trevor-phibbs

The Retiree's Honest Guide to Annuities: What to Buy, What to Avoid, and Why It Matters

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:08:51 GMT

A plain-English breakdown of the five most popular annuity types, including the one type we recommend for savers approaching or entering retirement.

Few financial products carry as much emotional baggage as annuities. Mention the word at a dinner party and you will likely get two reactions: one person who bought one without fully understanding it and now feels trapped, and another who swears they are nothing but a vehicle for commission-hungry salespeople. The truth, as it so often is in financial planning, sits somewhere far more nuanced than either extreme.

The annuity market generated record sales in recent years, with total industry sales approaching $430 billion in 2024 alone [1]. That is not the behavior of an irrelevant product category. Yet many of those contracts were sold to people who did not fully grasp what they were purchasing. This guide is designed to change that.

Whether you are transitioning out of your peak earning years or are already in the early chapters of retirement, understanding exactly how each annuity type works, including its advantages, its costs, and the tradeoffs you are accepting, can mean the difference between a retirement that provides quiet confidence and one that quietly erodes your savings.

First, Let's Address the Commission Myth

Before diving into the products themselves, it is worth clearing up one of the most persistent misconceptions in retirement planning: the idea that annuity commissions somehow come out of your pocket. They do not.

When an advisor sells you an annuity, the commission is paid by the insurance company, not deducted from your premium or your account balance. Think of it the same way a real estate seller pays both agents' commissions at closing. As the buyer, you are not writing a check for that fee; it is baked into the insurance company's cost structure. This does not mean all annuities are suitable, and it does not mean the absence of a direct commission makes every product a good deal. But conflating commission with cost to the consumer is both inaccurate and a distraction from the analysis that actually matters.

The real question to ask is not whether a commission exists. The real question is: Does this product solve a problem I actually have?

The Five Annuity Types, Ranked from Worst to Best

1. Variable Annuities

Variable annuities are the product most responsible for the annuity industry's reputation problem, and for good reason. Here is how they work: your premium is placed into sub-accounts, which are essentially mutual funds wrapped inside an insurance contract. Your money participates in market gains, but it also absorbs market losses, just like a standard investment account.

The problem is not market exposure in itself. The problem is what you pay for the privilege. A variable annuity can layer three to four distinct fee tiers on top of one another: mortality and expense charges (typically 1.0% to 1.5% annually), sub-account management fees, administrative charges, and optional rider fees for income guarantees or enhanced death benefits. When stacked, these fees can reach 3% to 4% of your total account value per year , regardless of whether the market goes up or down [2].

The analogy is straightforward: imagine a car dealer offering you a vehicle with the same speed, the same mileage, and the same performance as a car you already own, except the monthly payment is considerably higher, the interior has fewer features, and you can never change the tires. You would walk out of that dealership. Variable annuities present a very similar proposition. They expose your principal to the same risks as a standard IRA or brokerage account, while charging significantly more for the wrapper around it.

Key Risk: Full market downside exposure with substantially higher fees than comparable non-insurance investment vehicles.

Compliance Note: Variable annuities are securities products regulated by FINRA and the SEC, and must be sold with a prospectus. Always read it [3].

2. Registered Index-Linked Annuities (RILAs): The Middle Ground With a Catch

RILAs are often marketed as the best of both worlds, a bridge between pure market exposure and full downside protection. In practice, they are better described as a way to rearrange risk rather than eliminate it.

The structure involves two key parameters: a cap on upside gains and either a buffer or a floor on the downside. Understanding the difference between a buffer and a floor is critical, and it is a distinction many buyers overlook.

Buffer vs. Floor: A Practical Illustration

(The following is a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes only and does not represent a guarantee of any specific outcome.)

Buffer scenario: A RILA with a 15% cap and a 10% buffer. If the S&P 500 rises 20%, you are credited 15%. If it falls 8%, you lose nothing; the insurance company absorbs that first 10%. However, if the market falls 25%, you absorb 15% of that loss (25% minus the 10% buffer the company covers).

Floor scenario: A RILA with a 10% floor means you absorb the first 10% of loss yourself, but the insurer covers anything beyond that. If the market falls 7%, you lose 7%. If it falls 25%, your maximum loss is capped at 10%.

Neither construct eliminates market risk. If your principal can still decline in value, and it can with both buffer and floor structures, then a RILA is fundamentally a market-exposed product with a modified risk profile. For many savers who have built their wealth over decades and are now focused on preservation, accepting any principal loss may not align with their actual retirement income needs.

Key Risk: Principal is not fully protected. Depending on market performance and the specific buffer or floor, meaningful losses remain possible.

3. Multi-Year Guaranteed Annuities (MYGAs): The CD Alternative

A MYGA is perhaps the simplest annuity structure available. You deposit a lump sum with an insurance company, and in return, they credit a fixed interest rate for a defined term, typically between three and seven years. The interest accumulates on a tax-deferred basis [4], meaning you do not owe income tax on the earnings until you take distributions.

The appeal is obvious: no market risk, a predictable rate, and tax deferral. However, MYGAs have a meaningful disadvantage when compared to their closest competitor, the bank or credit union certificate of deposit (CD). In many rate environments, a CD at a well-capitalized bank or credit union can offer a comparable or higher yield for a commitment of only six to twelve months, rather than several years. Liquidity matters enormously in retirement, and tying up capital for five to seven years in exchange for a rate that is available elsewhere with far less lock-up period is a tradeoff worth scrutinizing carefully.

Key Risk: Surrender charges for early withdrawal can be steep. Liquidity is genuinely constrained for the full contract term.

Tax Note: Withdrawals from MYGAs held outside of a qualified account are subject to ordinary income tax on the earnings portion, and withdrawals before age 59 1/2 may also incur a 10% IRS penalty [4].

4. Single Premium Immediate Annuities (SPIAs): The Simplest Pension You Can Buy

SPIAs are the oldest annuity structure in existence, and in many ways the most transparent. You hand an insurance company a lump sum, and they begin making income payments to you immediately, for either a defined number of years or for the remainder of your life. There is no market exposure, no accumulation phase, and no complexity. For someone who values absolute predictability and wants a guaranteed income floor they cannot outlive, a SPIA can be a genuinely effective tool [5].

The tradeoff, however, is severe: once you annuitize, the transaction is permanent and irreversible. You surrender access to the lump sum entirely. If your circumstances change, if you face an unexpected medical expense, a family emergency, or simply an inflation environment that erodes the purchasing power of your fixed payment, there is no mechanism to adapt. The income is set, and the capital is gone.

For most retirees who still have decades of life ahead of them and whose financial needs will evolve over time, a deferred income strategy that preserves flexibility until the moment income is needed can produce a meaningfully higher lifetime payout while maintaining access to the capital in the interim.

Key Risk: Complete and permanent loss of principal access. No inflation adjustment unless specifically purchased as a rider, which reduces the initial payout.

5. Fixed Index Annuities (FIAs): The One We Recommend for Most Savers

A fixed index annuity occupies a distinct position in the annuity spectrum. It is not a market investment, and it is not a fixed-rate product. It is a principal-protected contract that credits interest based on the performance of an underlying index, most commonly the S&P 500, without ever exposing your actual premium to market losses.

The mechanics work like this: if the index rises, you participate in a portion of that gain, up to a stated cap or participation rate. If the index falls, your account value does not decline. You simply receive zero crediting for that period. Your principal is never at risk [6].

A useful analogy is a card game with modified rules. The dealer says: every hand you win, I keep 30% and you keep 70%. Before you object, the second rule applies: every hand you lose, I look the other way and pretend it never happened. Given those terms, you would never leave that table. That is the fundamental value proposition of a well-structured FIA.

What to Look For in an FIA

Not all FIAs are created equal, and the product category has its own version of predatory designs. Here is what to prioritize:

No internal fees: The cleanest FIAs carry zero annual cost. Any FIA with insurance charges, mortality fees, or index expenses without a compelling income guarantee attached is likely not the right choice.

Simple, trackable indexes: Some insurance companies will pitch exotic proprietary indexes with colorful names and impressive backtested returns. In practice, these indexes rarely outperform a straightforward S&P 500 strategy once caps and participation rates are applied. Stick with indexes you can track independently.

Income riders, only if you plan to use them: An income rider is an optional feature that creates a separate "income base" value, which grows at a stated rate and is later used to calculate your guaranteed lifetime income payment. These riders typically cost about 1% per year. If you genuinely plan to turn on a lifetime income stream at some point, that fee is well-justified. If you never activate the rider, you will have paid thousands of dollars for a feature that provided no benefit, while your actual account balance (the "accumulation value") received far less focus and growth.

The Most Overlooked Distinction in FIA Sales: Accumulation Value vs. Income Base

This is the section that most annuity buyers never fully understand until it is too late, and it deserves direct, unambiguous treatment.

When an FIA with an income rider is marketed with language like a "20% bonus" or a "7% guaranteed rollup rate," that growth is being applied to the income base , not to your actual account balance. The income base is a notional figure, a mathematical construct used solely to calculate your eventual guaranteed income payments. It is not transferable. It is not inheritable in the same way as your accumulation value. You cannot walk away with it.

