When do your RMDs start?
November 3, 2026
Listen Now
Subscribe
Ready to talk with an advisor?
The advisors at American Retirement Advisors have been having these conversations for over 25 years. A no-cost discovery session is the fastest way to find out where you actually stand.
Schedule a Discovery Session
Show Notes
Eddie and Betty's Conversation
Welcome back to The American Retirement Advisor. I'm here with Eddie, as always, and today we are getting into part two of our series on required minimum distributions. Yesterday was the what and the why. Today is the question everyone asks first: when does my RMD actually start? And Eddie, I have to tell you, I thought I knew the answer to this one.
You and a lot of people. Most folks have a number in their head, and it's often out of date.
Because it keeps moving.
Congress has moved it up twice since 2019, and the answer now is: it depends on when you were born.
Which sounds like a dodge, but it's not.
It's just the actual rule. Your birth year determines your starting age, full stop.
Okay, so Ian Schaeffer's piece lays out this whole age ladder. Walk me through the big ones.
So here's the one that gets me every time. For forty-five years, the starting age was seventy and a half. Not 70. Not 71. Seventy and a half.
Who decided on a half birthday? That is so specific.
Congress in 1974, apparently very committed to precision. And that was the rule from 1974 all the way until 2019.
Forty-five years of people calculating their half birthday.
That's when the SECURE Act in December 2019 bumped it to 72 for folks born July 1, 1949 through 1950. And then SECURE 2.0 came along in 2023 and moved it again.
To 73?
73 for people born 1951 through 1959. And then here's the one that surprised me when I read Ian's article. If you were born 1960 or later, your starting age is 75.
Wait, 75?
75. That doesn't even take effect until 2033, but yes.
So if you're in your fifties right now, you've got that whole stretch to 75 before the government says okay, time to start pulling money out.
That's a meaningful amount of additional time for it to keep growing. It's a big deal.
I want to go back to the one that's happening right now, because the article makes a specific point about 2026.
So if you turn 73 this year, meaning you were born in 1953, 2026 is your first RMD year. That's not hypothetical, that is real for a lot of people listening.
And there's a weird wrinkle in the article if you were born in 1959.
So this one is genuinely a little odd. The law's wording overlaps for 1959, and the IRS has proposed that 73 is the starting age. It's not fully settled, which is exactly the kind of thing where I'd say write it down and bring it to one of our advisors at American Retirement Advisors, because that's a detail you want to get right.
Not a thing to guess at.
Definitely not.
Okay, so now here's the question I had reading this. Let's say I know my starting age. Can I just wait on taking that first one?
Yes, but only once, and there's a catch that the article makes very clear.
There always is, isn't there.
Your first RMD can be delayed until April 1 of the following year. Every single RMD after that is due by December 31, no exceptions.
So the flexibility is only on the very first one.
That's right. And here's where people get themselves into trouble. If you wait, you're not skipping the first RMD, you're stacking it.
What do you mean by that?
You take last year's RMD by April 1, and then you still have to take this year's RMD by December 31. So you've got two withdrawals landing in the same tax year.
Oh, that sounds painful.
It can be. Two big withdrawals in one year can push you into a higher tax bracket. And the article flags something else: it can push you over the income thresholds that raise your Medicare premiums.
So you waited to avoid a tax hit and you created a bigger one.
Potentially. That's why the article is so deliberate about this. David Schaeffer's line in the guide is that it should be a decision, not a default.
I love that framing. Because I think a lot of people hear 'you can wait' and just think, great, I'll wait.
Without ever asking whether waiting is actually better for their situation.
When does that make sense?
The article gives the clearest example: if your income is going to be lower next year, waiting can make sense because you'd be taking that first distribution at a lower tax rate. Maybe you're retiring partway through the year, maybe income is dropping for another reason. The math can work out. But you have to run the numbers.
It's not automatic.
Nothing about this is handed to you.
Okay, I want to get to the still-working piece, because I think this catches a lot of people off guard.
This is one of those things that feels like it can't be right.
Okay, lay it out.
If you are still employed and you don't own more than five percent of the company, your current employer's plan may let you delay RMDs from that plan until you actually retire.
So you could be past your starting age and still not be required to take distributions?
From that plan, yes. The key word in Ian Schaeffer's article is 'may.' The plan has to allow it. Not every plan does.
So step one is actually asking.
Step one is contacting your plan administrator directly.
And I'm guessing this doesn't apply to everything.
It has real limits. It only applies to your current employer's plan. Your IRAs? Still follow the age ladder. Old 401ks from previous jobs? Same thing, still follow the age ladder. The still-working exception is narrow.
So someone who has an IRA and a current 401k cannot just assume the whole thing is on hold.
Right. The IRA has its own clock running regardless of whether you're still working.
That's the kind of thing that catches people.
Because it feels like it should all be one rule. It's not.
Okay, let me just reflect back on how much ground this covers. Your starting age is tied to your birth year, just like we talked about a minute ago, and it's already shifted twice. If you were born in 1960 or later, you've got until 75. If your first RMD year is right now, you've got a real choice to make about timing. And if you're still working, there might be more flexibility than you think, but it's not guaranteed.
And every one of those things has a decision attached to it. That's what makes this feel complicated, but it's also why it's worth understanding now, before the deadline is in front of you.
The article has the full age ladder laid out, and it's in David Schaeffer's guide. We're not going to read you every row of it, but go look it up and just find your birth year.
It takes about ten seconds and it tells you something you actually need to know.
Can I ask about the Medicare piece just a little more? Because you mentioned income thresholds and I think some people's eyes glaze over when they hear that.
Sure. So Medicare premiums aren't flat for everyone. If your earnings go over certain levels, your premiums go up. And when you take two RMDs in one year, your reported figure for that year can spike in a way that crosses one of those lines.
So you could end up paying more for your Medicare coverage two years later, because of a choice you made about RMD timing.
That's the risk. And the tricky part is those income thresholds shift, so the exact numbers are something I'd want a tax professional or one of our advisors to look at for your specific situation rather than give you a number that might not be current.
That's really the theme of this whole thing, isn't it. The framework is understandable, the specifics need a real person.
It's actually pretty logical once you see it laid out. It's the application to your specific numbers where you want help.
Okay. What's the single thing you'd want someone to do after listening to this?
Find your starting age. That's it. Know your birth year, find where you fall on that ladder, and write down whether your first RMD year is coming up or still a ways off. That one thing changes the conversation you have with anyone helping you plan.
And if your first year is this year or next year, don't just default to taking it or not taking it by April 1. Actually think it through.
The article is very clear on that. It's a decision, not a default. I keep coming back to that.
It's a good line.
David Schaeffer knows what he's doing.
Alright. Next episode in this series is going to be the actual math, how much you have to take out. And Eddie says it's simpler than most people expect.
I said that and I meant it. It involves a table and a formula, but it is genuinely not as scary as it sounds.
High praise from the numbers guy.
I'll take it.
If you want to map out your own first RMD year and actually look at it alongside someone who knows the rules, the team at American Retirement Advisors can help you start that conversation. You'll find the link in Ian's article. No pressure, no cost to you for the conversation, just a real look at where you stand. We'll see you in part three.