in pre-tax and more in Roth and/or taxable. Our taxable investments (outside of cash) are negligible and Roth is about 25% of our retirement balance. I want to work on evening this out even though conventional wisdom seems to be more in pre-tax is better so it's hard to know if this is the right thing to do.
IMHO, I think people are way too concerned about paying taxes in retirement. The reality of life is that if you make money you have to pay taxes. If you are currently in one of the higher tax brackets, money you save pre-tax is tax deferred and you don’t have to pay taxes until you use it, so maybe 20 years later. Tax rates in future are of course unknown. Could be higher, not many people think they will be lower. But in my mind it is better to pay later. You also have the fact that the money that is not taxed now is invested and is hopefully growing, vs paying your taxes now. Some people don’t like paying taxes in retirement, but if their option was basically to prepay their taxes they would have less money going into retirement. Also you have some control over how much taxes you pay on your savings based on your withdrawal rate. If you have some low spend years and live off SS, and defer withdrawals at least until you reach RMD age. It isn’t just taxes, it is RMDs jacking up your income to the point that you wind up paying a surcharge on Medicare premiums. I am paying the surcharge this year.....about $4000/year extra due to a stock sell we had no control over. If TD was also on Medicare, this would have doubled. We have guestimated what our RMDs likely will be and they will jack us up to the point where we will wind up paying extra to Medicare, as well as increased taxes. At this point, we are converting to Roth’s to lower our RMD. After running the numbers, the taxes up to 24% tax cut off we come out ahead. Our tax accountant has verified this. The recent adjustments to the tax code help this, but my best guess concerning the deficit that is being rung up is that we will be reverting to the former tax brackets. In the meantime, we are taking advantage of the lowered ones.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 7:12:29 GMT -5
(By the way, my sweetie passed away unexpectedly in 2018. This will be my first year filing with single taxpayer rates. They suck!) I hear ya, sister. My husband died in 2016, so I got hit on the 2017 taxes and then the higher standard exemption in 2018 did me no good because I was already over $12K with state income taxes and property taxes (barely under $10K so at least they didn't get capped) and some mortgage interest. And this year the IRMAA Medicare surcharges kicked in. Still, I'm encouraged to see posts from people who are actually saving for retirement. I get a lot of retirement-related posts on FaceBook and the comments are sad. Some seniors are living on $600 or $700/month SS. Period. The latest was an article on how to supplement your income during retirement and one reply from someone on SS only was that "seniors shouldn't have to supplement their income in retirement". Wow. I try to post tactful replies about how, from the beginning, SS was meant to provide only about 40% of retirement income, but that's a pretty useless message to someone in their 70s and not able to work.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Oct 20, 2019 10:06:20 GMT -5
I don't mean to be too mean here - but if people are only getting 6-700 a month in SS - they didn't really work a whole lot before they retired. And it isn't that I don't feel for them and their current difficulties, but I'm just talking about the math angle.
My father retired at 62 (early!) around 1979 - and was getting more than that per month. He didn't have the most robust work history either. I think it was something less than 10 years in the army. Didn't get any army retirement money but I don't think it contributed to SS either. After WWII ended, he was a drifter for a while - bartending, working carnival circuits, etc. He had more regular type jobs for maybe just the last 20 or so years.
And then he retired sometime in 1979 - when he died in 2013, his ss check was up over 1100/month with the colas through the years. What kind of work history does someone have to only be getting 6-700 a month in the 2010's?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 10:26:19 GMT -5
What kind of work history does someone have to only be getting 6-700 a month in the 2010's? Do they take the Medicare Part D or whatever they are out of social security? My statement says if I retire at 62 my payment will be $1150/month, so if $400 in Medicare cost comes of there it would be around $700. Or maybe they're just meaning after they pay Medicare? As for work. I've got almost 30 years of full time work history starting at age 17. Just took 3 years off after my first was born.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Oct 20, 2019 10:42:44 GMT -5
What kind of work history does someone have to only be getting 6-700 a month in the 2010's? Do they take the Medicare Part D or whatever they are out of social security? My statement says if I retire at 62 my payment will be $1150/month, so if $400 in Medicare cost comes of there it would be around $700. Or maybe they're just meaning after they pay Medicare? As for work. I've got almost 30 years of full time work history starting at age 17. Just took 3 years off after my first was born. That could be it!