Your accumulation value , the real money you could access at any time, grows based on index crediting and is entirely separate from the income base. When an advisor leads with the bonus or the rollup rate without clearly explaining this distinction, that is not education. That is salesmanship.

The practical implication: if you are purchasing an FIA with an income rider, have a clear, documented plan for when and how you will activate that income. If you pay the rider fee for eight to twelve years and never turn it on, you have effectively made a gift to the insurance company while your accumulation value grew more slowly than it might have in a no-fee FIA.

Frequently Asked Questions: What Retirees Ask Most

Are annuities appropriate for everyone approaching retirement?

No product is universally appropriate, and anyone who tells you otherwise is marketing rather than advising. An FIA may be an excellent solution for someone who needs principal protection, tax deferral, or a guaranteed income floor, and a poor fit for someone with substantial pension income, low risk tolerance for illiquidity, or heirs who need maximum liquidity from the estate. The suitability analysis matters far more than the product category.

How are annuity withdrawals taxed?

For annuities held outside of a retirement account (non-qualified annuities), withdrawals are taxed using the "last in, first out" (LIFO) rule: earnings come out first and are taxed as ordinary income. Once all earnings have been distributed, the original principal (your cost basis) comes out tax-free. For annuities held inside an IRA or other qualified account, all distributions are generally taxed as ordinary income in the year received, consistent with standard retirement account rules [4].

What happens to my annuity if the insurance company fails?

Insurance companies are regulated at the state level, and each state maintains a guaranty association that provides a backstop for policyholders up to specified limits, most commonly $250,000 per individual per insurer for annuity contract values [7]. This is not the same as FDIC insurance, and the limits and processes vary by state. Selecting an insurance company with strong independent financial ratings from agencies such as A.M. Best, Moody's, or Standard and Poor's is an important component of due diligence.

What is the right percentage of retirement assets to place in an annuity?

There is no universal answer, but the principle of diversification applies here just as it does in a portfolio of stocks and bonds. Placing 100% of your retirement savings into any single product, whether an annuity, a stock portfolio, or a bank account, concentrates risk unnecessarily. A thoughtful retirement income plan might use an FIA to protect and grow a portion of savings while providing a guaranteed income floor, while maintaining separate liquid assets for discretionary spending, healthcare reserves, and legacy goals.

A Practical Illustration: How an FIA Might Fit Into a Retirement Plan

( The following scenario is purely illustrative and hypothetical. It does not represent a guarantee, projection, or promise of any specific outcome for any individual. All retirement strategies involve risk, and individual results will vary based on personal circumstances, tax situation, and market conditions.)

Consider a couple, both aged 63, who have accumulated $800,000 in a combination of IRAs and brokerage accounts. They plan to retire at 67 and begin Social Security at the same time. Their primary concern is what happens to their portfolio if a significant market correction occurs in the three to four years before retirement, precisely the window when a decline would have the most damaging impact on their eventual income.

In this scenario, reallocating a meaningful portion of their savings, perhaps $200,000 to $300,000, into a no-cost FIA linked to the S&P 500 would provide principal protection on that segment of their wealth during those critical pre-retirement years. If the market rises over that period, they participate in a portion of those gains. If the market falls, that segment of their savings is insulated. The remaining portfolio stays invested for growth and liquidity.

This is not a recommendation for any specific person or allocation. It is an illustration of how a tool fits a clearly defined problem: protecting a portion of accumulation during a high-stakes time window when a loss would be most difficult to recover from.

Your Next Step: A Retirement Inspection Worth Having

Most people spend more time planning a vacation than they do stress-testing their retirement income strategy. They know, roughly, how much they have saved. But they have never stress-tested that number against sequence-of-returns risk, tax drag on required minimum distributions, healthcare cost inflation, or the possibility of one spouse outliving the other by fifteen years or more.

We help people create more memories with their money. That starts by helping them spend without fear, and that requires a strategy built around their specific tax situation, income timeline, legacy priorities, and the products that actually serve those goals.

If you would like clarity on how your current savings are positioned, whether annuities belong in your plan at all, and how to structure a multi-decade income stream that you will not outlive, we invite you to schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection . It is not a sales presentation. It is a structured, personalized review designed to give you a clear picture of where you stand and what your options genuinely are.

Visit freeretiremtinspection.com to schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection today.

Sources

[1] LIMRA U.S. Individual Annuity Sales Survey. Available at: www.limra.com (Industry sales volume and trend data for U.S. annuity markets).
[2] FINRA Investor Alert: Variable Annuities: Beyond the Hard Sell. Available at: www.finra.org/investors/alerts/variable-annuities-beyond-hard-sell.
[3] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know. Available at: www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/varannty.htm.
[4] IRS Publication 575: Pension and Annuity Income. Available at: www.irs.gov/publications/p575. (Governs taxation of annuity distributions, LIFO rules for non-qualified contracts, and early withdrawal penalties.)
[5] Social Security Administration: Retirement Benefits. Available at: www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement. (Referenced in context of structuring complementary income streams alongside guaranteed annuity income.)
[6] National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC): Annuity Suitability. Available at: www.naic.org. (Regulatory framework governing fixed index annuity crediting methods, index participation rates, and caps.)
[7] National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA): How Guaranty Associations Work. Available at: www.nolhga.com. (State-level backstop protections for annuity policyholders.)

Disclosures

The material provided is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute personalized investment, legal, or financial advice. All investment strategies, including retirement distribution and tax-efficiency planning, involve inherent risks and potential loss of principal, and past performance is never a guarantee of future market results. Any hypothetical examples or strategies discussed are purely illustrative and may not be suitable for your specific age, tax bracket, or financial situation. Furthermore, while our comprehensive financial planning evaluates strategic wealth outlooks, Phibbs Financial Services LLC does not provide formal tax preparation, legal counsel, or IRS representation. Readers should always consult with a qualified CPA or licensed attorney before implementing any advanced tax or estate strategies mentioned herein.

The Smart Retirement Withdrawal Order: Why the Conventional Sequence Can Cost You

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:36:00 GMT

How a smarter sequencing strategy can extend your portfolio for decades.

Retirement is not simply the day you stop collecting a paycheck. It is the day you begin writing your own. And for many people, that transition — from decades of accumulating wealth to deliberately spending it down — is one of the most psychologically and financially complex shifts they will ever make. The good news is that a well-structured withdrawal strategy can mean the difference between a plan that merely survives and one that genuinely thrives across changing tax rates, market cycles, and an increasingly long retirement horizon.

This article focuses specifically on your investable assets: your retirement accounts, brokerage accounts, and savings. These are the dollars you will use to bridge the gap between guaranteed income sources like Social Security or a pension and the full cost of the lifestyle you have worked your entire career to enjoy. What often trips people up is not that they spent too much; it is that they pulled money from the wrong account at the wrong time, triggering unnecessary taxes and locking in preventable losses.

If you are approaching or have recently entered retirement, the following framework addresses exactly that problem.

The Conventional Wisdom (and Why It Can Backfire)

You may have heard the traditional withdrawal sequence recommended by many financial textbooks and advisors: spend taxable accounts first (your brokerage accounts, savings, and money market funds), then draw down tax-deferred accounts (like a traditional IRA or 401(k)), and finally tap tax-free accounts (such as a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k)) last.

The logic seems sound. You preserve your tax-advantaged accounts as long as possible, allowing them to compound with no annual tax drag. On paper, this is efficient. In practice, however, it can quietly build a tax problem that becomes very difficult to dismantle once it gains momentum.

The RMD Problem: A Tax Tornado on the Horizon

Here is what the conventional approach often overlooks. By leaving your traditional IRA and 401(k) untouched for the first decade or more of retirement, those balances continue to grow — and the IRS will eventually force you to withdraw them, whether you need the income or not. These are known as Required Minimum Distributions, or RMDs [1].

Depending on the year you were born, RMDs begin at age 73 or 75 [2]. And here is where the "tax tornado" effect takes hold. Larger-than-necessary RMDs can simultaneously:

Push your taxable income into a higher federal bracket, increasing the marginal rate on every dollar above the threshold
Trigger Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts ( IRMAA ), which increase your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums [3]
Cause a greater portion of your Social Security benefit to become taxable (up to 85% of benefits can be subject to federal income tax, depending on your combined income) [4]
Reduce your ability to deploy Roth conversions or other tax-planning strategies, because your income is already elevated

Once these forces align, they are genuinely difficult to reverse. That is why proactive sequencing — done years before RMDs begin — is one of the most valuable things a retirement plan can address.

A Smarter Withdrawal Order: Flip the Script

Rather than following the conventional sequence, a more tax-efficient approach for many retirees reverses the first two steps. The revised order looks like this:

Tax-deferred accounts first (traditional IRA, 401(k), 403(b))
Taxable accounts second (brokerage, savings, money market)
Tax-free accounts last (Roth IRA, Roth 401(k))

This reordering may feel counterintuitive at first. Why would you voluntarily create taxable income by drawing from your IRA early, when you could use "free" money from your brokerage account instead? The answer lies in lifetime tax optimization, not just today's tax bill.

