Life and Money With Helaine

Dear Helaine: I’m writing with a question about medical expenses in retirement. Over and over, I keep reading something to the effect that “a couple retiring today can expect to spend $250,000 on medical expenses during their retirement, even with Medicare.” I realize Medicare doesn’t cover everything, but this seems like an unbelievably high number. Can you tell me where this figure comes from? Is it assuming some form of long-term care will be necessary? I am in my mid-40s and would like to know more about what those expenses are and how to plan. -- Young and Healthy Now

Dear Young and Healthy Now: The information you are thinking of almost certainly comes from Fidelity Investments, which releases an annual study attempting to estimate the medical expenses of a theoretical 65-year-old couple retiring in the current year. They released the most recent one this past April, and the number is $285,000 -- worse than you think. Women can expect to spend $150,000, while men spend a slightly lower $135,000. It’s possible these numbers are low -- they do not count such things as dental expenses or long-term care. HealthView Services, which also performs an estimate and includes these things as well as other costs not covered by Medicare, puts the number at $387,644 in today’s dollars.

Now of course Fidelity has a reason for wanting you to know that number: The press release trumpeting their finding also contains a pitch for Fidelity’s Health Savings Accounts, which you can use if you have a high-deductible health insurance plan. The money is contributed and grows on a pre-tax basis and there are also no taxes due if the money is withdrawn and used to pay medical bills. And this is indeed one way to plan. If you are saving the recommended amount for retirement, and you can afford to still put more money aside, you might want to put $3,500 -- the maximum an individual can contribute -- in an HSA. (Families are permitted $7,000.)

But the bigger question is: Why is the amount we will spend on doctors and hospitals and other medical needs in retirement so high? Americans pay significantly more for their health care than any other nation. Medicare -- despite what many think -- does not pay for everything. It comes with co-pays and a host of gotchas -- for instance, if a hospital doesn’t formally admit a Medicare patient, and keeps them on “observation” status, the program won’t pay for a stay at a rehab facility, even if it’s needed.

Yes, it’s good to save. But no other first world nation imposes this sort of burden on its residents. Fixing that would be the best savings plan of all.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Dear Helaine: My house is in a booming neighborhood in an "it" city. I only have a $50,000 mortgage. The property would appraise for about $300,000. It's a large lot, with a house and detached garage in so-so condition. It needs some work.

I would like to buttress my retirement savings, and I have two ideas of what I can do. I could subdivide it, and then sell the lot for a pretty penny. I would lose my garage and most of my yard, but I would have a chunk of change in the bank, which I could invest in my retirement.

Or I could tear down the detached garage and build a new one with a granny flat apartment to rent above it. I could then do a traditional rental or Airbnb. (I'm leaning toward the traditional rental.) A friend of mine recently did something similar and, based on her experience, I speculate this would cost me about $125,000. Based on what rents are where I live, I believe I could rent the apartment for enough to cover the increased mortgage payment and other costs. What do you think? -- Home for Good

Dear Home for Good: The personal finance community likes to promote earning money as a landlord as "passive income," but it's frequently anything but. Tenants can call in the middle of the night, short-term guests can be wonderfully charming or a difficult handful. Either way, the person living in your property will be a most definite presence in your life. Expenses are often somewhat more than you expect -- you are now maintaining two properties, not one. You've doubled the number of sinks and roofs that can spring leaks.

That's not to say selling the land is an ideal situation either. It will cost you money in the long run -- homes lacking a detached garage or decent yard space do sell for less than those with them. You will, moreover, be living next to a construction site, and you'll ultimately have a neighbor you have no control in choosing living very close to your home. A difficult tenant is a relatively temporary problem, but you'll live next door to a problematic neighbor for a much longer period of time.

If you still want to go ahead after weighing all these pros and cons, I suggest sitting down separately with both a real estate attorney and an accountant. You want to know the laws regulating both short- and long-term rentals in your neck of the woods, and then you'll also want to run the numbers with someone knowledgeable, objective and neutral. You need to know whether you have a financial cushion for contingencies ranging from the inability to rent the property out at the price you need to paying for unexpected repairs. If we want something, it's easy to underestimate the potential expenses and make the numbers work in our head. It's harder to fool a professional.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Hi, Helaine: My parents and their surviving sisters and brothers are getting up in years, so my family began to rotate hosting Thanksgiving among the next generation. This year, I'm up.

We are expecting somewhere between 20 and 30 people for Thanksgiving dinner. It's a family tradition and I enjoy it, but only when I am a guest. I am busy at work. So is my husband. My company doesn't give Friday off, and I doubt I'll leave early on Wednesday. I don't want to give up a vacation day.

What I want to know is if I can cater Thanksgiving dinner and ask my family to chip in so we don't need to put a several-hundred-dollar bill on plastic. I think that's not good etiquette, but my husband says we need to stick to a budget, and Thanksgiving dinner for my family isn't in it. Who is right? -- Turkey Blues

Dear Turkey Blues: Let's take Thanksgiving out of the picture. You are hosting a big dinner party, and you decide to cater it. Would you ask the guests to chip in? The answer is obvious: of course not -- though if someone offers to cover their share, you might take the money after a polite protest. On the other hand, there is something you could ask from your party goers: potluck.

Here's my advice. Write an email to everyone attending. Explain part of what you told me -- say you are busy at work, and you are going to cater the dinner. I'd add a line about how much you are looking forward to hosting, but in the interest of making the meal still feel like the traditional event your family enjoys, you are asking everyone to contribute one dish. My bet? People will step forward to make or bring the salad, the side dishes and dessert.

To sweeten the deal, offer to make one thing yourself. Then a turkey and one or two other items shouldn't be a budget-buster, or at least I hope it won't. And maybe you'll get lucky and someone will step forward to handle that, too. But even if that doesn't happen, don't feel guilty. Surveys show more than half of us will encounter at least one item from a restaurant or supermarket at our annual meal.

As for your work circumstance, I'm sorry. But even if you had the entire week off, I would still say the same thing. It's OK to not want to spend hours cooking for Thanksgiving, so you can enjoy the day without working yourself to a nub. Cleanup will be hard enough!

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)