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Oct 20, 2019 10:45:29 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 10:47:51 GMT -5
Me either. Like zero. I figure I won't worry about studying up on it for another 10 years or so because things will probably change by then anyhow.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Oct 20, 2019 11:04:40 GMT -5
That's interesting, but there's 4 quarters per year, so that's not going to affect too many people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 11:10:05 GMT -5
That's interesting, but there's 4 quarters per year, so that's not going to affect too many people. For Part A, but it sounds like part D isn't cheap either if you read the posts from those on it. Why do they have all these different parts anyhow? Why isn't there just Medicare?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Oct 20, 2019 11:18:24 GMT -5
That's interesting, but there's 4 quarters per year, so that's not going to affect too many people. For Part A, but it sounds like part D isn't cheap either if you read the posts from those on it. Why do they have all these different parts anyhow? Why isn't there just Medicare? I thought part D was the new supplemental plans. I dealt with this with my mom, but Im taking a break from thinking about all that crap now, so I don't recall exactly. This country is asinine all the way around when it comes to healthcare. I just got a cheap radiology bill for my son, mentioning to my husband that I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't 2 more bills coming from different places for the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 20, 2019 13:04:29 GMT -5
Part A is normally covered. Part B is $135/mo. Part D is a prescription plan. IME, this ran me about $32/mo.
The other parts are Medigap and Advantage plans. Those can be as little as only your Part B premium, or (also IME) as much as about $500/mo. Much of the cost and availability depends upon your county of residence.
Only Part B is taken from your SS.
FWIW....when my mom received SS she got about $600/mo. Granted, this was 20 years ago but I think my dad’s SS was only about $900/mo when he died a few years ago. Mom took a 12 year break and my dad was enlisted military. Neither of their combined salaries came close to my salary.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 20, 2019 14:44:19 GMT -5
I wonder how that works if you were a stay-at-home spouse or if one made a lot more than the other. Does the lower-earner get to choose based on their spouse's record if it's a better rate?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 14:50:08 GMT -5
Do they take the Medicare Part D or whatever they are out of social security? Ah, that would be it. In a way I really don't like that Medicare premiums are netted out of SS. Sure, it's a way to make sure people pay their premiums and that's a very good thing, but so many of the complaints I see on FB are about how their Medicare premium increase ate up the COLA increase. Medicare premiums are not to blame any more that the grocery bill or the cost of gas- but they don't get netted out of SS payments to they don't get "blamed". And of course they never acknowledge that their net SS will stay level even if the increase in the Medicare premium would have caused their net to go down (called the "hold harmless" provision even though it has nothing to do with what that term means legally). For Part A, but it sounds like part D isn't cheap either if you read the posts from those on it. Why do they have all these different parts anyhow? Why isn't there just Medicare? Well, original Medicare was hospitalization only, but back then they'd put you in the hospital for a week for just about anything, so it makes sense that we need some protection against claims that don't include hospitalization. Similarly, prescriptions didn't use to be a big deal but now everybody over 65 seems to be on at least one and they can cost hundreds or thousands per month. Those weren't built into the Medicare contributions so they're priced separately. I've got no problem with competing plans; my one prescription is still under patent protection so there's no break at all. I just buy the cheapest plan. Some people love Medicare Advantage and some hate it; at least alternatives are available. Competition is good.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 20, 2019 14:53:46 GMT -5
I think a lot of people are just not savvy enough to understand how it all works. Sort of like income taxes.
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 871
|
Post by mollyc on Oct 20, 2019 15:14:23 GMT -5
By the standards in the OP, definitely not.
By the expenses standard, possibly. My "own savings" portion of the 3 legged stool is currently negligible although my pension and government funds are currently on track. Assuming I have my current job until my planned retirement date, I should be able to catch up. There's a lot of maybes though. DH will be 75 when I retire. If he's right, I'll only have myself and maybe 3 senior dogs to worry about by then. If I'm right, I have to have funds available to keep him, and maybe myself, going for another 30 years.
My retirement plans will only include travel if DD doesn't live in town and my siblings are still alive to visit. I'm working to keep myself healthy enough to not always need to drive everywhere but DH has inherited his mother's degenerative disks so may not be very mobile by then. It is hard to say what our needs will be then but our wants will stay few(ish). I can accept that DH's need of having dogs and growing his own medical marijuana are wants but he will disagree.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,889
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Oct 20, 2019 21:18:39 GMT -5
I don't get a lot of SS but I took it at 62. I kept asking if it would be reduced from hubs if he passed and the SS kept telling me no. I knew mine would be. Hubs tried to get me to wait, but I had worked for years and missed having my own money. Later I found out if hubs passes first I will lose 25% of his because I took it at 62. I never would have if they had been correct, damn. And when he retired mine is right at half of his so I couldn't get more. I will pay for listening to them for the rest of my life. So I will not only lose mine but 1/4 of his. That's why we don't spend all we want to. I could be left with a ton less income and him gone too. Not going to be easy. I will be like many other old ladies, having to keep their disabled child when they really can't do it physically because they or me will need the income. She will get 3/4's of his when he is deceased. She gets half now. I haven't figured it up, but we think that is of his age 66 income, not his age 69 income.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:54:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 21:25:46 GMT -5
I don't get a lot of SS but I took it at 62. I kept asking if it would be reduced from hubs if he passed and the SS kept telling me no. I knew mine would be. Hubs tried to get me to wait, but I had worked for years and missed having my own money. Later I found out if hubs passes first I will lose 25% of his because I took it at 62. I never would have if they had been correct, damn. And when he retired mine is right at half of his so I couldn't get more. I will pay for listening to them for the rest of my life. So I will not only lose mine but 1/4 of his. That's why we don't spend all we want to. I could be left with a ton less income and him gone too. Not going to be easy. I will be like many other old ladies, having to keep their disabled child when they really can't do it physically because they or me will need the income. She will get 3/4's of his when he is deceased. She gets half now. I haven't figured it up, but we think that is of his age 66 income, not his age 69 income. For her, I think it will be when he claimed. But I am not an expert. It is what it is. That is what gets me through the day.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 20, 2019 21:27:10 GMT -5
But when you start collecting SS at 62 you are getting those monthly payments 12x a year for more years. That adds up, too.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 20, 2019 21:30:34 GMT -5
I'm thinking it will be based on when he started collecting.
I know my benefit will be based on when hubby starts collecting, so I would think it would work the same for a dependent. When I start collecting at 62, mine will be reduced again since I'm not going to wait till 66+.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Oct 20, 2019 22:01:31 GMT -5
CG, my understanding is that you would get his full amount, but lose your own. Basically, you get the higher of the 2. No idea what your daughter would get. If you were always a SAHS, then you would have gotten 1/2 of his even if you never contributed through your own wages, then just his full amount if he were to pass away before you. I don't see why you would get less than this after earning your own SS. But no, you don't get to keep both benefits. It may be hard to manage, but your expenses do go down with less people.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by CCL on Oct 20, 2019 22:52:57 GMT -5
I found this on AAAP.org: www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/when-to-claim-social-security-retirement/"Under this provision, known as the “widow(er)’s limit,” the surviving spouse of a Social Security recipient who retired early is entitled to either the late spouse’s (reduced) monthly benefit at the time of death or 82.5 percent of the deceased’s full benefit, whichever is higher. This means your widow or widower cannot get less than 82.5 percent of your full benefit, even if you receive less than that in life."Assuming it's accurate, then that would be better than 75% for countrygirl. I'm gonna have to do some more research on all of this.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 20, 2019 23:30:37 GMT -5
I found this on AAAP.org: www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/when-to-claim-social-security-retirement/"Under this provision, known as the “widow(er)’s limit,” the surviving spouse of a Social Security recipient who retired early is entitled to either the late spouse’s (reduced) monthly benefit at the time of death or 82.5 percent of the deceased’s full benefit, whichever is higher. This means your widow or widower cannot get less than 82.5 percent of your full benefit, even if you receive less than that in life."Assuming it's accurate, then that would be better than 75% for countrygirl. I'm gonna have to do some more research on all of this. It is accurate as far as it goes, but you missed the paragraph which preceded it. The widow(er)'s limit refers to when the deceased spouse claimed early so was receiving reduced benefits. What this means is that while the deceased spouse's benefits were reduced by filing early, the survivor's benefits are not again reduced for age if the surviving spouse files at their own full retirement age, regardless of when they filed for their own benefit, and may not get a full reduction if they file early. For someone receiving benefits now, they will face a choice of when to switch from their own benefit to the survivor benefit. If they are over FRA already, they will simply receive the higher of the two. If the survivor has a lower benefit on their own record, what they will actually receive will be a combination of their own benefit plus a partial survivor benefit up to the total of what the deceased spouse was receiving. If the surviving spouse has not yet reached their FRA, they can still switch to the survivor benefit but it will be reduced for age. They can keep receiving their own benefit until FRA and then switch when the survivor benefit maxes out. It is complicated, but that is my understanding.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,147
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 20, 2019 23:48:35 GMT -5
I don't get a lot of SS but I took it at 62. I kept asking if it would be reduced from hubs if he passed and the SS kept telling me no. I knew mine would be. Hubs tried to get me to wait, but I had worked for years and missed having my own money. Later I found out if hubs passes first I will lose 25% of his because I took it at 62. I never would have if they had been correct, damn. And when he retired mine is right at half of his so I couldn't get more. I will pay for listening to them for the rest of my life. So I will not only lose mine but 1/4 of his. That's why we don't spend all we want to. I could be left with a ton less income and him gone too. Not going to be easy. I will be like many other old ladies, having to keep their disabled child when they really can't do it physically because they or me will need the income. She will get 3/4's of his when he is deceased. She gets half now. I haven't figured it up, but we think that is of his age 66 income, not his age 69 income. No, that should not be true. My understanding is that your husband filed after his full retirement age. He would thus be receiving a higher benefit due to delayed retirement credits. If he dies first, you will receive a combination of your own benefit plus a partial survivor benefit up to the limit of what he was receiving, assuming that you are over your FRA when you switch from your own benefit to the survivor benefit. I think there is a reduction for spousal benefits if you claim your own early, but that does not apply to survivor's benefits. When you ask the question, it is important to be clear on the difference between the terms spousal benefit and survivor's benefit and to be clear that the person you are asking understands which you mean.
|
|