Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@Rbrt : If you have room at your current tax rate , I'd be doing it, just my thoughts. All your return will not be taxed in Roth ,while those returns will be in a taxable account. Age maybe of concern in doing this.
For the most part I agree and have been incremental Roth conversions for years. But there are also reasons to retain some traditional pre-tax funds. Two charitable issues come to mind:
- It is much more tax efficient to leave T-IRAs to charities than to leave other assets to charities. Compare bequeathing $100 in a T-IRA with converting that $100 to a Roth (leaving, say, $88) and bequeathing that to charity. The direct T-IRA donation does better even than donating appreciated assets. Sure you avoid the cap gains tax on appreciated assets, but you still purchased those assets with post-tax dollars. So those assets cost you more than what you paid for assets in a T-IRA.
- If you're older than 70½ you can donate up to $100K/year to charities from a T-IRA without having to pay any income tax on the withdrawals. If you are already itemizing it is close to a wash, because then you can add the contribution to your deductions and that balances out the extra income generated by withdrawing the T-IRA money. But most people can't itemize, and even if you are itemizing, that two step process (withdraw and then contribute) increases your AGI which can impact other things (e.g. increasing income subject to 3.8% Medicare surtax, increasing IRMAA, etc.).
@bee Thanks for a re-do of Roth conversions. These have been discussed here for many years; but a good reminder for those who may not be familiar and new to this investment area.
@davidrmoran I presume you're referencing, in part; a non-spousal inheritance of your Roth's, that Secure Act provisions require non-spousal inheritance amounts be withdrawn within a 10 year period, but will not be taxed upon withdrawal. As long as the Roth has been in place for 5 years. Yes?
@msf Good reminders for everyone regarding charity and IRMAA.
et al Keep in mind that tax rates will become "different" after the Trump era tax changes expire in 2025. Whatever the rates become, could impact some of your taxable income, which would include RMD's. Yup, not that far away for planning purposes.
Are there any exceptions for IRMMA if in one year you have a spike in income from a sale of business or selling your your primary residence? I have to assume many people live in their houses for 20-30 years and downsizing to a new house will trigger a lot of income, notwithstanding the 250K exemption from gain.
It turns out that deferred accounts are deadly for some widows. The following is an estimate I have made of the federal tax and Medicare B consequences of my husband's death.
Although my income including RMDs from both accounts goes down 19.12%, my taxable income only goes down 8.79% which makes my taxes go up 33.53% landing me in a higher tax bracket.
I'm not sure yet what exactly will happen with Medicare B or when it will happen. As far as I can tell I will, at a minimum, triple my Medicare B premium. It may quadruple if I read the latest table correctly.
Many will experience no loss of income /RMD after their spouse’s passing. Very strange Medicare rules, given how much Medicare tax would have already been paid by the person. Highly disincentive to work hard during working age. Is social security income included for IRMMA calc?
--- How many years does Irmaa last? The Social Security Administration (SSA) determines if you owe an IRMAA based on the income you reported on your IRS tax return two years prior, meaning two years before the year when you pay the IRMAA. For example, Social Security would use tax returns from 2021 to determine your IRMAA in 2023.
--- How long does the Irmaa surcharge last? Unlike late enrollment penalties, which can last as long as you have Medicare coverage, the IRMAA is calculated every year. You may have to pay the adjustment one year, but not the next if your income falls below the threshold.
Thanks for the advise! Anna, your situation seems so unfair & scary.
I do some Roth conversions each year but every dollar is taxed & hit with the ACA penalty & might affect the IRMAA all in an effort to save on taxes when I am over 72? when I start taking RMDs. (See, my wife is winning hearts and minds ;<}. )
Minimizing expense ratios is important but optimizing the tax impacts is so much more important.
There are various factors that affect net Part B premiums. IRMAA is just one of them. It is almost impossible for IRMAA alone to cause the premium to triple when filing status changes from MFJ to single.