Why Drawing Tax-Deferred Accounts Early Makes Sense

By taking intentional, controlled distributions from your IRA or 401(k) during the early years of retirement — often before Social Security begins or before Medicare surcharges kick in — you have an opportunity to fill your lower tax brackets deliberately. This is sometimes called "bracket harvesting," and it effectively converts future forced, uncontrollable distributions (RMDs) into smaller, planned ones you manage on your own terms.

When you later reach taxable accounts, you may find yourself in a meaningfully lower income bracket, which matters significantly for long-term investors. Long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%, 15%, or 20% depending on your taxable income, meaning the timing of when you realize gains on appreciated securities can be optimized with some care [5].

And by preserving your Roth accounts until last, you allow your most valuable dollars — the ones that will never be taxed again on withdrawal — to compound quietly in the background for the longest possible period. The longer those accounts grow, the more tax-free wealth is available in later retirement, when healthcare costs and late-stage care expenses tend to rise.

Beyond Taxes: The Account Type Risk You Rarely Hear About

Tax sequencing is only half of the equation. An equally important — and far less discussed — dimension of retirement income planning concerns the type of risk each account carries at the time you need to make withdrawals.

Consider what happens when a retiree draws income from a market-based account during a significant downturn. Not only may they be realizing taxable gains at an inconvenient time, but they are also permanently reducing the number of shares or units available to participate in any eventual recovery. This dynamic, known as sequence-of-returns risk , can do more damage to a long-term retirement plan than a poor average return ever could — precisely because the timing of losses during early distribution years is irreversible [6].

What Is a "Protected" Asset?

To address sequence-of-returns risk directly, a disciplined income strategy draws first from accounts that have three specific characteristics:

Principal protection: the account balance cannot decline due to market activity
Competitive, inflation-conscious growth: the account should historically keep pace with inflation, generally in the 2% to 4% range over time
Sufficient liquidity: distributions can be taken consistently without penalties or restrictions that would disrupt your income flow

Accounts that may qualify under these criteria include fixed indexed annuities with no surrender period, high-yield savings accounts, penalty-free certificates of deposit, and certain stable-value or capital-preservation funds [7]. The specific vehicle matters less than the purpose it serves: providing stable, predictable income without forcing premature sales of growth-oriented assets during periods of volatility.

It is worth noting that bonds, while generally more stable than equities, do not meet this definition — because bond values can and do decline when interest rates rise. The 2022 bond market decline served as a sobering reminder of this for many retirees who assumed fixed income meant fully protected income.

The Protected Spend Down in Practice: An Illustrative Scenario

Please note: The following scenario is purely illustrative and does not represent a guaranteed outcome or a specific client result. It is intended to demonstrate a conceptual framework using simplified, conservative assumptions.

Imagine a couple retiring at age 67 with the following portfolio structure:

$250,000 in protected accounts (e.g., a fixed indexed annuity or high-yield savings), assumed to grow at a conservative 3% annually
$250,000 in growth-oriented accounts (e.g., a diversified equity portfolio), assumed to appreciate at a conservative 6% annually

They begin drawing $25,000 per year from the protected side to supplement their Social Security income. At 3% annual growth and $25,000 in annual distributions, the protected accounts sustain that income stream for approximately 13 years. By around age 79, that protected pool is essentially depleted.

Meanwhile, the growth portfolio — left completely untouched throughout those 13 years and compounding at 6% annually — has grown to roughly $533,000. At that point, the couple allocates $250,000 from the growth side to replenish the protected account bucket, and the income cycle begins again. That second protected pool, drawing $25,000 per year at the same conservative return, sustains distributions for approximately another 12 years.

By age 91, the couple has received 25 years of stable, predictable income from their protected bucket while their growth portfolio — having benefited from an extended, uninterrupted compounding period — sits at approximately $539,000. At that stage, they likely have sufficient flexibility to spend directly from growth assets without concern.

The key insight here is not the specific numbers; it is the structure. By separating income needs from growth assets, you allow each to do its job without interference. You are not selling equities at depressed prices to fund monthly expenses. You are not making emotionally driven allocation changes during volatile markets. You are working from a plan, not reacting to headlines.

Adding Flexibility: The Guardrails Approach to Withdrawal Rates

The protected spend down strategy becomes even more resilient when paired with a guardrails-based withdrawal framework. Rather than committing to a rigid, fixed dollar amount regardless of portfolio performance, a guardrails system establishes a baseline income level and adjusts distributions only when the portfolio crosses a defined upper or lower threshold.

Think of it less as a panic button and more as a course-correction mechanism — similar to the rumble strips on a highway that alert a driver before a problem becomes a crisis. If the portfolio performs well above expectations, the system may allow for a modest spending increase. If it falls below a defined floor, a temporary modest reduction — perhaps 10% of discretionary expenses — prevents deeper long-term damage.

This approach, grounded in research originally developed by financial planner Jonathan Guyton and later refined by others, addresses one of the most common psychological traps in retirement: making large, irreversible financial decisions based on short-term market noise rather than long-term plan performance [8].

Frequently Asked Questions About Retirement Withdrawal Sequencing

Does this approach work if I have most of my savings in a 401(k)?

Yes, and in fact it may be especially important if you do. Large tax-deferred balances are the primary driver of future RMD exposure. Beginning intentional, modest distributions from your 401(k) or rolling it into a traditional IRA early in retirement — particularly in years before Social Security begins — can reduce the eventual forced distribution amount considerably. Whether a Roth conversion strategy makes sense alongside this depends on your specific bracket situation, future tax expectations, and legacy goals; a qualified advisor can model both scenarios.

What if I need more income than my protected accounts can provide?

This is where blended strategies come into play. If your income gap exceeds what a single protected bucket can cover, the priority is still to minimize distributions from growth accounts during market downturns. Some retirees maintain a two-to-three-year cash reserve in highly liquid accounts specifically for this purpose, drawing from that reserve during market contractions and allowing the equity portfolio to recover before resuming distributions from it.

Is delaying Social Security a better strategy than drawing from retirement accounts early?

For many people, delaying Social Security to age 70 increases the monthly benefit by approximately 8% per year beyond full retirement age — which represents a compelling, inflation-adjusted, longevity-protected income source [9]. Drawing modestly from tax-deferred accounts to "bridge" the income gap during the delay period can make this tradeoff worthwhile, though it depends on health, life expectancy, other income sources, and the current size of tax-deferred balances. This is one of the most consequential decisions in retirement planning and warrants a careful, personalized analysis.

What about Roth conversions? Do they fit into this strategy?

Strategic Roth conversions — converting a portion of a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in years when your taxable income is lower than usual — can be an excellent complement to the withdrawal sequencing approach described here [10]. By converting in early retirement years, before RMDs begin and before Social Security may push your income higher, you can shift assets into a permanently tax-free structure. The tradeoff is that conversions create taxable income in the year of conversion, so the sizing of each conversion must be calculated carefully against your current marginal rate and projected future rates.

Ready to Build an Income Plan That Works for Decades?

Retirement planning at this stage of life is not about picking the best stocks or chasing the highest yield. It is about structuring the income you have already built in a way that is tax-efficient, market-resilient, and flexible enough to adapt as your life evolves. The strategies discussed here — tax-smart sequencing, protected spend down, account type prioritization, and guardrails-based flexibility — are the kinds of integrated, interrelated decisions that have a compounding effect on the overall health of your retirement plan.

At Phibbs Financial Services, we believe that retirement should feel like freedom, not anxiety. We help people create more memories with their money. If you are ready to learn how to spend without fear, we invite you to schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection® . This is a complimentary, no-obligation conversation designed to bring clarity to your income plan, your tax exposure, and your long-term trajectory. There is no sales pressure and no one-size-fits-all playbook — only a thoughtful look at where you stand and where you want to go.

Your retirement deserves more than a generic rulebook. It deserves a strategy built specifically for you.

Visit freeretirementinspection.com to schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection® today.

Sources

[1] IRS Publication 590-B: Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), Required Minimum Distributions. irs.gov/publications/p590b

[2] SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (Division T of P.L. 117-328): RMD age increases from 72 to 73 (effective 2023) and to 75 (effective 2033). irs.gov/retirement-plans/secure-20-act-changes

[3] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) thresholds for Medicare Part B and Part D. cms.gov/medicare/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs

[4] Social Security Administration: Publication No. 05-10035, "Income Taxes and Your Social Security Benefits." ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf

[5] IRS Topic No. 409: Capital Gains and Losses. irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409

[6] Sequence of Returns Risk: Pfau, W. (2013), "Sequence of Returns Risk," Retirement Researcher. finra.org/investors/insights/sequence-of-returns-risk

[7] Fixed Indexed Annuities: National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). content.naic.org/consumer/annuities.htm. CDs are FDIC-insured up to applicable limits; see fdic.gov for current coverage details.

[8] Guyton, J.T. and Klinger, W.J. (2006), "Decision Rules and Maximum Initial Withdrawal Rates," Journal of Financial Planning.

