The Wisdom of Roth's

[kaneohe]

I'm going to be the contrarian here. I think Roth accounts do not create wealth. It is pay me now (US) or pay me later. Say you're in 30% tax bracket state and federal. You have 100,000 and convert. Now you have 70,000. Now in 5 years for example this money doubles to 140,000. Great, all tax free. Now if that same person decides to convert after 5 years he has doubled his money to 200,000 but after tax at 30% he is back to 140,000. So really the government is just getting their money upfront. Now you say, Yeah, but won't you be in a higher tax bracket then. Well, how would anyone no for sure. Also who says that Congress won't change their minds about this Roth deal and make it taxable?

One factor you might want to consider: the "Roth is bigger" effect if you pay the conversion from other funds:
1) Convert 100K to Roth. Pay 30K tax from other funds. In N yrs, Roth doubles to 200Kvs.
2) Leave 100K in TIRA and have 30K more in a side fund (since the Roth conversion guy spent it on taxes). In N yrs, TIRA doubles to 200K and side fund doubles to 60K . After tax, TIRA is worth 140K and side fund is worth 60K so 1) is worth more.

Then you have LOL's larger std deduction/exemption idea and who knows what tax rate changes so ...........

 

[Animorph]

One factor you might want to consider: the "Roth is bigger" effect if you pay the conversion from other funds:
1) Convert 100K to Roth. Pay 30K tax from other funds. In N yrs, Roth doubles to 200Kvs.
2) Leave 100K in TIRA and have 30K more in a side fund (since the Roth conversion guy spent it on taxes). In N yrs, TIRA doubles to 200K and side fund doubles to 60K . After tax, TIRA is worth 140K and side fund is worth 60K so 1) is worth more.

Then you have LOL's larger std deduction/exemption idea and who knows what tax rate changes so ...........

You meant to say the side fund has to pay cap gains taxes of 15%-20% for (2), so it is worth less than $60k and (1) is worth more.

The Roth conversion allows you to essentially move some of your taxable funds into the Roth and grow them tax free. That's what makes it better even if tax rates are the same for input and output.

 

[kaneohe]

You meant to say the side fund has to pay cap gains taxes of 15%-20% for (2), so it is worth less than $60k and (1) is worth more.

The Roth conversion allows you to essentially move some of your taxable funds into the Roth and grow them tax free. That's what makes it better even if tax rates are the same for input and output.

animorph........yes, thanks for filling in the blanks. Must have been spaced out toward the end there.

 

[LOL!]

The side fund may not have to pay taxes on cap gains because you may die or you may offset gains with carryover losses or you may not even have gains or may be in such a low tax bracket that you will not have to pay taxes on those gains anyways or you may give shares away to charity and avoid those taxes.

 

[Koolau]

PS: Don't believe anything I write here. You must go and run the numbers yourself.

Not to worry, heh, heh.

 

[ripper1]

Back to the original note about to Roth or not to Roth, just wanted to point out that there are bennies to the Roth other than taxes, no RMD. Maybe this isn't more important than taxes in normal situation but the ones I know that have been retired a while spend less now than early in rettirement and don't need RMD today.

I guess some of us will be lucky enough to leave a legacy.

 

[kaneohe]

The side fund may not have to pay taxes on cap gains because you may die or you may offset gains with carryover losses or you may not even have gains or may be in such a low tax bracket that you will not have to pay taxes on those gains anyways or you may give shares away to charity and avoid those taxes.

also possible, you may go before the TIRA is depleted and the inheritance may go to your high bracket offspring, who despite the stretch possible, may end up paying more in taxes...............

 

[gneeby]

i-orp is a good tool, but since everyone's tax situation is different, it behooves one to use TurboTax or other tax software to confirm some of the assumptions and results. For example, we found that we could convert twice as much 401(k) money to a Roth without paying any taxes than ORP suggested. If we had only done what ORP suggested, we would've left quite a lot of free money on the table.

The operative word here is suggested. I don't think that ORP's vendor characterizes ORP as an accounting tool. Switching from guidelines fo accounting is something that has to be done annually, at least.

 

[Nova]

Not to speak for LOL, but in my case, early in retirement, I was sitting on a pile of cash (or equivalent investments with not much unrealized appreciation). Had I not had a pension (oh, darn!) I would have been in a position to have essentially 0% taxes. That would have been an excellent situation in which to do Roth conversions. As it was, the first couple of years of ER, my taxes were quite low, though never 0% - again, that pesky pension. YMMV.

+1, but no pension.

 

[spncity]

So - I'm trying to decide what to do here... and would appreciate your input.

A new employer has a Roth 401K option and I could contribute $22,500 including catch-up in 2012. There is no income restriction on this type of Roth.

No mortgage. Starting to catch on to that concept of bunching philanthropic contributions into even years, so this year will contain the contributions. Even after the contributions and deductions, I think we're in a 25% tax bracket.

Don't have much in Roth accounts up to now. Around $6,000 times two accounts. All other retirement savings in pre-tax accounts with employer plans.

So at first I thought I should put $22,500 into the Roth 401K just to have some variety. But I would think we'd be in the 15% tax bracket in early retirement (no pensions).