Part B Premium 2022 Coverage (2020 Income) 2023 Coverage (2021 Income) Standard Single: <= $91,000 Single: <= $97,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $182,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $194,000 Married Filing Separately <= $91,000 Married Filing Separately <= $97,000 Standard * 1.4 Single: <= $114,000 Single: <= $123,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $228,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $246,000 Standard * 2.0 Single: <= $142,000 Single: <= $153,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $284,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $306,000 Standard * 2.6 Single: <= $170,000 Single: <= $183,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $340,000 Married Filing Jointly: <= $366,000 Standard * 3.2 Single: < $500,000 Single: < $500,000 Married Filing Jointly: < $750,000 Married Filing Jointly: < $750,000 Married Filing Separately < $409,000 Married Filing Separately < $403,000 Standard * 3.4 Single: >= $500,000 Single: >= $500,000 Married Filing Jointly: >= $750,000 Married Filing Jointly: >= $750,000 Married Filing Separately >= $409,000 Married Filing Separately >= $403,000
If one is in the first bracket (paying just the standard premium), then the premium can triple by moving the one of the top two brackets (3.2 or 3.4 times as much). But if one is in the second or higher bracket, it is impossible for the premium to triple.
So the initial MAGI (MFJ) must be no more than $182K. Filing as a single next year, the MAGI would have to be greater than $183K to jump into one of the top two brackets.
That is, even with the change in filing status from married to single, MAGI would have to go up in order for the Part B premium to triple. It would not triple if MAGI remained the same or went down.
Repeating, there are adjustments aside from IRMAA that affect net Part B premiums. So it is easily conceivable that net Part B premiums could triple with a change in filing status. But not because of IRMAA alone.
Seems like in retirement one should not (1) generate (SS income, RMD, + investment income, cap gains, etc.) more income than one needs and (2) take investment risks that could result in generating more than (1). Also, is it reasonable to say that take equity risk (e.g., equity ETFs) in taxable accounts and put fixed income (e.g., Treasuries) in the IRAs, relatively speaking?
The above does not apply to Roth accounts. Seems like having almost all your assets in Roth accounts could be the most ideal, provided you meet the penalty free withdrawal requirements so you can access the money but have least obligation to the government. (BTW, I have insignificant amounts in Roth accounts.)
SS income is included for IRMMA calc. So, if a surviving spouse claims SS based on higher benefits earned by deceased spouse, that could increase Part B premiums. Moving from a higher State income tax to a no to low State income tax State in retirement is another good way to keep more of what you worked so hard for during your working life.
Finally, seems like one should try to keep built in gain (net of transaction costs) in their primary residence within the exemption amounts to avoid income tax and additional Part B premiums. So, sell your primary residence (i.e, move) more often than you otherwise would without this exemption amount.
Congratulations to those who plan their lives well.
MAGI calculation for IRMAA includes only the taxable portion of Social Security. The entire amount of SS is included in other MAGI calculations, e.g. for Medicaid. Below is the major part (but not all) of a table from a Congressional Research Report showing MAGI calculations for IRMAA and other health related programs.
Reducing income to just what one needs is letting the tail wag the dog. If I have $1M in cash, which is better: - Buying 3 month T-bills generating $30K (annualized) in taxable income and increasing my Medicare Part B premium by less than $1K, or - reducing this unneeded income to zero (and saving with lower income taxes and lower Medicare premiums) by keeping that cash in a non-interest-bearing checking account?
Note that I've taken risk out of the equation by using short term Treasuries.
Just as one optimizes taxes by smoothing income before retirement (e.g. by shifting deductions such as contributions and property taxes from one year to the subsequent or previous year), the idea in retirement is to smooth income in retirement, rather than reduce it. That's where incremental Roth conversions help.
Optimal in many circumstances can be putting money, to the extent allowed, into HSAs. Unlike Roth contributions, HSA contributions are not taxable. With the exception of a few states, earnings while in HSA accounts are not taxed.
SS income is included for IRMMA calc. So, if a surviving spouse claims SS based on higher benefits earned by deceased spouse, that could increase Part B premiums.
The effect is the same regardless of whether the higher benefits come from the deceased spouse or from the surviving spouse. Pre-death, the taxes don't depend on which spouse had the higher benefits (assuming MFJ - income is combined). Post death, the surviving spouse receives the higher benefit regardless of whether that comes from the deceased spouse or the surviving spouse.
Moving from a higher State income tax to a no to low State income tax State in retirement is another good way to keep more of what you worked so hard for during your working life.
