Q: I retired in 2009 to care for an ailing parent who has since passed away. I took Social Security at age 62, when the law allowed claimants to pay back their Social Security and receive the highest benefits at age 70. Since that time the law has changed and repayment can only be made in the first year. Do you know of any proposal to change the current rules for those who signed up under the old law? —Sandra

A: As Sandra correctly notes, Social Security changed its benefits withdrawal policy in December 2010, after she had retired under its prior rules—and it’s one of the most unusual policy shifts that the agency has enacted. Consider that Social Security, which often gets dinged for slow response time, made this change lightning fast. What’s more, the new policy seems to have little to do with the needs of beneficiaries like Sandra and everything to do with the agency being surprised—and perhaps chagrined—that people were paying attention to its often arcane rules and actually taking advantage of them.

Under the old policy, people who had begun receiving benefits could, at any time, pay back everything they’d received and effectively wipe clean their benefit history. By resetting their benefit record this way, people who took reduced retirement benefits early would be able to file later for much higher monthly payments. For people born between 1943 and 1954, for example, retirement benefits at age 70 are 76% higher than those taken at age 62.

Few people paid much attention to this rule until a growing group of financial planners and Social Security experts began highlighting the possible gains of withdrawing benefits and delaying claiming. As the word spread, journalists began to write about these rules for an even wider audience.

Social Security, which previously had no problem with the rule when few were using it, changed its mind as more and more people began withdrawing their benefits. Suddenly, without an extended period for evaluation or debate, the agency issued a final rule limiting the benefit withdrawal option—and it took effect immediately. If the public wanted to comment, it would be able to do so only after the rule was changed. By comparison, the decision to raise the official retirement age in the program from 66 to 67 was enacted in 1983—37 years before it will take effect in the year 2020.

Here’s what the agency said at the time it changed its rules on withdrawing benefits:

“The agency is changing its withdrawal policy because recent media articles have promoted the use of the current policy as a means for retired beneficiaries to acquire an ‘interest-free loan.’ However, this ‘free loan’ costs the Social Security Trust Fund the use of money during the period the beneficiary is receiving benefits with the intent of later withdrawing the application and the interest earned on these funds. The processing of these withdrawal applications is also a poor use of the agency’s limited administrative resources in a time of fiscal austerity—resources that could be better used to serve the millions of Americans who need Social Security’s services.”

Further, in making the shift to a one-year withdrawal period, the agency explained that the policy was designed to reduce the value of the option so few people would use it. Today, by the way, the agency supports delaying retirement much more than it used to.

Of course, telling people to delay claiming is of little help to people like Sandra, who retired under the old rule and was caught by the sudden policy shift. Is there any likelihood that the rule could be changed to accommodate this group? Not really, says James Nesbitt, a Social Security claims representative for nearly 40 years who is now providing benefits expertise for High Falls Advisors in Rochester, NY. “Unfortunately,” he says, “this change did not contain any grandfathering provision. I am not aware of any pending actions within Congress or Social Security that would extend grandfather rights to those who were disadvantaged by this change.”

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. His book, “Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security,” will be published in February by Simon & Schuster. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

More on Social Security:

How to protect your retirement income from Social Security mistakes

Here’s how Social Security will cut your benefits if you retire early

Will Social Security be enough to retire on?

Read next: Can I Collect Social Security From My Ex?

Q: I have been divorced twice and currently am not married. Can I draw Social Security off either of my ex-husbands? I was married to the first one for 16 years and the second for 11. And would I be able to remarry and still draw off the ex? I am 62 now. – Rita Diestel, Bruce, Miss.

A: You can collect Social Security benefits based on the earnings of a former spouse if you were married 10 years or more, and you are at least 62 and not currently married. So, you’re good on all three counts.

But there are a few more wrinkles, says Adam Nugent, managing partner of Foresight Wealth Management, an investment advisory firm in Sandy, Utah.

You can collect benefits from the ex-husband with the larger payout but only if you’re not eligible for a higher amount based on your own work record. You can check how much you’re entitled to and your ex-husbands’ payouts (if you have their Social Security numbers) at ssa.gov.

To collect on an ex, you must be divorced at least two years. The former husband that you base your benefits on must be at least 62, though he doesn’t have to have started receiving his benefits yet for you to get yours.

But just because you may be able to collect now doesn’t mean it’s the best move for you, says Nugent. You are entitled to 50% of your former husband’s benefits but, like anyone collecting Social Security, you’ll get less if you start taking it before your full retirement age of 66. The longer you delay the better. If you decide to take it before 66, your benefits will be permanently reduced, 8% for each year you take it before 66. “You will be rewarded for waiting,” says Nugent.

As for marrying again, if your ex is remarried, that won’t affect your benefits. But if you remarry that’s a different story. Nearly 60% of U.S. divorcees remarry and if you do, you are no longer able to get a divorced spouse’s benefits, unless you get divorced again yourself.

If you remain single, you can use many of the same strategies that married spouses use to boost your payouts, says Nugent. One option is to file a restricted application with Social Security (at full retirement age) to collect a divorced spousal benefit, which is half of what your ex gets. Then, once you reach 70, you can stop receiving the ex-spousal benefit and switch to your own benefit, which will be 32% higher than it would have been at your full retirement age.

The rules are a bit different if your former spouse dies. You are entitled to 100% of your deceased ex-spouse’s Social Security, the same as any widow even if he was remarried. And if you are married when your ex passes away, you can collect survivor benefits as long as you didn’t remarry until age 60 or later. If you are collecting Social Security based on your own work history, you can switch to survivor’s benefits if the payment is larger. Or, if you’re collecting survivor’s benefits, you can switch to your own retirement benefits — between 62 and 70 — if it offers a larger payment.

There’s a lot to think about, says Nugent, but most important is that there are big benefits for delaying. As a woman you’re more vulnerable in retirement than a man because women typically live longer. Of course, your health, expected longevity, and other retirement savings should be factored in as well. “But if you can wait at least a few more years to start collecting Social Security, that will give you more security in the long run,” says Nugent.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

Read next: Why Social Security Suddenly Changed Its Benefits Withdrawal Rule

Growing numbers of Americans in their 70s and 80s love their jobs and have no plans to retire. You might be one of them someday.

Willie Nelson is 81; Warren Buffett is 84; Mary Higgins Clark is 86 and David Hockney is 77. All are still working and going strong. So are more and more Americans 75 and older. You might be one of them someday—and glad of it.

In a recent interview, British painter David Hockney—one of the world’s greatest living artists—captured the joy, meaning and youthfulness he continues to draw from his profession. “When I’m working, I feel like Picasso, I feel I’m 30,” he told Tim Lewis of The London Observer. “When I stop I know I’m not, but when I paint, I stand up for six hours a day and yeah, I feel I’m 30.”

‘It’s What I Enjoy Doing’

I imagine that sentiment rings true for Mark Paper, age 81. He’s President of Lewis Bolt & Nut Company in Wayzata, Minn., a firm owned by his family since 1927. Paper took the helm from his father in 1962 and remains deeply involved in the company’s expanding operations. He gets daily and weekly reports, stays in touch with its executives and flies out to visit the manufacturing plant in La Junta, Colo. several times a month.

“Why not stop working?” I asked Paper. “You have money. You’re 81 years old. Haven’t you heard of retirement?” His answer: “It’s what I enjoy doing.”

Plenty of other septuagenarians and octogenarians feel the same way.

Although people working at age 75 and over are a distinct minority—comprising less than 1% of the total labor force—roughly 11% of American men 75 and older are still at it and 5% of women that age are. By contrast, in 1992, only about 7% of 75+ men and 3% of 75+ women worked.

Indeed, after declining sharply in the early postwar decades, the average age of retirement in America has risen over the past two decades, to 64 for men and 62 for women, calculates Alicia Munnell, head of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

While the labor force participation rate for men 75 and up is currently about double that of the rate for women, the gap is expected to shrink. Boomer and Gen X women are well educated and more attached to their jobs than previous generations.

‘I Can’t Imagine Not Being Employed’

Marilyn Tully, 75, loves working, too. She has been self-employed her entire working life in businesses mostly revolving around the home and interior design. “I can’t imagine not being employed,” she says. “Especially if you still have the energy, which I do and, like me, you have the creative urge.”

That doesn’t mean there haven’t been rough patches. In 2007, she and her husband had to shutter their Naples, Fla. furniture business, a casualty of the housing market implosion, and her interior design company suffered. These days, her design business is picking up, she represents a successful jewelry designer and consults on inventory management for high-end designers. (Her husband handles the administrative and IT sides of her firms.) When they aren’t working, they sail Florida’s gulf coast for two weeks at a time on the trimaran Tully’s husband built. “It’s a good life,” she says.

‘It Keeps Me Young’

Newspaper publisher Jerry Bellune of Lexington, S.C., 77, works at a pace that would leave many younger workers gasping. He says running the Lexington County Chronicle & Dispatch News with his wife, MacLeod, offers him “enjoyment, exhilaration, a strong sense of mission and purpose.” On top of that, says Bellune, “it keeps me young, working with younger people and helping them grow personally and professionally.”

And he has no plans to stop. “I’d like to work as long as I’m able and can still make a contribution,” Bellune told me.

Here’s a typical workweek for him: Mondays and Tuesdays, he’s usually at the office, writing, proofing pages and talking with the staff about coverage, and the rest of the week he’s mostly writing and helping with community endeavors. Weekends are busy, too, writing weekly and monthly articles for a business magazine and two trade magazines. (He’s also a consultant and manages a family investment fund. Tired yet?)

The Bellunes do take breaks, traveling abroad several weeks a year and spending time at their vacation home. “We have an excellent staff that permits us that leisure,” he says.

‘It Keeps Me Off the Streets’

Funeral assistant Jerry Beddow, 75, loves working, too. A year after retiring as a high school principal in 1994, Beddow began his current job at Patton-Schad Funeral and Cremation Services in Sauk Centre, Minn. He works about three to four hours a day, helping position caskets at the funeral home, carrying flowers, talking to grieving families and driving the hearse. “It keeps me off the streets,” he laughs.

After researching my new book, Unretirement, I’ve come to believe that the ranks of people 75+ earning a paycheck will expand in coming decades, especially among better educated employees and businesss owners. It isn’t inconceivable that the average retirement age when the youngest boomers reach their 70s in the early 2030s could approach 70.

“Public opinion in the aggregate may decree that the average person becomes old at age 68, but you won’t get too far trying to convince people that age that the threshold applies to them,” notes Pew Research in its report, Growing Old in America: Expectations vs. Reality. “Even among those who are 75 and older, just 35% say they feel old.”

The ones who are able to keep working well into their 70s, I think, will find themselves leading richer lives, both financially and psychically.

Chris Farrell is senior economics contributor for American Public Media’s Marketplace and author of the new book Unretirement: How Baby Boomers Are Changing the Way We Think About Work, Community, and The Good Life. He writes about Unretirement twice a month, focusing on the personal finance and entrepreneurial start-up implications and the lessons people learn as they search for meaning and income. Send your queries to him at cfarrell@mpr.org. His twitter address is @cfarrellecon.

More from Next Avenue:

Why Professional Men Over 60 Keep Working

The Good News About Women Working After 60

What Older Workers Want, But Aren’t Getting

Q: Is it okay to text my boss?

A: The answer depends the signals you’ve received in the past from your supervisor and on the information you’re trying to convey.

With the rapid rise in smartphone usage and the huge number of millennials now in the workforce, texting is indeed becoming more acceptable as a professional way to communicate, says Praful Shah, senior vice president of strategy at Ring Central, which makes business communication products.

“There’s been a huge shift toward businesses using texting for communicating with customers, partners and employees,” he notes. “For the younger generation of workers, it’s a natural part of their life and they are bringing behavior from their personal life into business.”

Still, it’s not right for every situation.

How to Tell if Your Boss Is Open to Receiving Texts

While surveys show that Gen Y is more attached to their mobile devices than older folks, across all generations more than 90% of people who own a smartphone text regularly. So age shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether to contact your boss in this manner.

Rather, look out for one of these two clues that your boss would be okay with hearing from you by text:

1) He or she has texted you in the past.

OR

2) He or she has provided his or her cell number on the staff directory or in an email signature.

How to Tell if a Text is the Right Way to Communicate

A text is best reserved for situations in which you need an immediate response or want to provide a quick important piece of information, says Shah. But if you need more than a few brief sentences, an email is more appropriate.

Also, when the information is sensitive—such as a project being cancelled—it’s usually better to talk in person or by phone (though you could request the person’s time by text).

Timing is important, too. If it’s late at night or you know your boss in is in a meeting, a text can be intrusive and disruptive, says Shah. “For information that can wait, use email so your boss can decide when to respond.”

You should also limit frequency. You may text back and forth a lot with friends. But you don’t want to annoy the person who decides your raises.

Finally, your texts shouldn’t be as casual as the ones you send in your personal life. Use emoticons and abbreviations sparingly. “An occasional thumbs up symbol is fine,” says Shah.

You’re probably not writing full sentences, so grammar isn’t that important. But spelling is. “No matter what form of communication you’re using is at work, you look sloppy if you have misspellings,” says Shah. Read a text before you send it so that you won’t have to blame autocorrect.

Do you have a question about workplace etiquette for our experts? Write to Career@moneymail.com.

Q: I am maxing out my 401(k). I understand there’s a new way to make after-tax contributions to a Roth IRA. How does that work?

A: You can thank the IRS for what is essentially a huge tax break for higher-income retirement savers, especially folks like yourself who are already maxing out contributions to tax-sheltered retirement plans.

A recent ruling by the IRS allows eligible workers to easily move after-tax contributions from their 401(k) or 403(b) plan to Roth IRAs when they exit their company plan. “With this new ruling, retirement savers are getting a huge increase in their ability contribute to a Roth IRA,” says Brian Holmes, president and CEO of investment advisory firm Signature Estate and Investment Advisors.

The Roth is a valuable income stream in retirement because contributions are after-tax, which means you don’t owe Uncle Sam anything on the money you withdraw. Unlike traditional IRAs which require you to start withdrawing money once you turn 70 ½, Roths have no mandatory distribution requirements, so your investments can continue to grow tax-free. And if you need to take a chunk out for a sudden big expense, such as medical bills, the withdrawal won’t bump you up into a higher tax bracket.

For high-income earners, the IRS ruling is especially good news. Singles with an adjusted gross income of $129,000 or more can’t directly contribute to a Roth IRA; for married couples, the income cap is $191,000. If you are are eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA, you can’t contribute more than $5,500 this year or next ($6,500 for people over 50). The IRS does allow people to convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs but you must pay income tax on your gains.

Now, with this new IRS ruling, you can put a lot more into a Roth by diverting your 401(k) assets into one. The annual limit on pre-tax contributions to 401(k) plans is $17,500 and $23,000 for people over 50; those limits rise to $18,000 and $24,000 next year. Including your pre-tax and post-tax contributions, as well as pre-tax employer matches, the total amount a worker can save in 401(k) and 403(b) plans is $52,000 and $57,500 for those 50 and older. (That amount will rise to $53,000 and $59,000 respectively in 2015.) When you leave your employer, you can separate the after-tax money and send it directly to a Roth, which can boost your tax-free savings by tens of thousands of dollars.

To take advantage of the new rule, your employer plan must allow after-tax contributions to your 401(k). About 53% of 401(k) plans allow both pre-tax and after- tax contributions, according to Rick Meigs, president of the 401(k) Help Center. You must also first max out your pre-tax contributions. The transfer to a Roth must be done at the same time you roll your existing 401(k)’s pre-tax savings into a traditional IRA.

The ability to put away more in a Roth is also good for people who want to leave money to heirs. Inherited Roth IRAs are free of tax, and because they don’t have taxable minimum required distributions, they can give your heirs decades of tax-free growth. “It’s absolutely the best asset to die with if you want to leave money behind,” says Holmes.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

Read next: 4 Disastrous Retirement Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Q: My wife is 62 and I am 65. She has a small pension of $21,000 and can take it as a lump sum or an annuity of $154 a month. We also have a credit card with $17,000 at 8% and two car loans of $17,000 at 8%. Should we use the money to pay off debt or roll it into an IRA? – Joe Skovira, Cheshire, Conn.

A: Choosing the right way to handle a pension payout is critical to your retirement success. It’s all too tempting to use that money to pay off debts, when your other sources of cash run short. But raiding your pension could be a mistake. “You should pay off the debt but don’t sacrifice the pension to do it,” says Rich Paul, a certified financial planner and president of Richard W. Paul & Associates.

Even though the pension income is small, that $154 monthly check adds up $1,800 a year, or a 9% payout. It would be hard to generate that consistent income on your own in an IRA. “Those are guaranteed dollars that you’ll receive for the rest of your life—you can’t get that kind of return with conservative investments,” says Paul.

There are also taxes to consider. If you take the pension as a lump sum, and don’t roll it over into an IRA, you’ll likely owe capital gains or income taxes. Moreover, the income from that lump sum might push you into a higher tax bracket, further eroding its value.

As for your debts, they’re clearly a drain on your cash flow. So look for ways to free up cash to pay off those bills by cutting your spending. For strategies on getting on top of that debt, see here and here.

It also makes sense to prioritize your credit card debt over the car loans, says Paul. That way, if you ever need extra cash, you’ll have a bigger credit line to tap. You could even use the $154 to step up payments on the credit card.

“It all comes down to cash flow. You’ll feel a lot more comfortable in retirement with more guaranteed income and less debt,” says Paul.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

Related:

Should I save or pay off debt?

What debts should I pay off first?

Should I take my pension as a lump sum or as monthly payments?

Adele Douglass built a non-profit that protects millions of farm animals and gives farmers a new marketing niche.

After a three-decade career in Washington devoted to animal welfare issues, Adele Douglass thought she knew a lot about how bad their mistreatment could get. Still, she was shocked when she began to look closely at the conditions of farm animals in the U.S.

She discovered chickens being raised in cages so overcrowded they couldn’t raise their wings, pigs unable to turn around in tightly packed pens, and animals left unsheltered against outdoor elements.

Douglass decided the best way to improve the conditions of livestock was to push for change herself. So in 2003, at age 57, she quit her job as a non-profit executive for an animal rights association and launched her own organization, Humane Farm Animal Care. “The more I knew, the more appalled I got, and the more I wanted to do something myself,” says Douglass, now 67. “Legislation was not going to solve the problem. It took 100 years for the Humane Slaughter Act to be passed.”

Douglass figured out a way to engage farmers and consumers on the issue—by addressing their growing concerns over eating meat from animals being fed antibiotics. She developed Certified Humane, which is the first certification in the U.S. that guarantees farm animals are treated humanely from birth to slaughter. To get this certification, farmers must allow animals to engage in natural behaviors, provide appropriate space for roaming, and food free of antibiotics or hormones. Farmers who are Certified Humane can market to natural food shoppers and get higher prices for their products, Douglass says.

Humanely raised food appeals to American families of all income levels. “Young mothers want to feed their families good food. Poor people don’t want to feed their families junk” says Douglass.” Following humane practices also improves the environment, since fewer animals raised on more space creates less pollution.

To fund the organization, Douglass cashed in her $80,000 401(k) account. Her daughter, who had encouraged her to make the move, gave her $10,000 and worked at the organization during its first few years. Douglass also received grants from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and The Humane Society. In the first year of operation in 2004, 143,000 animals were raised under the organization’s standards.

Today 87 million animals are in the program, and the non-profit has three full-time employees and two part-timers. Fees for certification and annual inspections cover about 30% of the organization’s costs—the rest comes from donations and grants.

Douglass shares this advice for others hoping to launch a second act career:

Make a plan before you exit. Douglass spent years researching the issue before quitting her job. She was able to get off the ground in just one year because she modeled the certification program after an existing similar program in the U.K. called Freedom Food.

Leverage your contacts. Douglass has a deep list of connections, from animal scientists and USDA officials to fundraisers and academics, as well as contacts in the animal rights movement and veterinary profession. “I had the contacts, knowledge and experience which gave me confidence I could do this on my own,” says Douglass.

Cut personal expenses. Though Douglass’ salary isn’t much less than what she earned in her previous career, her compensation is a lot more volatile. She has willingly taken pay cuts in recent years. Douglass says she hasn’t had to change her lifestyle much. But she reduced her biggest expense—her home—by downsizing to a smaller place, which made it easier to adjust.

At 67, Douglass doesn’t envision retiring. Now living alone, with three adult children and five grandchildren, she says her family is one of her greatest joys. But her work remains an enormously satisfying part of her life too. “Sure, there are days when I am tired and frustrated. But I am doing something that benefits people, animals and the environment. I feel really good about that,” says Douglass.

Adele Douglass is a 2007 winner of The Purpose Prize, a program operated by Encore.org, a non-profit organization that recognizes social entrepreneurs over 60 who are launching second acts for the greater good.

Related:

How to Ace Any Interview and Land the Job of Your Dreams

The 9-to-5 Start-up: How to Launch a Business Without Quitting Your Day Job

How This Former Techie Gave Her Career a Jolt

Few of the occupations that put workers at high risk are especially lucrative.

Loggers. Commercial fishermen. Firefighters. It’s not surprising that these occupations top the list of the most dangerous jobs.

But when research engine FindTheBest set out to identify how well high-risk jobs pay, one occupation that doesn’t involve such extreme working conditions landed on the list: truck drivers and delivery drivers. The reason: Transportation-related incidents are the number one cause of on-the-job fatalities across all job categories, accounting for 40% of deaths, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics.

People who spend long days behind the wheel, such as workers making regular store deliveries or restaurant take-out drivers, are at a higher risk of having an accident. Truck drivers and a group the BLS calls driver/sales workers together rank as the ninth most dangerous profession. Two other transportation-related jobs also landed relatively high on the list: Taxi drivers and chauffeurs come in at No. 16.

As for how much these dangerous occupations pay, FindTheBest found that few risky jobs will make you rich. To see how much workers in these professions earn, FindTheBest combined data from the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) with median wages from the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook and Occupational Employment Statistics Report.

According to the BLS Occupational Handbook, the median wage for all professions in 2012 was $34,750. According to FindTheBest’s analysis, only four of the top-10 high-risk jobs pay at least $10,000 above that; three pay about the median and three pay less.

The most well-compensated workers in the top 10 are aircraft pilots and flight engineers, who make a median salary of $129,600 a year. Many pilots fly routine routes for commercial airlines, while others fulfill more dangerous roles, such as assisting firefighters, transporting freight to remote areas, and performing search and rescue operations. A higher number of those pilots, who also earn less, die on the job.

None of the remaining professions pay nearly as well as being a pilot, but agricultural managers, electrical power-line installers and repairers, and steel workers all make a median wage that’s more than $10,000 above the median for all professions.

Farmers and agricultural managers face all sorts of risks, from charging animals, to tractor accidents and even asphyxiation from falling into bins of grain. Electrical power-line installers and steel workers operate at extreme heights, which puts them at risk of falling and slipping—the third most common reason for death in 2013.

The remaining six professions on the list pay only slightly above the overall median wage, or even below it.

Roofers, waste collectors, and construction laborers make a median salary of about $35,000, yet these workers face a risk of death that’s five to 12 times greater than the overall U.S. rate of 3.4 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers.

Logging workers, fishers, and sales and truck drivers earn less than the median wage but face a fatality rate between 6.5 and 37.5 times higher than the risk for all jobs. The lowest paid in the top ten: sales delivery drivers, who earn just $27,530 a year.

Chainsaw accidents and falling logs and branches are among the main dangers loggers—the number one most dangerous job in 2012—face. Fishermen encounter many hazards as well, such as slippery decks, swinging equipment, and capsizing boats.

But there has been improvement in these grim numbers. The fatality total in 2012 (4,628) was the second lowest since the CFOI was first conducted in 1992 and a slight improvement from 2011. Some new technologies such as non-rollover tractors for farmers, foot straps for roofers, and improved safety training overall have helped reduce fatality rates.

Here are details on fatality rates and wages for the ten most dangerous professions. To see data for all professions, click on the link at the bottom of the table.

Read next: What Can You Learn From the Toughest Leadership Job on Earth?

Q: How can I find out how much I am paying in fees in my 401(k) retirement plan?

A: It’s an important question to ask, and finding an answer should be a lot easier than it is right now. Studies show that high costs lead to worse performance for investors. So minimizing your expenses is one of the best ways to improve returns and reach your retirement goals.

Yet most people don’t pay attention to fees in their retirement plans—in fact, many don’t even realize they’re paying them. Nearly half of full-time employed Baby Boomers believe they pay zero investment costs in their retirement accounts, while 19% think their fees are less than 0.5%, according to a new survey by investment firm Rebalance IRA.

Truth is, everyone who has a 401(k), or an IRA, pays fees. The average 401(k) investor has 1.5% each year deducted from his or her account for various fees. But those expenses vary widely. If you work for a large company, which can spread costs over thousands of employees, you’ll likely pay just 1% or less. Smaller 401(k) plans, those with only a few hundred employees, tend to cost more—2.5% on average and as much as 3.86%.

A percentage point or two in fees may appear trivial, but the impact is huge. “Over time, these seemingly small fees will compound and can easily consume one-third of investment returns,” says Mitch Tuchman, managing director of Rebalance IRA.

Translated into dollars, the numbers can be eye-opening. Consider this analysis by the Center for American Progress: a 401(k) investor earning a median $30,000 income, and who paid fund fees of just 0.25%, would accumulate $476,745 over a 40-year career. (That’s assuming a 10% savings rate and 6.8% average annual return.) But if that worker who paid 1.3% in fees, the nest egg would grow to only $380,649. To reach the same $476,745 nest egg, that worker would have to stay on the job four more years.

To help investors understand 401(k) costs, a U.S. Labor Department ruling in 2012 required 401(k) plan providers to disclose fees annually to participants—you should see that information in your statements. Still, even with these new rules, understanding the different categories of expenses can be difficult. You will typically be charged for fund management, record-keeping, as well as administrative and brokerage services. You can find more information on 401(k) fees here and here.

By contrast, if you’ve got an IRA invested directly with a no-load fund company, deciphering fees is fairly straightforward—you will pay a management expense and possibly an administrative charge. But if your IRA is invested with a broker or financial planner, you may be paying additional layers of costs for their services. “The disclosures can be made in fine print,” says Tuchman. “It’s not like you get an email clearly spelling it all out.”

To find out exactly what you’re paying, your first step is to check your fund or 401(k) plan’s website—the best-run companies will post clear fee information. But if you can’t find those disclosures, or if they don’t tell you what you want to know, you’ll have to ask. Those investing in a 401(k) can check with the human resources department. If you have an IRA, call the fund company or talk to your advisor. At Rebalance IRA, you can download templates that cover the specific questions to ask about your retirement account costs.

If your 401(k) charges more than you would like, you can minimize fees by opting for the lowest-cost funds available—typically index funds, which tend to be less expensive than actively managed funds. And if your IRA is too pricey, move it elsewhere. “You may not be able to control the markets but you do have some control over what you pay to invest,” says Tuchman. “That can make a big difference over time.”

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write toAskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

More from Money’s Ultimate Retirement Guide:

How should I invest my 401(k)?

Are my IRA contributions tax-deductible?

Why is rolling over my 401(k) to an IRA such a big deal?