[9] Social Security Administration: "Retirement Benefits" and Delayed Retirement Credits. ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html

[10] IRS Publication 590-A: Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), Roth IRA Conversion rules. irs.gov/publications/p590a

Disclosures

Social Security Spousal Benefits: The Filing Rules That Could Cost You Thousands

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:20:19 GMT

A practical guide for couples approaching or entering retirement

Most people approaching the end of their working years assume they have a solid grasp of Social Security. They know benefits exist, they know waiting longer generally produces a larger monthly check, and they have heard something about a spouse being entitled to "half" of their partner's benefit. What they often do not know is how many moving parts that seemingly simple rule actually involves, or how easily a single filing decision can permanently reduce what could have been a much larger lifetime income stream.

The spousal benefit rules are, without question, one of the most misunderstood corners of the entire Social Security system. Filing even a year too early, or failing to coordinate the timing between spouses, can lock in a permanently reduced benefit that compounds in cost over a retirement that may span two or three decades. Given that the Social Security Administration projects the average 65-year-old woman today will live past age 87 [1], the arithmetic of getting this wrong is sobering.

This guide walks through how spousal benefits actually work, uses real-world illustrative scenarios to show the dollar impact of different filing choices, and addresses the strategic nuances that most couples never learn until it is too late to change course.

The Foundation: What Spousal Benefits Are Actually Based On

At its core, the spousal benefit exists to protect a lower-earning or non-working spouse. Social Security calculates each person's own retirement benefit based on their 35 highest-earning years. If one partner stayed home to raise children, worked part-time for many years, or simply earned significantly less over a career, their own benefit may be modest at best.

The rule most people know is this: a spouse is entitled to up to 50 percent of the higher-earning partner's Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) , which is the benefit calculated at their Full Retirement Age (FRA). For anyone born in 1960 or later, that age is 67 [2]. If that 50 percent figure is larger than their own earned benefit, they can receive the higher amount — though not both amounts stacked on top of each other.

What most people do not realize is that the 50 percent figure is a ceiling, not a floor, and it is only fully available if both spouses wait until their respective Full Retirement Ages to file. Filing earlier creates permanent, proportional reductions that can be difficult to reverse.

When One Spouse Has No Work History of Their Own

Consider a couple we will call Mark and Shannon. Mark spent 35 years in a well-compensated career and has earned a benefit of $3,000 per month at his Full Retirement Age of 67. Shannon spent those same years raising their family and caring for aging parents, accumulating fewer than the 40 work credits required to qualify for her own Social Security retirement benefit [3].

Because Shannon did not earn her own benefit, her entire Social Security income depends on Mark's filing decision — and timing coordination between the two of them becomes critically important.

Scenario A: Both File at Full Retirement Age (67)

If both Mark and Shannon file at age 67, the outcome is straightforward. Mark receives his full $3,000 per month. Shannon, with no benefit of her own, receives exactly half of Mark's PIA, which is $1,500 per month. Their combined household income from Social Security is $4,500 per month.

Scenario B: Both File Early at Age 62

Filing at 62 rather than 67 permanently reduces Mark's benefit from $3,000 to approximately $2,100 per month, a reduction of about 30 percent [4]. Shannon, filing early for spousal benefits, does not receive 50 percent of Mark's reduced benefit. Instead, she receives 65 percent of the full 50 percent maximum, reducing her monthly benefit to approximately $975. The household drops from a potential $4,500 per month to $3,075 — and that gap is permanent for as long as both live.

Scenario C: Mark Delays to Age 70

For every year a worker delays filing past their Full Retirement Age, Social Security credits their benefit with an 8 percent increase per year through a mechanism known as Delayed Retirement Credits [4]. Waiting from 67 to 70 translates into a 24 percent increase, pushing Mark's benefit to $3,720 per month.

Here is where one of the most consequential spousal benefit rules comes into play: Shannon cannot begin receiving spousal benefits until Mark has filed for his own benefit. There is no way around this rule. If Mark waits until 70, Shannon must also wait — even though her spousal benefit would have been identical had she filed at 67. She loses three years of $1,500 monthly payments, approximately $54,000, with no corresponding increase in her benefit for the wait.

The practical implication here is significant. The higher-earning spouse's decision to maximize their own benefit by delaying does not come without a cost to the lower-earning spouse. That tradeoff must be factored into any honest retirement income plan.

Illustrative Scenario Comparison: Mark & Shannon

Both file at FRA (67): Mark $3,000/mo | Shannon $1,500/mo | Household $4,500/mo
Both file at 62: Mark $2,100/mo | Shannon $975/mo | Household $3,075/mo
Mark delays to 70: Mark $3,720/mo | Shannon $1,500/mo | Household $5,220/mo
Mark files at 62, Shannon waits to FRA: Mark $2,100/mo | Shannon $1,500/mo* | Household $3,600/mo

*Shannon receives half of Mark's FRA benefit ($3,000), not half of his early-filing reduced benefit ($2,100). Hypothetical figures for illustrative purposes only; not a guarantee of any specific result.

When Both Spouses Have Their Own Benefits: The Spousal Top-Off Explained

The scenario becomes more nuanced when both spouses have earned their own benefits but one of them falls below the 50 percent spousal threshold. This is where a concept called the spousal top-off applies — and where many couples are most surprised to learn how Social Security actually makes its calculations.

Returning to our example: suppose Shannon did work throughout her career and earned her own benefit of $1,250 per month at Full Retirement Age. Since that amount is less than $1,500 (half of Mark's $3,000 PIA), she is eligible for the difference as a supplement to her own benefit.

Social Security does not simply hand Shannon a $1,500 check. Instead, it pays her own $1,250 benefit and adds a spousal top-off of $250, calculated as the difference between half of the higher earner's PIA and the lower earner's own PIA. The end result is the same $1,500 total — but the structure matters enormously when you begin adjusting the filing timing of either component.

Filing Early Reduces All Three Components

If both spouses file at 62, all three elements are permanently reduced: Mark's personal benefit, Shannon's personal benefit, and the spousal top-off. In this scenario, Shannon's personal benefit would decline from $1,250 to approximately $875 per month, and the top-off would fall from $250 to approximately $163 per month — producing a combined monthly benefit well below the $1,500 she could have received by waiting to her Full Retirement Age.

A Strategic Option Worth Considering

One approach that some couples may consider, in coordination with a qualified financial advisor, is filing for personal benefits early while delaying the spousal top-off component until Full Retirement Age. In this structure, both Mark and Shannon could claim their own personal benefits at 62, accepting the reduced amounts, while Shannon defers activating the spousal top-off until 67. This would preserve the full $250 monthly supplement rather than accepting the permanently reduced $163 version. Whether this approach is appropriate depends heavily on each couple's cash flow needs, health status, other retirement assets, and tax situation — and it is not suitable for everyone.

The Interaction Most Advisors Forget to Mention: What Happens When the Lower Earner Delays to Age 70?

What happens when the lower-earning spouse, who has their own benefit, delays all the way to age 70?

In Shannon's case, if she delays her own personal benefit from age 67 to age 70, she also earns three years of Delayed Retirement Credits, growing her personal monthly benefit by 24 percent. A benefit that was $1,250 at Full Retirement Age becomes approximately $1,550 at age 70.

Here is the surprising result: because $1,550 is now greater than the $1,500 spousal benefit ceiling (half of Mark's $3,000 PIA), Shannon no longer qualifies for any spousal benefit at all. Her own delayed benefit has outgrown the spousal formula entirely. Social Security pays the higher of the two — not both combined — so the spousal top-off simply disappears.

For many couples, this is an unexpected but genuinely positive outcome. Shannon's disciplined decision to delay maximizes her own earned benefit and, as an added result, her lifetime income may actually exceed what the spousal benefit would have provided. However, the same logic that removes the top-off can become a disadvantage if the couple was counting on the spousal benefit to offset lower early-retirement income. Planning for both possibilities is essential.

A Critical Dimension Often Overlooked: Spousal Benefits and Survivor Income

Any honest conversation about spousal Social Security benefits is incomplete without addressing what happens to the surviving spouse after one partner passes away. This is an area where filing timing decisions made decades before death can have profound financial consequences for whoever is left.

When a spouse dies, the surviving partner is entitled to receive the deceased spouse's full benefit if it is larger than their own. This means that if the higher-earning spouse delayed to age 70 and was receiving $3,720 per month, the surviving spouse steps into that benefit stream upon the other's death [5].

Conversely, if the higher-earning spouse filed early at 62 and locked in only $2,100 per month, that is the reduced figure the survivor inherits. In a marriage where the higher earner is likely to predecease the lower earner — which statistically tends to be the male spouse [1] — the cost of an early filing decision can follow the survivor for the remainder of their lifetime.

This survivorship dimension is precisely why many financial planning professionals suggest that the higher-earning spouse prioritize their own benefit maximization, even at the short-term cost of delaying the lower-earning spouse's spousal benefit — because the long-term survivor benefit impact often far outweighs the interim income lost.

Frequently Asked Questions About Social Security Spousal Benefits

Can I file for spousal benefits before my spouse has filed for their own benefit?