Example 4: James and Dolly Madison anticipate that they will each receive $18,000 of Social Security income and $19,500 of qualified-plan income during retirement, for a combined total income of $75,000 each year.
With their retirement income mix, the Madisons would have an estimated $0 state tax bill in 24 states! Notably, this list includes Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, states commonly thought of as high-tax states.
@msf, Sorry, I do not mean to offend but I tried to convey this more politely many times before. You are always welcome to provide more specifics, without saying / indicating others’ broad, general statements are wrong, especially when those statements are not. While you often provide information useful to this forum, you do not have to score points or try to show others are idiots to provide the same usefulness. A lot more people would participate and / or share useful information in this forum if less confrontational or argumentative approach is taken by members.
Hmmmmmm. I have an additional question: The lion's share of our stuff is all in T-IRA. Reported income (SS and Defined Benefit pension) puts us in a "no tax due" status in terms of our 1040. My annual withdrawals from the T-IRA are small enough so that we still owe notaxdue. And in a declining market, I will simply not take my customary annual withdrawals. But RMDs will surely have to be paid. (starting at age 72 now, right? 4 years from now, for me.) Does a conversion to Roth make any sense at all for us? Wife is 19 years younger. Her T-IRA is just 5% of our combined total. And after I'm gone, her plan is to move back to her home country. We have a house there already. Expenses will be ridiculously low---- except for the constant begging from the extended family.
@msf Thanks for the additional information. As I said, I have not dug deeply into the Medicare B consequences. It looks like I will need to take your information and spend some time on the question. I just used the tables and based my guesses on my expected taxable federal income. The table I used was from CMS link: 2023 Part B premiums
@Anna - that's a nice table there on the 2023 brackets. It makes the numbers concrete. Some people work better that way, some people prefer the abstract "Standard", "Standard * 1.4", etc.
Regardless of how one looks at it, the ratios between brackets do remain fixed from year to year. So in 2023, the standard premium is $164.90, and the premium at the first IRMAA level is 1.4 times that, or $230.80. Okay, the government fudged a few pennies; 1.4 x $164.90 = $230.86. As the saying goes, close enough for government work
Depending on how everything works, there is a small chance that your premium could actually triple, more or less. The portion of your SS that is taxable might go up which in turn would increase the MAGI used to calculate your IRMAA bracket. Little quirks abound.
I hope you're not too badly hit by IRMAA, and more importantly, that you're doing okay after the death of your husband.
It turns out that deferred accounts are deadly for some widows. The following is an estimate I have made of the federal tax and Medicare B consequences of my husband's death.
Although my income including RMDs from both accounts goes down 19.12%, my taxable income only goes down 8.79% which makes my taxes go up 33.53% landing me in a higher tax bracket.
I'm not sure yet what exactly will happen with Medicare B or when it will happen. As far as I can tell I will, at a minimum, triple my Medicare B premium. It may quadruple if I read the latest table correctly.
Dear Anna: you may find this paper reassuring (or not): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3896672 I took a behavioral finance approach in the paper: yes, single tax rates are higher, and yes, unlucky singles can pay more in IRMAA than the couple had. But rates are one thing, net dollars paid / saved are another. The paper argues that if you focus on whether you can fund the same lifestyle, as a widowed survivor, that you had as a member of the couple, you are probably going to be okay. Financially, that is; emotionally is another thing. I would welcome your comments and those of anyone else on the board. PS: the paper should be free to access, as all ssrn.com papers
Some of these comments make me wonder if the poster read the MW article (Hulbert is a smart and prudent cookie, in my long experience of reading him) , much less the original paper, downloadable here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4227132 , and hugely sobering if the case.
Still a rank newbie here at MutualFundObserver and I will take instruction as to whether it is appropriate to point to related discussions on another forum. Hoping that it is, I started a discussion on this paper over at Bogleheads.org: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=387165 Although some posters defaulted to a thumbs up/ thumbs down stance, there are also some quite searching criticisms of the paper. I would say on balance that good reasons were given for not accepting the headline withdrawal rates in the study. Much depends on how to treat war loss years. I'll monitor any responses here in this thread and respond here if I can.
So what do folks think...annuitize a portion of your nest egg to act as a "defacto" pension for those without one? If so, what type of annuity...inflation protected, length, simple etc?