So it does not seem that "no RMD" is a good enough reason to pay the 25% tax to put the amount in the Roth 401K.

What say ye?

 

[RetireBy90]

So - I'm trying to decide what to do here... and would appreciate your input.

A new employer has a Roth 401K option and I could contribute $22,500 including catch-up in 2012. There is no income restriction on this type of Roth.

No mortgage. Starting to catch on to that concept of bunching philanthropic contributions into even years, so this year will contain the contributions. Even after the contributions and deductions, I think we're in a 25% tax bracket.

Don't have much in Roth accounts up to now. Around $6,000 times two accounts. All other retirement savings in pre-tax accounts with employer plans.

So at first I thought I should put $22,500 into the Roth 401K just to have some variety. But I would think we'd be in the 15% tax bracket in early retirement (no pensions).

So it does not seem that "no RMD" is a good enough reason to pay the 25% tax to put the amount in the Roth 401K.

What say ye?

spncty - For my personal situation, I plan to be in slightly lower tax bracket once I retire. 28% now vs 25% then. I have gone back and forth for about the last 3 years. First moving to Roth, then back to traditional then split of Roth and traditional. Currently I'm 52% trad and 48% Roth in my 401K contributions.
For my situation and thinking, there are 4 reasons to fund some in a Roth:
1) A Roth doesn't have the RMD
2) Planning on spending 30 years in retirement, I don't know what will happen tax wise so this gives me some flexibility. However, I'm sure to be part right and part wrong here
3) I can afford to pay the taxes on the Roth contributions now and the tax rate difference is not great, so I consider it paying ahead.
4) SS and Medicare - Some SS will be taxable if you make enough other income and Medicare gets more expensive if you make enough. Don't know what that will be in 12 years, but that could offset the tax difference.

Reasons not to fund Roth:
1) I'm not going to be in a position to make the same check in retirement that I do now, so chances are less taxes if I defer to paying taxes then.

Hrmmm - IMHO for me, the to Roth or not is close call. Just my thoughts.

 

[LOL!]

The decision is not
(a) pay taxes now and put in Roth 401(k), but pay no taxes later
versus
(b) pay no taxes now and put in traditional 401(k), but pay taxes later.

Instead the decision is
(a) pay taxes now and put in Roth 401(k), but pay no taxes later
versus
(b) pay no taxes now and put in traditional 401(k), but convert to Roth IRA later and pay taxes later.

That convert to Roth IRA later is important since it avoids some of RMDs (which are not to be feared by-the-way) and the conversion may take place at a lower tax than decision (a). Furthermore, the money that you save by not paying taxes now can be invested tax-efficiently at a lower tax rate than the taxes you pay now.

I think it is rare for a Roth 401(k) to be better. That situation arises when
(1) one works until age 70 with a
(2) very high income or
(3) has a very nice pension.

For early retiree wannabees with a minimal chance of a pension, a Roth 401(k) just costs too much and locks you into paying taxes that you have a good chance of avoiding.

If you are projecting your taxes in the future, please do not forget that both exemptions and the standard deduction are indexed to the COLA/inflation. So even though that RMD might be $100,000 when you have to take it, the standard deduction might be $80,000 and your exemption might be $20,000.

 

[RetireBy90]

The decision is not
(a) pay taxes now and put in Roth 401(k), but pay no taxes later
versus
(b) pay no taxes now and put in traditional 401(k), but pay taxes later.

Instead the decision is
(a) pay taxes now and put in Roth 401(k), but pay no taxes later
versus
(b) pay no taxes now and put in traditional 401(k), but convert to Roth IRA later and pay taxes later.

That convert to Roth IRA later is important since it avoids some of RMDs (which are not to be feared by-the-way) and the conversion may take place at a lower tax than decision (a). Furthermore, the money that you save by not paying taxes now can be invested tax-efficiently at a lower tax rate than the taxes you pay now.

I think it is rare for a Roth 401(k) to be better. That situation arises when
(1) one works until age 70 with a
(2) very high income or
(3) has a very nice pension.

For early retiree wannabees with a minimal chance of a pension, a Roth 401(k) just costs too much and locks you into paying taxes that you have a good chance of avoiding.

If you are projecting your taxes in the future, please do not forget that both exemptions and the standard deduction are indexed to the COLA/inflation. So even though that RMD might be $100,000 when you have to take it, the standard deduction might be $80,000 and your exemption might be $20,000.

But if I understand your point, the decision is still pay taxes now or later.
This still leaves me with my problem that you don't know what will happen to taxes in the future, an unknown risk. I think that taxes will need to rise as govt spending will increase to support all the baby boomers (including me). With risk should come an increase in return. If an investment doesn't pay more for the increase in risk why take the risk?
In my situation, I have a pension now and plan on something from SS at 67 for both me and DW. By the time I am 70, pension and SS should more than cover my living expenses so I'm left with funding my needs beyond pension till we start SS. I'll try to move as much from trad to Roth in the years between retirement and SS, when my tax rate should be the lowest. However, I'm still left with a pile of $$ that I have to pay taxes on at some point.