No. Spousal benefits require that the primary benefit holder — the higher-earning spouse — has already filed for their own Social Security retirement benefit. Until that filing is active, spousal benefits cannot be turned on. This is one of the most common points of confusion couples encounter when attempting to coordinate their Social Security strategy.

If my spouse files early and receives a reduced benefit, does that reduce my spousal benefit too?

Not necessarily, and this is a critical distinction. Your spousal benefit is calculated based on your spouse's Primary Insurance Amount at their Full Retirement Age — not the reduced amount they actually receive after filing early. So even if your spouse files at 62 and receives only $2,100 per month, your maximum spousal benefit is still based on their FRA benefit of $3,000, giving you a potential ceiling of $1,500 per month if you wait until your own Full Retirement Age to file.

Is there any way for the lower-earning spouse to increase the spousal benefit above 50 percent?

No. Unlike a worker's own personal benefit, which continues to grow with Delayed Retirement Credits all the way to age 70, spousal benefits reach their maximum at Full Retirement Age. Waiting beyond that age does not increase the spousal benefit. The 50 percent ceiling is firm — and any delay past Full Retirement Age represents foregone income without a corresponding upside.

What if both spouses have identical earnings records and identical Full Retirement Age benefits?

If both spouses have earned benefits that are equal to or greater than 50 percent of the other's PIA, neither spouse qualifies for a spousal benefit. Both would simply receive their own individual earned benefit. The spousal top-off only comes into play when the lower earner's benefit falls short of 50 percent of the higher earner's PIA.

Why Social Security Cannot Be Decided in Isolation

It is tempting to look at Social Security in a vacuum — running filing age scenarios and selecting whichever combination produces the largest number on a spreadsheet. However, the ideal Social Security strategy is inseparable from the rest of your retirement income plan, including the size and structure of your investment portfolio, whether you have pension income, your expected tax bracket in retirement, your healthcare cost trajectory, and how long each spouse is likely to live based on their individual health profile.

For example, a couple with substantial tax-deferred savings in traditional IRAs or 401(k) accounts may want to consider filing for Social Security earlier specifically to reduce the pace of Required Minimum Distributions later in retirement, which can push income into higher tax brackets when they begin at age 73 [6]. In this context, the optimal Social Security filing age is not about maximizing Social Security alone — but about minimizing lifetime taxes across all income sources.

Conversely, couples who have significant Roth assets or taxable accounts may prefer to delay Social Security in order to preserve portfolio value during the early retirement years when they are managing distributions most carefully. Every situation is genuinely different, and the variables interact in ways that simple online calculators consistently underestimate.

Ready to See the Full Picture of Your Retirement Income?

Social Security is one of the most powerful and longest-lasting income sources most retirees will ever have. Filing correctly, coordinating the timing between spouses, and understanding how it fits within your broader financial picture can mean the difference of tens of thousands of dollars over the course of your retirement.

At Phibbs Financial Services, we help people create more memories with their money. Our team works with families who are navigating the transition from accumulation to distribution, building personalized income strategies designed to last as long as you do. If you are ready to learn how to spend without fear, we invite you to schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection® . We will review your Social Security options, tax exposure, investment positioning, and income timeline so you can move forward with genuine clarity and confidence.

Visit freeretirementinspection.com to schedule your complimentary session with our team.

Sources

[1] Social Security Administration, Period Life Table and Retirement Age Statistics. ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

[2] Social Security Administration, Full Retirement Age. ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/agereduction.html

[3] Social Security Administration, Social Security Credits. ssa.gov/retire2/credits1.htm

[4] Social Security Administration, Effect of Early or Delayed Retirement on Survivor Benefits. ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/ar_drc.html

[5] Social Security Administration, Survivors Benefits. ssa.gov/benefits/survivors/

[6] IRS, Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions

Disclosures

Six Common Withdrawal Strategies In Retirement (Plus the One We Recommend)

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:30:46 GMT

You spent decades doing the right thing: saving diligently, investing consistently, and delaying gratification. Now, standing on the threshold of retirement, many people discover something unexpected. The very habits that built their wealth have also built a kind of psychological fence around it — and crossing that fence, even to fund the life they worked so hard to create, feels deeply uncomfortable.

If you find yourself lying awake at night wondering, "How much can I actually spend without running out?" you are far from alone. It is one of the most common and most legitimate questions financial advisors hear from clients who are, by every objective measure, well-prepared for retirement.

The challenge is that retirement spending is not simply the reverse of retirement saving. It requires a fundamentally different mindset, a different set of tools, and frankly, a different relationship with your money. The strategies below are designed to bridge that gap, giving you both the structure to stay on track and the confidence to enjoy what you have built.

Why Your Withdrawal Strategy May Matter More Than Your Investment Returns

Most retirement conversations focus on accumulation: how much you save, how it is invested, and what rate of return you might expect [1]. Far less attention gets paid to the distribution phase — the years when you are actually drawing down those assets to fund your life. Yet research consistently suggests that how and when you withdraw can have a profound effect on how long your portfolio lasts, sometimes rivaling the impact of investment returns themselves [2].

The risks are not trivial. Sequence-of-returns risk, for example, describes the danger of experiencing a significant market downturn early in retirement while simultaneously drawing down your portfolio. Because you are selling shares at depressed prices to fund living expenses, the recovery period becomes much steeper — and the long-term damage to your portfolio can be surprisingly severe compared to the same downturn experienced mid-career [3].

Understanding the six strategies below — and knowing which one fits your specific situation — is arguably one of the most consequential financial decisions you will make in the years ahead.

Strategy 1: The 4% Rule

Simple to Follow, But Not Without Limitations

The 4% rule is likely the most widely cited retirement spending guideline in personal finance. Developed in the 1990s by financial planner William Bengen through an analysis of historical market returns dating back to 1926, the principle is straightforward [4]. In your first year of retirement, you withdraw 4% of your total portfolio. In each subsequent year, you adjust that dollar amount upward to keep pace with inflation.

Illustrative Example (for educational purposes only): A retiree with $1,000,000 in savings would withdraw $40,000 in year one. If inflation runs at 3% that year, the withdrawal in year two would adjust to approximately $41,200, regardless of how the portfolio performed.

The appeal is obvious: it is simple, consistent, and grounded in decades of historical data. Bengen's original research suggested that a diversified portfolio could sustain this rate for a 30-year retirement in most historical scenarios.

The limitations, however, are real. The rule does not adjust for market conditions, personal spending changes, or major life events. If markets decline sharply in the early years of your retirement, continuing to take a fixed inflation-adjusted withdrawal can accelerate portfolio depletion significantly [3]. It also provides no mechanism to benefit from strong market performance by allowing you to spend a little more in good years. Think of it like grocery shopping from the same list every single week, regardless of whether you are hosting a houseful of grandchildren or dining alone.

Strategy 2: Stage Spending (The Go-Go, Slow-Go, No-Go Model)

Spending That Mirrors How Retirement Actually Feels

Unlike the mechanically fixed 4% rule, the stage spending model is built on a simple but powerful observation: retirees do not spend the same way throughout retirement. Their spending naturally evolves through three recognizable phases.

Go-Go Years (roughly ages 62 to 74): This is the most active and often most expensive phase. Travel, bucket list experiences, gifts to family, and a generally higher lifestyle pace define this period. For most people, health and energy are still on their side.
Slow-Go Years (roughly ages 75 to 84): Activity levels moderate. Spending on travel and discretionary experiences often declines naturally, while routine lifestyle costs remain relatively stable.
No-Go Years (mid-80s and beyond): Mobility and health constraints reduce discretionary spending considerably, but healthcare and long-term care costs frequently rise in their place.

This model is supported by real spending data. A widely cited study by David Blanchett found that real retiree spending does tend to decline in middle retirement before rising again near the end of life — a pattern often described as the "retirement spending smile." [5]

The honest caveat: the model is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell you exactly how much to spend in each phase, and the transitions between stages are rarely clean or predictable. The framework is a useful mental model, but it requires pairing with a more precise financial structure to be actionable.

Strategy 3: The Retirement Spending Smile

A Data-Backed Curve That Reflects Real Spending Patterns

Closely related to stage spending, the retirement spending smile describes the same U-shaped spending trajectory using a more formal economic framing. Early retirement spending is elevated, middle-retirement spending tends to dip, and late-retirement spending ticks back up — primarily driven by healthcare costs [5].

This insight has practical value for financial planning because it suggests that front-loading retirement spending — intentionally spending more while you are younger and healthier — is not reckless. In fact, it may be financially rational to spend more generously in the years when you are most capable of enjoying it, provided your overall plan can sustain that pattern.

The limitation mirrors that of stage spending: the smile is an average, and your curve may look quite different. Long-term care needs, chronic illness, or unusually active longevity can all reshape this curve considerably. No single model accounts for the full range of individual variation, which is why a personalized plan remains essential.

Strategy 4: Required Minimum Distributions as a Withdrawal Guide

The IRS-Mandated Approach, and Its Trade-Offs

Once you reach age 73 (or age 75 if you were born in 1960 or later, as specified under the SECURE 2.0 Act), the IRS requires that you begin taking withdrawals from tax-deferred accounts such as traditional IRAs and 401(k)s [6]. These are known as Required Minimum Distributions, or RMDs, and the amount you must withdraw each year is calculated based on your account balance and a life expectancy factor published in IRS tables [7].

Some retirees use their annual RMD as their primary income guide, essentially letting the IRS determine how much they draw from their portfolio each year. The appeal is simplicity: the calculation is defined, the rules are clear, and the amounts generally increase over time as life expectancy factors decline.

A Note on RMD Tax Implications: RMDs are treated as ordinary income in the year they are taken [6]. For retirees with substantial tax-deferred balances, large RMDs can push income into higher tax brackets, increase Medicare Part B and D premiums through IRMAA surcharges, and affect the taxability of Social Security benefits. Proactive tax planning in the years before RMDs begin, including Roth conversions during lower-income years, may help mitigate this exposure. Consult a qualified CPA before implementing any tax strategy.

The core limitation: the RMD formula has no relationship to your personal lifestyle, your spending wishes, or the condition of financial markets. If your go-go years happen to coincide with the period before age 73, you may find yourself drawing less than you need when you most want to spend — and potentially drawing more later, when you need it less.

Strategy 5: The Floor-and-Ceiling Method

Flexibility Within Defined Boundaries

The floor-and-ceiling strategy introduces a degree of adaptability that the first four approaches largely lack. The concept is intuitive: you establish a baseline spending target along with a defined upper limit (the ceiling) and a defined lower limit (the floor). Within that range, you are free to spend more when times are good and pull back when they are not — but you never go below your floor or above your ceiling.

Illustrative Example (for educational purposes only): Suppose your baseline annual spending target is $40,000. You set a ceiling of $48,000 and a floor of $34,000. In a strong market year, you might treat yourself to an extended trip and spend $45,000. In a year when your portfolio has declined, you modestly tighten your budget to $36,000. The guardrails prevent both underspending and dangerous overspending.

This approach is meaningfully more responsive to reality than the 4% rule, and it provides the kind of structured flexibility that allows retirees to enjoy their money more confidently in good years without catastrophic risk in bad ones.

The gap in this strategy is that it tells you the limits but not the triggers. Without clear decision rules, many retirees find themselves either adjusting too slowly or too anxiously. The strategy requires discipline and clear pre-set thresholds to function well in practice.

Strategy 6: The Guardrail Strategy

The Approach That Combines Structure, Flexibility, and Clear Decision Rules

Of all six strategies, the guardrail method is arguably the most complete framework for the retiree who wants to spend with confidence rather than anxiety. Originally developed and refined by financial planning researchers including Jonathan Guyton and William Klinger, the guardrail strategy takes the best elements of the fixed withdrawal approach and the floor-and-ceiling method — and adds the one ingredient both lack: specific, pre-defined decision rules that trigger adjustments automatically [8].

How the Guardrail Strategy Works

You begin retirement with an initial withdrawal rate — based on the Guyton-Klinger research, often cited in a range near 5.2% of your starting portfolio value [8]. This is meaningfully higher than the traditional 4% rule, reflecting the added flexibility built into the system.

From there, you monitor two guardrails:

Upper guardrail (the spending cut trigger): If your current withdrawal, as a percentage of your current portfolio value, rises above a defined threshold (commonly cited around 5.6%), you make a modest, pre-planned reduction in annual spending — typically in the range of 10%. This is a temporary, data-driven adjustment, not a panic response [8].
Lower guardrail (the spending raise trigger): If your withdrawal rate drops below a defined threshold (commonly around 4.8%), it indicates your portfolio has grown relative to your spending — a signal to give yourself a modest raise of around 10% [8].

Illustrative Example (for educational purposes only): You retire with $1,000,000 and begin withdrawing $52,000 per year (5.2%). A market downturn reduces your portfolio to $850,000. Your $52,000 withdrawal now represents 6.1% — above the upper guardrail. Your pre-set rule tells you to reduce spending temporarily to approximately $47,000. Later, the market recovers and your portfolio grows to $1,200,000. That same $52,000 is now only 4.3%, below the lower guardrail, giving you a green light to modestly increase your annual spending. These adjustments happen because of a defined plan, not an emotional reaction.

Why Clear Rules Change Everything

Behavioral finance research consistently shows that retirement spending anxiety is not primarily a math problem. It is a psychological one [9]. The guardrail strategy removes that burden. When the rules are established in advance — and when both you and your advisor agree on exactly what triggers a spending adjustment — you no longer have to make a judgment call in the midst of a market decline. The decision has already been made. You simply follow the plan.

Consider a classic research finding about children's behavior on a playground with and without a perimeter fence. Without a fence, children clustered near the center, anxious about venturing too far. With a fence clearly defining the boundaries, they spread out confidently, using every corner of the space. The fence did not restrict them. It liberated them. That is precisely what the guardrail strategy provides: not a constraint on your retirement, but the confidence to live it fully.

Going Deeper: Coordinating Your Withdrawal Strategy with Social Security and RMDs

One area the conversation around withdrawal strategies often underserves is how these approaches interact with the other major income sources in retirement — particularly Social Security and the eventual onset of RMDs. For those approaching or recently entering their distribution years, this coordination can be one of the highest-leverage planning opportunities available.

The Social Security Timing Decision

Social Security retirement benefits can be claimed as early as age 62 or deferred as late as age 70 [10]. For each year of deferral beyond your full retirement age (which is 67 for those born in 1960 or later), your benefit grows by approximately 8% per year — a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted increase available from no other financial instrument [10].

It is worth noting that up to 85% of Social Security benefits may be included in taxable income depending on your combined income level [11]. Coordinating the timing and amount of portfolio withdrawals with Social Security income can therefore have meaningful tax implications that compound over time.

Managing the RMD Cliff

Many retirees who defer portfolio withdrawals in their early 60s find that their tax-deferred balances have grown substantially by the time RMDs begin. A proactive strategy may involve making partial withdrawals or executing Roth conversions during the years between retirement and RMD onset — often called the "conversion corridor" or "tax-fill strategy." By thoughtfully drawing down tax-deferred balances before RMDs are mandated, it may be possible to reduce future RMD amounts and achieve a smoother, more tax-efficient income stream across retirement. This is a complex area requiring coordination with a qualified CPA or tax advisor.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the guardrail strategy appropriate for everyone in retirement?

The guardrail strategy is generally well-suited to retirees who hold a diversified investment portfolio and have the flexibility to modestly adjust their spending in response to market conditions. It may be less appropriate for retirees whose budgets are highly fixed, with little room to reduce spending without significant hardship. A personalized financial plan should always evaluate which strategy aligns with your specific income sources, expense structure, and risk tolerance.

What happens if I have both a pension and a portfolio?

A pension or annuity income that covers a substantial portion of essential expenses effectively reduces your portfolio's "job" in retirement. With core needs covered by guaranteed income, your investment portfolio may be able to sustain a somewhat higher withdrawal rate for discretionary spending. The guardrail strategy can still be applied to the portfolio portion, but the guardrail thresholds may be adjusted accordingly.

How often should I review my withdrawal rate?

Most guardrail frameworks call for an annual review of your portfolio balance against your current withdrawal amount. This does not mean you make changes every year — you check whether your withdrawal rate has crossed either guardrail threshold and adjust only when the predetermined rules call for it. Reacting to every market fluctuation is precisely what a well-designed withdrawal strategy is meant to help you avoid.

What about inflation? Does the guardrail strategy account for rising prices?

The Guyton-Klinger guardrail rules do include an inflation adjustment provision, but it differs from the mechanical annual adjustment in the 4% rule. Under the guardrail framework, spending increases to match inflation are generally applied in years when the portfolio is performing well. In years when the upper guardrail is in play, inflation adjustments may be paused — helping to preserve the portfolio during periods of stress [8].

Ready to Spend Your Retirement With Confidence?

Building a portfolio is only half of the retirement equation. The other half — the part most people are far less prepared for — is knowing how to deploy what you have built in a way that is both financially sustainable and personally fulfilling. The difference between a retirement spent counting pennies and one spent making memories is rarely a matter of how much you saved. More often, it comes down to having a clear, personalized income plan.

At Phibbs Financial Services, we believe that the purpose of financial planning is not to accumulate the largest possible number. It is to help you create more memories with your money. When you have a thoughtfully structured retirement income plan, you can spend without fear, travel without guilt, and give generously without second-guessing yourself.

If you are ready to find out exactly how much you can spend, when you can spend it, and how to build a strategy that holds up through market volatility and the full arc of retirement, we invite you to schedule a no-cost Retirement Inspection®. There is no cost, no pressure, and no obligation — only clarity.

Visit freeretirementinspection.com to schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection® today.

Sources

[1] Pfau, Wade. Retirement Researchers. CFA Institute, "Retirement Income: Strategies and Tactics" (2021).

[2] Kitces, Michael. Nerd's Eye View, "Sequence of Returns Risk."

[3] Pfau, Wade & Kitces, Michael. Journal of Financial Planning, "Reducing Retirement Risk with a Rising Equity Glide-Path" (January 2014).

[4] Bengen, William P. "Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data." Journal of Financial Planning, October 1994.

[5] Blanchett, David M. "Estimating the True Cost of Retirement." Morningstar Investment Management, September 2013.

[6] IRS Publication 590-B, "Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements." irs.gov/publications/p590b

[7] IRS Revenue Procedure 2022-38 and IRS Table III (Uniform Lifetime). irs.gov

[8] Guyton, Jonathan T. & Klinger, William J. "Decision Rules and Maximum Initial Withdrawal Rates." Journal of Financial Planning, March 2006.

[9] Thaler, Richard H. & Benartzi, Shlomo. "Save More Tomorrow." University of Chicago Press, 2004.

[10] Social Security Administration, "Retirement Benefits" (Publication No. 05-10035). ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf

[11] IRS Publication 915. irs.gov/publications/p915; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. cms.gov

Disclosures

Two Sneaky Tax Traps That Can Cost Retirees Tens of Thousands of Dollars

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:06:02 GMT

Most people spend decades accumulating wealth, carefully building the nest egg they hope will carry them through retirement. Yet a surprisingly large number of diligent, responsible savers unknowingly surrender thousands of dollars in taxes every year — not because they made reckless decisions, but because they did not realize how tightly interconnected every retirement income source truly is.

Two tax traps in particular deserve your attention before you take your next distribution, file for Social Security, or rebalance your portfolio. Understanding them thoroughly can mean the difference between a retirement spent confidently and one spent wondering where the money went.

Tax Trap #1: Treating Social Security as a Separate Decision from Your Roth Conversion Strategy

When should I file for Social Security?

That question comes up in nearly every retirement planning conversation, and for good reason. Claiming at age 62 gives you immediate income, while waiting until age 70 grows your monthly benefit by roughly 8% for every year you delay beyond your full retirement age [1]. On the surface, it sounds like a fairly isolated financial calculation.

The hidden problem is that the moment you turn on Social Security, you fundamentally reshape your tax landscape for everything else. Specifically, it can dramatically reduce your ability to execute one of the most powerful tax-reduction strategies available to retirees: the Roth conversion.

What Is a Roth Conversion, and Why Does It Matter?

A Roth conversion is the process of moving money from a traditional IRA or 401(k) into a Roth IRA. Because funds in traditional accounts were contributed pre-tax, you pay income tax on the amount converted in the year you move it. In exchange, that money grows tax-free and is distributed tax-free in retirement — and unlike traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs are not subject to Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [2].

This strategy is most attractive during what planners often call the "conversion window" — the stretch of years after you stop working but before RMDs begin at ages 73 or 75, depending on your year of birth [3]. During that window, your taxable income may be at its lowest point in decades, creating a genuine opportunity to move IRA funds to a Roth at a relatively modest tax cost.

It is important to acknowledge that Roth conversions carry real costs and are not universally appropriate. You must have liquid funds available to pay the resulting tax bill without drawing down the converted amount itself. And if your current tax rate is not meaningfully lower than your expected future rate, the math may not favor conversion. Always evaluate this strategy in the context of your full financial picture [4].

Why Social Security Timing Can Slam That Window Shut

Here is what most general financial articles fail to explain clearly: Social Security benefits are not taxed the same way ordinary income is taxed. Instead, the IRS uses a formula based on your "provisional income" — which is your adjusted gross income plus any tax-exempt interest plus 50% of your Social Security benefit [5]. When that provisional income crosses certain thresholds, up to 85% of your Social Security benefit can become subject to ordinary income tax.

So the moment you turn on your Social Security benefit and begin receiving that income, your overall income rises — which can:

Push more of that benefit into a taxable zone
Simultaneously shrink the available tax bracket "room" you have for Roth conversions
Potentially push you into a higher Medicare premium bracket, known as IRMAA (the Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) [6]

The result is that a conversion that looked attractively priced at 22% in January may effectively cost you far more once you account for the cascading effect on your Social Security taxation and Medicare surcharges.

A Real-World Illustration: Dan and Wendy

Consider a hypothetical couple — call them Dan (age 68) and Wendy (age 65). They are both retired, debt-free, and have $600,000 in a traditional IRA, supplemented by two modest pension incomes. This scenario is purely illustrative and does not represent any specific clients or guarantee similar outcomes.

Their initial plan was straightforward: convert aggressively within the 22% bracket before RMDs force the issue. But they also had a looming Social Security decision. When the numbers were modeled with both spouses claiming Social Security immediately, the Roth conversions became far more expensive. The added Social Security income triggered higher taxation on those very benefits and created IRMAA surcharges that quietly added hundreds of dollars per month to their Medicare costs.

The more tax-efficient path looked like this:

Wendy filed for her Social Security benefit at age 65, adding a guaranteed income stream now.
Their two pensions and modest IRA distributions covered remaining income needs.
Dan delayed his benefit until age 70 — which kept their combined income lower for two additional years, allowing approximately $150,000 in strategic Roth conversions, all within the 22% bracket, while avoiding IRMAA and minimizing Social Security taxation.

Delaying Dan's benefit also served a secondary purpose: it maximized his monthly payment, providing a larger lifetime income and, critically, a larger survivor benefit if he predeceases Wendy. When one spouse dies, the surviving spouse steps up to the higher of the two Social Security checks — so delaying the larger earner's benefit can provide meaningful financial protection for decades.

The key insight here is that the most tax-efficient Social Security filing decision is rarely the one that looks the best in isolation. It is the one that coordinates most effectively with your Roth conversion window, your RMD exposure, your Medicare premiums, and your long-term income needs simultaneously.

Tax Trap #2: Phantom Tax and the Hidden Cost of Capital Gains in Retirement

The second tax trap is less well-known, which makes it considerably more dangerous. It is sometimes called phantom tax — and it can cause an otherwise unremarkable financial decision, such as taking an extra $1,000 from your IRA for a weekend trip, to carry an effective marginal tax rate approaching 50%.

The 0% Capital Gains Rate Is Real, but It Has Invisible Conditions

The federal tax code does provide a 0% long-term capital gains rate for taxpayers whose income falls below certain thresholds. For a married couple filing jointly in 2025, that threshold is approximately $96,700 in taxable income [7]. Many retirees assume that because they have carefully managed their income to stay below that number, they will owe nothing on the gains from selling appreciated stock or other assets.

The catch is that capital gains are not evaluated in a vacuum. They interact with Social Security's provisional income formula — and that interaction can produce tax consequences that feel, quite accurately, like a ghost knocking on the door uninvited.

How the Trap Springs: Larry and Susan's $1,000 Vacation

Consider another illustrative hypothetical: Larry and Susan, both in their early 70s. In a given year, they receive combined Social Security of $61,000, required minimum distributions of $47,000, and $15,000 in capital gains from a portfolio rebalancing. Their income is comfortably structured. Then they decide to take $1,000 from their IRA for a long weekend away.

What they expect to pay in taxes on that $1,000 IRA distribution: $120 (at the 12% ordinary income rate) [8].

What they actually pay, in total, is closer to $492 — which breaks down as follows:

$120 in ordinary income tax on the $1,000 IRA distribution itself.
An additional $102 in ordinary income tax because the IRA distribution increases provisional income, which in turn exposes an additional $850 of their Social Security benefit to the 12% tax rate.
An additional $270 because that same provisional income shift nudges $1,800 of their previously tax-free capital gains into the 15% capital gains bracket.

The effective marginal tax rate on that single $1,000 IRA withdrawal: roughly 49%. Larry and Susan did not do anything financially irresponsible. They simply did not know the trap existed. That is why it is called phantom tax — the tax liability does not appear in any single category; it materializes across three separate line items simultaneously.

Going Deeper: How to Structure Withdrawals to Minimize the Cascade Effect

The conventional wisdom on retirement withdrawal sequencing is to draw first from taxable accounts (brokerage), then from tax-deferred accounts (IRA/401(k)), and finally from tax-free accounts (Roth IRA). That framework was designed primarily around account longevity, and it remains useful in many contexts.

However, for retirees navigating the intersection of Social Security, RMDs, and capital gains, a modified approach often produces meaningfully better tax outcomes. The logic is straightforward: because IRA distributions have a direct and immediate multiplier effect on how much of your Social Security gets taxed, drawing down your IRA earlier — during low-income years before Social Security begins — can reduce your lifetime tax burden substantially.

Four Practical Strategies to Consider

Use your pre-Social Security, pre-RMD years for Roth conversions. This is the window where your taxable income is typically at its lowest. Converting IRA funds to Roth now, even at a modest tax cost, may help you avoid far higher taxes later when RMDs and Social Security compound your income.
Consider drawing from your IRA before activating Social Security. Rather than letting your IRA compound and triggering larger RMDs later, taking modest IRA distributions in the early retirement years can help "right-size" your future RMD exposure while keeping your Social Security income timeline flexible.
Coordinate capital gains realizations with your Roth conversion years carefully. Selling appreciated assets and executing Roth conversions in the same calendar year can combine to push you into higher ordinary income and capital gains brackets. During high-conversion years, consider deferring large capital gains realizations to a later, lower-income year — and vice versa.
Evaluate delaying the larger Social Security benefit while the lower earner files sooner. This approach, illustrated with Dan and Wendy above, allows income to flow in from one benefit while preserving the optimal window for tax planning — and it maximizes both lifetime income and survivor protection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does delaying Social Security always make sense for tax planning?

Not necessarily. The decision depends on your health, life expectancy, income needs, and how aggressively you plan to execute Roth conversions. For some households, filing earlier and accepting a modest increase in tax complexity may be preferable if immediate cash flow is a priority. The point is simply that this decision should not be made in isolation from your broader tax strategy.

What is IRMAA, and how can I avoid it?

IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) is a surcharge added to your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums when your modified adjusted gross income exceeds certain thresholds [6]. In 2025, the surcharge begins at MAGI above $106,000 for individual filers and $212,000 for married couples filing jointly. Roth conversions, IRA distributions, and capital gains all count toward this threshold. Careful income planning in the years before RMDs begin can help you manage and potentially avoid these surcharges.

Are Roth conversions always a good idea before RMDs begin?

Not universally. A Roth conversion makes the most sense when your current tax rate is materially lower than the tax rate you expect to face in the future, when you have non-IRA funds available to pay the tax bill, and when you have sufficient time for the Roth account to compound before distributions are needed. If your current and expected future tax rates are similar, or if you lack the liquid resources to pay conversion taxes without touching the converted funds, other strategies may be more appropriate.

How do RMDs interact with the phantom tax trap?

Required Minimum Distributions add a layer of complexity because they are non-discretionary. Once you reach the applicable starting age, the IRS requires you to withdraw a minimum amount from your traditional IRA and most employer-sponsored retirement accounts each year, based on your account balance and a published life expectancy table [3]. Those distributions are treated as ordinary income, which feeds directly into your provisional income calculation and can trigger or amplify the phantom tax effect on your Social Security and capital gains. Planning years before RMDs begin — particularly through targeted Roth conversions — is one of the most effective ways to reduce this exposure.

The Bigger Picture: Every Lever Moves the Others

What both of these tax traps illustrate is a fundamental truth about retirement income planning: the tax code is not a collection of separate, independent rules. It is a system of interconnected levers, and pulling one inevitably moves the others. IRA distributions affect Social Security taxation. Social Security timing affects Roth conversion costs. Capital gains affect your provisional income. IRMAA surcharges ripple out from all of the above.

For the saver who spent decades doing everything right — building a diversified portfolio, contributing consistently to tax-deferred accounts, and living within their means — this is the critical transition: moving from accumulation to distribution requires an entirely different kind of financial thinking. The goal shifts from growing the pile to drawing it down strategically, with each decision evaluated not just for its immediate benefit, but for its downstream tax consequences.

The good news is that with proper planning, particularly during the years just before and just after leaving the workforce, these traps are avoidable. You do not have to accept a 49% effective marginal tax rate on a vacation withdrawal. You do not have to watch Roth conversion benefits evaporate into unnecessary Medicare surcharges. With a coordinated strategy, you can keep more of what you have earned — and you can spend it with confidence.

Ready to See Your Full Retirement Tax Picture?

At Phibbs Financial Services, we believe money is most meaningful when it is being used to create experiences and memories, not when it is sitting in an account waiting to be taxed away. Our approach to retirement planning is built around helping you spend without fear, knowing that your income is structured to last and your tax liability is managed with intention.

If you are in the years approaching or just entering retirement, now is the time to look at your full picture: your Social Security filing strategy, your Roth conversion window, your RMD timeline, your capital gains exposure, and how all of those pieces fit together.

We help people create more memories with their money. If you are ready to learn how to spend without fear, schedule your no-cost Retirement Inspection ® at freeretirementinspection.com. There is no pressure and no obligation — only clarity.

Sources

[1] Social Security Administration, "Retirement Benefits: How Credits Affect Your Benefits." ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html

[2] Internal Revenue Service, Publication 590-B. irs.gov/publications/p590b

[3] Internal Revenue Service, "Retirement Plan and IRA Required Minimum Distributions FAQs." irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions

[4] Internal Revenue Service, Publication 590-A. irs.gov/publications/p590a

[5] Internal Revenue Service, Publication 915. irs.gov/publications/p915

[6] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "Medicare Costs at a Glance." medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/medicare-costs-at-a-glance

[7] Internal Revenue Service, Revenue Procedure 2024-61. irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2025

[8] Internal Revenue Service, Revenue Procedure 2024-61. irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2025

Disclosures

trevor-phibbs

The Retiree's Honest Guide to Annuities: What to Buy, What to Avoid, and Why It Matters

First, Let's Address the Commission Myth

The Five Annuity Types, Ranked from Worst to Best

1. Variable Annuities

2. Registered Index-Linked Annuities (RILAs): The Middle Ground With a Catch

3. Multi-Year Guaranteed Annuities (MYGAs): The CD Alternative

4. Single Premium Immediate Annuities (SPIAs): The Simplest Pension You Can Buy

5. Fixed Index Annuities (FIAs): The One We Recommend for Most Savers

What to Look For in an FIA

The Most Overlooked Distinction in FIA Sales: Accumulation Value vs. Income Base

Frequently Asked Questions: What Retirees Ask Most

A Practical Illustration: How an FIA Might Fit Into a Retirement Plan

Your Next Step: A Retirement Inspection Worth Having

﻿

The Smart Retirement Withdrawal Order: Why the Conventional Sequence Can Cost You

The Conventional Wisdom (and Why It Can Backfire)

The RMD Problem: A Tax Tornado on the Horizon

A Smarter Withdrawal Order: Flip the Script

Why Drawing Tax-Deferred Accounts Early Makes Sense

Beyond Taxes: The Account Type Risk You Rarely Hear About

What Is a "Protected" Asset?

The Protected Spend Down in Practice: An Illustrative Scenario

Adding Flexibility: The Guardrails Approach to Withdrawal Rates

Frequently Asked Questions About Retirement Withdrawal Sequencing

Does this approach work if I have most of my savings in a 401(k)?

What if I need more income than my protected accounts can provide?

Is delaying Social Security a better strategy than drawing from retirement accounts early?

What about Roth conversions? Do they fit into this strategy?

Ready to Build an Income Plan That Works for Decades?

Social Security Spousal Benefits: The Filing Rules That Could Cost You Thousands

The Foundation: What Spousal Benefits Are Actually Based On

When One Spouse Has No Work History of Their Own

Scenario A: Both File at Full Retirement Age (67)

Scenario B: Both File Early at Age 62

Scenario C: Mark Delays to Age 70

When Both Spouses Have Their Own Benefits: The Spousal Top-Off Explained

Filing Early Reduces All Three Components

A Strategic Option Worth Considering

The Interaction Most Advisors Forget to Mention: What Happens When the Lower Earner Delays to Age 70?

A Critical Dimension Often Overlooked: Spousal Benefits and Survivor Income

Frequently Asked Questions About Social Security Spousal Benefits

Can I file for spousal benefits before my spouse has filed for their own benefit?

If my spouse files early and receives a reduced benefit, does that reduce my spousal benefit too?

Is there any way for the lower-earning spouse to increase the spousal benefit above 50 percent?

What if both spouses have identical earnings records and identical Full Retirement Age benefits?

Why Social Security Cannot Be Decided in Isolation

Ready to See the Full Picture of Your Retirement Income?

Six Common Withdrawal Strategies In Retirement (Plus the One We Recommend)

Why Your Withdrawal Strategy May Matter More Than Your Investment Returns

Strategy 1: The 4% Rule

Simple to Follow, But Not Without Limitations

Strategy 2: Stage Spending (The Go-Go, Slow-Go, No-Go Model)

Spending That Mirrors How Retirement Actually Feels

Strategy 3: The Retirement Spending Smile

A Data-Backed Curve That Reflects Real Spending Patterns

Strategy 4: Required Minimum Distributions as a Withdrawal Guide

The IRS-Mandated Approach, and Its Trade-Offs

Strategy 5: The Floor-and-Ceiling Method

Flexibility Within Defined Boundaries

Strategy 6: The Guardrail Strategy

The Approach That Combines Structure, Flexibility, and Clear Decision Rules

How the Guardrail Strategy Works

Why Clear Rules Change Everything

Going Deeper: Coordinating Your Withdrawal Strategy with Social Security and RMDs

The Social Security Timing Decision

Managing the RMD Cliff

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the guardrail strategy appropriate for everyone in retirement?

What happens if I have both a pension and a portfolio?

How often should I review my withdrawal rate?

What about inflation? Does the guardrail strategy account for rising prices?

Ready to Spend Your Retirement With Confidence?

Two Sneaky Tax Traps That Can Cost Retirees Tens of Thousands of Dollars

Tax Trap #1: Treating Social Security as a Separate Decision from Your Roth Conversion Strategy

What Is a Roth Conversion, and Why Does It Matter?

Why Social Security Timing Can Slam That Window Shut

A Real-World Illustration: Dan and Wendy

Tax Trap #2: Phantom Tax and the Hidden Cost of Capital Gains in Retirement

The 0% Capital Gains Rate Is Real, but It Has Invisible Conditions