Isn't Pfau connected with some institute connected with annuities or something? Does that sway his thinking/perspective in any manner?
Does the latest ~25% downdraft in the markets (still overvalued?) and increase in interest rates change any forecast pertaining to SWR?
Tax conversation so releveant and somewhat confusing to me...
"So what do folks think...annuitize a portion of your nest egg to act as a "defacto" pension for those without one? If so, what type of annuity...inflation protected, length, simple etc?"
Annuitizing a portion of my portfolio sounds appealing in theory. It would be nice to have annuities and Social Security (no pension) cover most/all basic expenses. The problem is there are many different types of annuities and some annuities are complex and expensive. For lifetime income, I would investigate single-premium immediate annuities, deferred income annuities, and qualified longevity annuity contracts (QLACs).
American College offers degree and certification programs for financial professionals. It is tied to financial industry but is not a sales organization for any insurance/annuity company. https://www.theamericancollege.edu/designations-degrees
If one needs retirement income for lifetime, the most basic product is single-premium immediate annuity (SPIA). One can get quotes from online quote services. Keep in mind that SPIA give quotes for payouts that are interest plus part of your principal, but when you buy SPIA, you do give up the principal.
There are also expensive annuities that have GMWB/GLWB income riders that allow you to tap the principal.
QLAC is just a version of a Deferred Income Annuity, and it has [additional] limitations... It has to be used in a qualified account, has premium limitations, et cetera. But on the other hand, a Deferred Income Annuity pretty much has no limitations.
I like both Deferred Income Annuities and Qualified Longevity Annuity Contracts because they are simple. You can explain it to a nine year old, no offense to nine year olds. It's a pension.
Deferred-income-annuities (DIAs) from taxable accounts were around for a long time. But there were some complicated issues with related RMDs for buying them from tax-deferred accounts and the IRS clarified those during 2012-14 (initial guidelines 02/2012, final guidelines 07/2014). Basically, the amounts used to purchase QLAC are removed from RMD calculations, but the $amounts are limited and there are some other restrictions. Longevity insurance is used as a catch-phrase for marketing these.
Comments
Keep things simple.
- Do Roth conversions up to the 12% tax bracket. No brainer.
- Consider converting to Roth any long term holding that has temporarily lost 20% or more… the loss will eventually pay for the tax hit.
- look at your RMDs as a taxable events and compare them against your Roth conversions which are taxable events.
- Buy chocolates
- It is much more tax efficient to leave T-IRAs to charities than to leave other assets to charities. Compare bequeathing $100 in a T-IRA with converting that $100 to a Roth (leaving, say, $88) and bequeathing that to charity. The direct T-IRA donation does better even than donating appreciated assets. Sure you avoid the cap gains tax on appreciated assets, but you still purchased those assets with post-tax dollars. So those assets cost you more than what you paid for assets in a T-IRA.
- If you're older than 70½ you can donate up to $100K/year to charities from a T-IRA without having to pay any income tax on the withdrawals. If you are already itemizing it is close to a wash, because then you can add the contribution to your deductions and that balances out the extra income generated by withdrawing the T-IRA money. But most people can't itemize, and even if you are itemizing, that two step process (withdraw and then contribute) increases your AGI which can impact other things (e.g. increasing income subject to 3.8% Medicare surtax, increasing IRMAA, etc.).
Thanks for a re-do of Roth conversions. These have been discussed here for many years; but a good reminder for those who may not be familiar and new to this investment area.
@davidrmoran
I presume you're referencing, in part; a non-spousal inheritance of your Roth's, that Secure Act provisions require non-spousal inheritance amounts be withdrawn within a 10 year period, but will not be taxed upon withdrawal. As long as the Roth has been in place for 5 years. Yes?
@msf
Good reminders for everyone regarding charity and IRMAA.
et al Keep in mind that tax rates will become "different" after the Trump era tax changes expire in 2025. Whatever the rates become, could impact some of your taxable income, which would include RMD's. Yup, not that far away for planning purposes.
Below links do not require a log-in.
Fidelity Roth conversion Q & A
Fidelity Roth conversion calculator
Lastly, relative to the thread topic; everyone's monetary needs and asset base are different.
