Tax consideration for taxable, IRA & SS revenue streams

[haha]

It was my understanding the ORP software optimized withdrawals for tax purposes so now I'm a bit confused as to which is the better strategy.

I believe one really needs to project her own withdrawals and taxes and SS out until well past 70, based on current tax rates. The author of this paper contends that much post tax money often gets little taxation, as it is return of capital or otherwise lightly taxed. This really depends on your own individual situation.

Unfortunately one size rarely fits all in any of these matters.

Ha

 

[Lisa99]

I projected out to end of life (91 per IRS tables) and used 70 for beginning of SS. I'm six years away from retirement so who know what will happen in that time!

Nords, there are two ways to access Bogleheads. One is
www dot bogleheads.org which is a complete mess and impossible to read much less find anything, the other link is
www dot bogleheads.org/forum/index.php which is an indexed, searchable forum. The forum sw may not be as good as here but it is MUCH better than the non-indexed Boglehead site.

I broke the links when putting them in this message so you could visually see the difference.

 

[Moemg]

The paper on taking tax deferred money first is in conflict with the results I get from running the i-orp retirement planning software (ORP has us taking taxable assets first). I also used the same scenario as the paper which stated 'delay SS as late as possible'.

It was my understanding the ORP software optimized withdrawals for tax purposes so now I'm a bit confused as to which is the better strategy.

I ran ORP software and it has me taking a little of each . Some tax deferred & some taxable . This thread has got me thinking . Since I am 50% deferred and I am letting my dividends & capital gains grow in my IRA my RMD 's will be huge so I guess I need to spend a day with Tax Act running different scenarios .

 

[Bona Fide Retiree]

I read most of the PDF and found it interesting but unconvincing. I was a bit surprized that he indicated at 70 years old that the couple #2 could just "choose" how much to withdraw ($20,000) from the IRA and therefore wins. In reality wouldn't each couple would be forced to withdraw (as RMD would require) the required 1/27.4 of their IRA at 70. A lot of the tax benefits would certainly go away if both couple had $1.4 mil in the IRA were "forced" to take $50,000 a year from the IRA or lose 50% due to penalty. And as a spread sheet showing RMD requirements up to 91 would show, it only gets worse.

 

[Nords]

Nords, there are two ways to access Bogleheads. One is
www dot bogleheads.org which is a complete mess and impossible to read much less find anything, the other link is
www dot bogleheads.org/forum/index.php which is an indexed, searchable forum. The forum sw may not be as good as here but it is MUCH better than the non-indexed Boglehead site.

You're absolutely right, and [-]IMHO[/-] they both suck.

As much as I malign this forum's software (which it richly deserves), it's probably a 7 out of 10.

Those two Boglehead sites are a 1.5 and a 1.8, respectively. Same problem with Greaney's REHP discussion board and Raddr's board. Same with SailorBob.com and RiggedForDive.com. PhpBB is way past its expiration date.

Yes, it's indexed. Yes, it's searchable. But I also used to drive a 1988 Yugo which I referred to as "transportation". Try searching for a user name in their memberlist. Try seeing who the top 10 posters are. Try finding users who claim to be from Texas. Try doing just about anything you're accustomed to doing here, especially with just a few mouse clicks. The Bogleheads admins know perfectly well how their software performs, but they choose not to invest the time/money in attracting more users. Eventually they'll only have to put up with the hardcore who think that PhpBB is acceptable.

But I do appreciate their wiki. Way better than our FAQ Archive.

 

[walkinwood]

That's the interpretation that I have too, with one difference. My reading was that your spouse would get 50% of your benefit at 62 - not your full retirement benefit - for the years until she claimed her own benefit. I was unaware of this till I read the article yesterday.

Some more data on this here - see secret 2.
Kiplinger.com

I dont' think I still understand it fully. Can you combine 1 & 2?

 

[perrytime]

I also remain skeptical, there seems to be no consideration for the growth of the IRA money. Couple #1 may potentially see much higher growth since IRA is not being depleated as fast. 8 years of 90k withdraws, means a starting balance of say 750K. While social security benefits may grow 8% per year, in rough #'s, 8% of 44k is much less that 4% growth of 750K.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

If I "file and suspend" at age 62, is that the same as "started benefits"? WTF is "normal retirement age"?!? "Full" or "age 62" or age 65? Either Smith doesn't know what he's talking about, or SS has changed the rules since he published his PDF, or it's way more complicated than either reference seems to imply.

Doug, I thought I had it figured out, too. I am relieved that I am not the only one who is confused.

 

[haha]

Doug, I thought I had it figured out, too. I am relieved that I am not the only one who is confused.

Ed, what post are you responding to?

Ha

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Oops. Wrong thread?

 

[homestead]

Got this reply below from James Welch (ORP) about the Smith paper...

Essentially, as I read it, Smith is saying delay taking Social Security Benefits (SSB) until age of 70 and draw down the IRA to meet living expenses between the age of retirement at 66 and start of SSB at 70.

ORP does not disagree with this. Compare runs of retirement at 66 with beginning SSB at 62, 66 and 70.

66 says distribute IRA and after-tax in parallel to minimize taxes and maximize spending because SSB are getting taxed from the get go..

Start SSB at 70 shows that ORP agrees with Smith and says hit the IRA until SSB kicks in, lay off the after-tax account until SSB starts and gets taxed. Smith is right; its all about progressive income tax.

Beginning SSB at 70 gives the most money available for spending.

The nice thing about simulation (and ORP) is that many scenarios can be tried and evaluated.

James Welch
ORP

 

[73ss454]

As long as you keep breathing till 70, but it doesn't factor in death.

 

[DeborahB]

I skimmed the paper, but note that it was written in 2007-2008. A LOT has changed since then, financially. While technically it makes sense, and there's a lot of good information in there, I find it a bit dated in some of its assumptions.

I've been working on tax scenarios for the past week or so (TurboTax 2010 is free online)... I did an IRA to Roth conversion and also worked 6 months in 2010 - the taxes on the IRA are incredibly higher if I pay it all in 2010 or half in 2011/2012. So at least that is settled. Pay in 2011/2012.

I was trying to not take SS yet. However, I think I've revised my thinking. I invest actively and I'd like to keep growing my investments. Getting the SS money means I'd have to remove less from various accounts. I have IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable money, 60% in the IRA. I'm doing very well on my investments - I'm mostly in high-dividend stocks that have had significant unrealized capital gains. I'm still looking for new opportunities for high yield stuff and I'm willing to take some risk to get it. (This is just background.)

The thing about SS... the breakeven point for me - where the total money I get by delaying to 65 or 66 is greater than the total money I get if I take it now - is about age 77. I've had health issues. I come from a long-lived family but I can't count on it for me.

So I've pretty much decided to start SS in 2011. It won't affect my taxes much and it will give me an income stream. That is more comfortable for me. OTOH, I actually have enough cash to live on for months... I'm still pondering what to do.

Thanks for posting the article though - it's always good to read what other people's thinking is on this subject.

I've gone to several free dinners at good restaurants by financial planners, just to hear what they say. Sharks! They want to take all my money and manage it, and charge me for the privilege, and make less than I make on it.

But the meals were good ;-)

 

[walkinwood]

A LOT has changed since then, financially. While technically it makes sense, and there's a lot of good information in there, I find it a bit dated in some of its assumptions.

Interesting. Please elaborate. What assumptions have changed?

 

[DeborahB]

Interesting. Please elaborate. What assumptions have changed?

The situation of the stock market dropping had not happened and I think that affects how you look at investing. A lot of people lost a lot of money - even if temporarily - and got scared, sometimes permanently.

So the psychological approach to investing in 2007 was quite different, IMO, than it is now - for many people.

I just skimmed the article, as I said. Perhaps they included this. But I am generally wary about information that doesn't include the past 2 years of the stock market dropping.

 

[DeborahB]

As long as you keep breathing till 70, but it doesn't factor in death.

Yes - I think if you have health issues taking SS earlier is a better approach. I've already had friends die in their 60s, of various illnesses.

 

[Zero]

The situation of the stock market dropping had not happened and I think that affects how you look at investing. A lot of people lost a lot of money - even if temporarily - and got scared, sometimes permanently.

So the psychological approach to investing in 2007 was quite different, IMO, than it is now - for many people.

I just skimmed the article, as I said. Perhaps they included this. But I am generally wary about information that doesn't include the past 2 years of the stock market dropping.

Very good point. I just looked and the DOW was at 11,500 on Jan 2, 2000, and as we near Jan 2, 2011, it is still below that point. As a matter of fact, the DOW was only above the starting value of 11,500 for 2 years of the 10. Only the 2 years from Sep 2006 until Sep 2008 were above 11,500.

Would be interesting to see the overall financial impact of their net worth due to taking the advice of the paper or starting SS early at 62.