Remain curious,
Catch
Are there any exceptions for IRMMA if in one year you have a spike in income from a sale of business or selling your your primary residence? I have to assume many people live in their houses for 20-30 years and downsizing to a new house will trigger a lot of income, notwithstanding the 250K exemption from gain.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/omha/the-appeals-process/part-b-premium-appeals/index.html
https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-44-ext.pdf
Although my income including RMDs from both accounts goes down 19.12%, my taxable income only goes down 8.79% which makes my taxes go up 33.53% landing me in a higher tax bracket.
I'm not sure yet what exactly will happen with Medicare B or when it will happen. As far as I can tell I will, at a minimum, triple my Medicare B premium. It may quadruple if I read the latest table correctly.
Many will experience no loss of income /RMD after their spouse’s passing. Very strange Medicare rules, given how much Medicare tax would have already been paid by the person. Highly disincentive to work hard during working age. Is social security income included for IRMMA calc?
Some of the items @Anna has been digging through.
--- How many years does Irmaa last?
The Social Security Administration (SSA) determines if you owe an IRMAA based on the income you reported on your IRS tax return two years prior, meaning two years before the year when you pay the IRMAA. For example, Social Security would use tax returns from 2021 to determine your IRMAA in 2023.
--- How long does the Irmaa surcharge last?
Unlike late enrollment penalties, which can last as long as you have Medicare coverage, the IRMAA is calculated every year. You may have to pay the adjustment one year, but not the next if your income falls below the threshold.
IRMAA related search topics, if you're inclined to know more.
I do some Roth conversions each year but every dollar is taxed & hit with the ACA penalty & might affect the IRMAA all in an effort to save on taxes when I am over 72? when I start taking RMDs. (See, my wife is winning hearts and minds ;<}. )
Minimizing expense ratios is important but optimizing the tax impacts is so much more important.
If one is in the first bracket (paying just the standard premium), then the premium can triple by moving the one of the top two brackets (3.2 or 3.4 times as much). But if one is in the second or higher bracket, it is impossible for the premium to triple.
So the initial MAGI (MFJ) must be no more than $182K. Filing as a single next year, the MAGI would have to be greater than $183K to jump into one of the top two brackets.
That is, even with the change in filing status from married to single, MAGI would have to go up in order for the Part B premium to triple. It would not triple if MAGI remained the same or went down.
Repeating, there are adjustments aside from IRMAA that affect net Part B premiums. So it is easily conceivable that net Part B premiums could triple with a change in filing status. But not because of IRMAA alone.
The above does not apply to Roth accounts. Seems like having almost all your assets in Roth accounts could be the most ideal, provided you meet the penalty free withdrawal requirements so you can access the money but have least obligation to the government. (BTW, I have insignificant amounts in Roth accounts.)
SS income is included for IRMMA calc. So, if a surviving spouse claims SS based on higher benefits earned by deceased spouse, that could increase Part B premiums. Moving from a higher State income tax to a no to low State income tax State in retirement is another good way to keep more of what you worked so hard for during your working life.
Finally, seems like one should try to keep built in gain (net of transaction costs) in their primary residence within the exemption amounts to avoid income tax and additional Part B premiums. So, sell your primary residence (i.e, move) more often than you otherwise would without this exemption amount.
Congratulations to those who plan their lives well.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43861.pdf
Reducing income to just what one needs is letting the tail wag the dog. If I have $1M in cash, which is better:
- Buying 3 month T-bills generating $30K (annualized) in taxable income and increasing my Medicare Part B premium by less than $1K, or
- reducing this unneeded income to zero (and saving with lower income taxes and lower Medicare premiums) by keeping that cash in a non-interest-bearing checking account?
Note that I've taken risk out of the equation by using short term Treasuries.
Just as one optimizes taxes by smoothing income before retirement (e.g. by shifting deductions such as contributions and property taxes from one year to the subsequent or previous year), the idea in retirement is to smooth income in retirement, rather than reduce it. That's where incremental Roth conversions help.
Optimal in many circumstances can be putting money, to the extent allowed, into HSAs. Unlike Roth contributions, HSA contributions are not taxable. With the exception of a few states, earnings while in HSA accounts are not taxed.
SS income is included for IRMMA calc. So, if a surviving spouse claims SS based on higher benefits earned by deceased spouse, that could increase Part B premiums.
The effect is the same regardless of whether the higher benefits come from the deceased spouse or from the surviving spouse. Pre-death, the taxes don't depend on which spouse had the higher benefits (assuming MFJ - income is combined). Post death, the surviving spouse receives the higher benefit regardless of whether that comes from the deceased spouse or the surviving spouse.
Moving from a higher State income tax to a no to low State income tax State in retirement is another good way to keep more of what you worked so hard for during your working life.
Often not. There's much more to the calculation than state income tax rates. An excellent, very long piece on the Kitces site (I've read much but not all of it) discusses several different factors and how the situation depends not only on income tax rates, but on the mix of income sources, on the level of income, etc.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/state-income-tax-retirees-top-marginal-rates-social-security-pension-income-age-exemptions/
One example from that page to illustrate this:
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/spenders-vs-savers-how-to-determine-your-retirement-spending-personality.html?cid=PI_Single_Topic_NonSubscriber_RET_EM_202210&bid=1099700455&PlacementGUID=em_PI_PI_Single_Topic_EM_NonSubscriber_202210-PI_Single_Topic_NonSubscriber_RET_EM_202210_20221006&b2c-uber=u.C70CEE71-16A5-E6FF-FF67-9E86F48AE56B
2023 Part B premiums
Regardless of how one looks at it, the ratios between brackets do remain fixed from year to year. So in 2023, the standard premium is $164.90, and the premium at the first IRMAA level is 1.4 times that, or $230.80. Okay, the government fudged a few pennies; 1.4 x $164.90 = $230.86. As the saying goes, close enough for government work
Depending on how everything works, there is a small chance that your premium could actually triple, more or less. The portion of your SS that is taxable might go up which in turn would increase the MAGI used to calculate your IRMAA bracket. Little quirks abound.
I hope you're not too badly hit by IRMAA, and more importantly, that you're doing okay after the death of your husband.
I took a behavioral finance approach in the paper: yes, single tax rates are higher, and yes, unlucky singles can pay more in IRMAA than the couple had.
But rates are one thing, net dollars paid / saved are another. The paper argues that if you focus on whether you can fund the same lifestyle, as a widowed survivor, that you had as a member of the couple, you are probably going to be okay. Financially, that is; emotionally is another thing.
I would welcome your comments and those of anyone else on the board.
PS: the paper should be free to access, as all ssrn.com papers
Hoping that it is, I started a discussion on this paper over at Bogleheads.org: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=387165
Although some posters defaulted to a thumbs up/ thumbs down stance, there are also some quite searching criticisms of the paper. I would say on balance that good reasons were given for not accepting the headline withdrawal rates in the study. Much depends on how to treat war loss years.
I'll monitor any responses here in this thread and respond here if I can.
https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/DEC10 JFP Pfau PDF.pdf
So what do folks think...annuitize a portion of your nest egg to act as a "defacto" pension for those without one? If so, what type of annuity...inflation protected, length, simple etc?
Isn't Pfau connected with some institute connected with annuities or something? Does that sway his thinking/perspective in any manner?
Does the latest ~25% downdraft in the markets (still overvalued?) and increase in interest rates change any forecast pertaining to SWR?
Tax conversation so releveant and somewhat confusing to me...
Best Regards,
Baseball Fan
Annuitizing a portion of my portfolio sounds appealing in theory.
It would be nice to have annuities and Social Security (no pension) cover most/all basic expenses.
The problem is there are many different types of annuities and some annuities are complex and expensive.
For lifetime income, I would investigate single-premium immediate annuities, deferred income annuities,
and qualified longevity annuity contracts (QLACs).
https://www.theamericancollege.edu/our-people/faculty/wade-pfau
American College offers degree and certification programs for financial professionals. It is tied to financial industry but is not a sales organization for any insurance/annuity company.
https://www.theamericancollege.edu/designations-degrees
If one needs retirement income for lifetime, the most basic product is single-premium immediate annuity (SPIA). One can get quotes from online quote services. Keep in mind that SPIA give quotes for payouts that are interest plus part of your principal, but when you buy SPIA, you do give up the principal.
There are also expensive annuities that have GMWB/GLWB income riders that allow you to tap the principal.
https://www.stantheannuityman.com/knowing-the-difference-between-dias-vs-qlacs
Stan goes on: