Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-24-2021, 04:59 AM   #121
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefist View Post
@Time2, if you’re still hanging around on this one…

I’ve been investigating a stopping point to conversions as well. Using i-orp I did the following:

- ran a base case with current age and balances. Terminal age 92.
There were 3 scenarios: no conversion, convert to 22, convert to 24.
The numbers worked out to a 4K/yr spending advantage if I convert the entire IRA balance as quickly as possible, up to 24%.

Next…
- update all your balances with the year 2 numbers from the first case. Adjust AA if needed. Increment your age by 1, and rerun the 3 scenarios above.
In this case the spending advantage was lower, as it included the effects of the first conversion.

- repeat as above.

What I found is that 3 large conversions would accomplish the goal and conversions after that point were negligible. Naturally, this is all dependent upon my unique scenarios.

But a key point is that this is a renewable question every year. The stopping point is where your advantage disappears. Find a calculator or model where you can do something like I did above.

The thing with i-orp, it uses the tax law as written. In 2026 it will revert to pre-TCJA, and for planning horizons this is the majority of the time. So that’s a big unknown.

Yes, still keeping up with the thread.

I'm convinced converting in the 12% bracket is a good idea, for two reasons, I'm pretty sure SS and RMDs will push us to a higher bracket, and I think tax rates will increase.
The question I have now is,should we start my wife's SS now? The downside of this is it would reduce the amount I could Roth convert for the next 7 years. I'll take my SS at 70 to increase my wife's income after I die.
I have not used i-orp, it's probably time for me to try it.
Would it answer the question about whether my wife should take her SS now or later?
Time2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-24-2021, 06:52 AM   #122
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
Yes, still keeping up with the thread.

I'm convinced converting in the 12% bracket is a good idea, for two reasons, I'm pretty sure SS and RMDs will push us to a higher bracket, and I think tax rates will increase.
The question I have now is,should we start my wife's SS now? The downside of this is it would reduce the amount I could Roth convert for the next 7 years. I'll take my SS at 70 to increase my wife's income after I die.
I have not used i-orp, it's probably time for me to try it.
Would it answer the question about whether my wife should take her SS now or later?
Are there any other reasons to take her SS early? Being single I don't know all of the spousal situations. What does opensocialsecurity.com say?

One of the reasons besides longevity insurance that I plan to defer SS until 70 is to have more years without SS to do Roth conversions, just as you are considering.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 07:53 AM   #123
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
The question I have now is,should we start my wife's SS now? The downside of this is it would reduce the amount I could Roth convert for the next 7 years. I'll take my SS at 70 to increase my wife's income after I die.
I have not used i-orp, it's probably time for me to try it.
Would it answer the question about whether my wife should take her SS now or later?
You specify the age you want to take SS in each i-orp run. So do multiple runs and change the age to see the difference. You also need to specify your benefit. So get that from SSA.gov for more accurate results. I-orp also let’s you test with full benefits or the potential benefit cut coming in 2035-ish.
I-orp is a bit different. It calculates what your maximum spending COULD be, and assumes you will spend it down to ZERO in the time period. You can also specify an ending balance if you want to leave a certain legacy amount.
thefist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 08:22 AM   #124
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
Yes, still keeping up with the thread.

I'm convinced converting in the 12% bracket is a good idea, for two reasons, I'm pretty sure SS and RMDs will push us to a higher bracket, and I think tax rates will increase.
The question I have now is,should we start my wife's SS now? The downside of this is it would reduce the amount I could Roth convert for the next 7 years. I'll take my SS at 70 to increase my wife's income after I die.
I have not used i-orp, it's probably time for me to try it.
Would it answer the question about whether my wife should take her SS now or later?
I-orp is not a SS timing tool. You can use opensocialsecurity.com for a thorough look. I recommend looking at a range of discount rates, its default is to use current 20 year TIPS yields of -0.39%. While that is the close to a risk free rate, I struggle to think it's a reasonable choice and have seen discussions from folks way smarter than I that it should be more like your portfolio return. So I think the best answer is to look and see how sensitive the answer is to the discount rate in your particular case.
Exchme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 08:39 AM   #125
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Out-to-Lunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
The question I have now is,should we start my wife's SS now? The downside of this is it would reduce the amount I could Roth convert for the next 7 years. I'll take my SS at 70 to increase my wife's income after I die.
In our case, the optimal solution according to opensocialsecurity is the one you are contemplating, viz., me at 70 and my wife at 62. However, the answer was VERY insensitive to her claiming age. Her claiming age was basically a wash as long as I claim at 70. So, it could be that it would benefit you to delay her claiming for, say, a few years to allow a few years of conversions.
__________________
The closing years of life are like the end of a masquerade party, when the masks are dropped. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)
Out-to-Lunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 08:53 AM   #126
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 6,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Out-to-Lunch View Post
In our case, the optimal solution according to opensocialsecurity is the one you are contemplating, viz., me at 70 and my wife at 62. However, the answer was VERY insensitive to her claiming age. Her claiming age was basically a wash as long as I claim at 70. So, it could be that it would benefit you to delay her claiming for, say, a few years to allow a few years of conversions.
It's also worth noting that opensocialsecurity does not take the opportunity to do Roth conversions into account when making its recommendations.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 09:34 AM   #127
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 8,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Out-to-Lunch View Post
... I give up! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@chassis, do you have a junior college nearby or possibly a public school adult-ed program that includes a class in accounting? Assets, liabilities, and personal balance sheets are all very simple concepts in the accounting world, but it is clear from your posts that you do not understand. I suggest that you find and take a basic accounting course. Much will become clear.

The very condensed version: A tIRA is an asset. The unpaid taxe embedded in the tIRA is a liability. Personal net worth is the sum of assets less the sum of liabilities. When one pays the taxes, the tIRA asset is reduced by the amount of the payment and the tax liability goes away. Personal net worth is unaffected. Take this to your class and, if necessary, ask your instructor to explain it to you.
__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabimus
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 01:23 PM   #128
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
Are there any other reasons to take her SS early? Being single I don't know all of the spousal situations. What does opensocialsecurity.com say?

One of the reasons besides longevity insurance that I plan to defer SS until 70 is to have more years without SS to do Roth conversions, just as you are considering.

She has no other reasons to take SS early, we have 50 times our spend rate, so SS is great but not a necessity.

I don't know what criteria is used to base the opensocialsecurity.com answers on. Highest earning spouse waiting until 70 is a no brainer, but what is the reason for the lower earning spouse to start early?
I'd prefer to wait and increase my Roth Conversions. But I have no mathematics to say that is the best financially, other than living longer makes that work and lower taxes because the Roth Conversions lowered my RMDs and my wife's higher tax bracket after I die.
Time2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 01:25 PM   #129
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
She has no other reasons to take SS early, we have 50 times our spend rate, so SS is great but not a necessity.

I don't know what criteria is used to base the opensocialsecurity.com answers on. Highest earning spouse waiting until 70 is a no brainer, but what is the reason for the lower earning spouse to start early?
I'd prefer to wait and increase my Roth Conversions. But I have no mathematics to say that is the best financially, other than living longer makes that work and lower taxes because the Roth Conversions lowered my RMDs and my wife's higher tax bracket after I die.
As I understand it, there's a different strategy if one spouse has less than half the benefit of the other. As I said, I'm not too up on spousal strategies so I won't elaborate.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 01:28 PM   #130
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post

The very condensed version: A tIRA is an asset. The unpaid taxes embedded in the tIRA is a liability. Personal net worth is the sum of assets less the sum of liabilities. When one pays the taxes, the tIRA asset is reduced by the amount of the payment and the tax liability goes away. Personal net worth is unaffected.
Also, estate value as defined by the IRS is not the same as net worth.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 01:44 PM   #131
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Out-to-Lunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
She has no other reasons to take SS early, we have 50 times our spend rate, so SS is great but not a necessity.

I don't know what criteria is used to base the opensocialsecurity.com answers on. Highest earning spouse waiting until 70 is a no brainer, but what is the reason for the lower earning spouse to start early?
Here is how I think it comes about. If your wife were single and lived an average life span, by design, her claiming age does not matter much. That is, the (longer receiving period)*(lower payments) will be about the same as the (shorter receiving period)*(higher payments). And the same goes for you.

However, as part of a couple there is a decent chance that she would get a (longer receiving period)*(some low, and some higher payments). That is, after you pass, her payments would increase. This sum will obviously be higher than if she received the lower payment for her entire claiming period.

Obviously, this is all on average.
__________________
The closing years of life are like the end of a masquerade party, when the masks are dropped. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)
Out-to-Lunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 01:53 PM   #132
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 32,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
Also, estate value as defined by the IRS is not the same as net worth.
in part, because it doesn't include any deferred tax liabilities on assets and liabilities that are recognized.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2021, 02:07 PM   #133
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Out-to-Lunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
I don't know what criteria is used to base the opensocialsecurity.com answers on.
BTW, the way the calculator works is that it uses mortality tables to calculate the probability that you are alive each year, and then multiplies that by the payment resulting from a given claiming age. Then it sums those probability-weighted payments to get the amount that you are expected to receive for that given claiming age.

You can specify a different mortality table to better approximate your own condition (i.e., smoker or not, good health or not). To do so, you need to click the box on the first line where it says "Certain situations require additional input. Click here to select situation(s) that may apply to you (and/or your spouse, if filing jointly)."
__________________
The closing years of life are like the end of a masquerade party, when the masks are dropped. -Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)
Out-to-Lunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 11:29 AM   #134
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 682
The McQuarrie paper has the information I have been looking for, and it is generally aligned with my own model. Doing Roth conversions is playing a small game that pays off far into the future, if it pays off at all. I'm not interested.

Average age of payback is 90 years of age, with an average wealth increase of 1.4% due to Roth conversion. See attached Table 7 from McQuarrie. This is too little payback too late in the game to be interesting for me.

I continue to learn and read more, but for now I look at Roth conversions as financial wheel spinning.

Thanks for the dialogue on this.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3860359
Attached Images
File Type: jpg mcquarrie.jpg (168.7 KB, 41 views)
chassis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 01:02 PM   #135
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 6,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by chassis View Post
The McQuarrie paper has the information I have been looking for, and it is generally aligned with my own model. Doing Roth conversions is playing a small game that pays off far into the future, if it pays off at all. I'm not interested.

Average age of payback is 90 years of age, with an average wealth increase of 1.4% due to Roth conversion. See attached Table 7 from McQuarrie. This is too little payback too late in the game to be interesting for me.

I continue to learn and read more, but for now I look at Roth conversions as financial wheel spinning.

Thanks for the dialogue on this.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3860359
The author of this paper has a PhD in social psychology and an undergrad degree in interdisciplinary studies from Evergreen State. He is a retired marketing professor whose research and teaching are not in the area of Roth conversions.

The author's linked in profile shows no evidence of any study of economics, finance, accounting, business, math, or formal logic (https://www.linkedin.com/in/edward-mcquarrie-8a08a515/). On the subject of Roth conversions, I'd rather have someone who has education and knowledge in those areas.

SSRN appears not to be a peer reviewed journal.

Much of the early part of his paper talks about a married couple just cresting into the 24% bracket (page 8 column 1). He also oddly argues off and on that such couples are rare. Obviously such a couple may have limited utility for Roth conversions.

He appears to ignore my case as a single parent of three adult offspring, although I stopped reading his paper around page 8 because I had already read enough statements which I think are just plain silly.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 01:33 PM   #136
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 8,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by chassis View Post
The McQuarrie paper has the information I have been looking for, and it is generally aligned with my own model. ...
We humans tend to seek out and quickly accept information that supports our already-existing opinions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabimus
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 02:44 PM   #137
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,381
I didn't make it through that paper. The tone seemed slanted to me, but maybe because I didn't agree with it. Mostly the problem I had is that it talked of a breakeven point. It did make me think more about whether my view that a breakeven is not valid, and I'm as convinced as ever.

First, it assumes that an amount in a tIRA has the same value as the same amount in a Roth. Thus, the breakeven happens when you've been forced to take enough RMDs and thus enough of that deferred tax liability to bring the conversion plan higher. But it's not barely past breakeven, because the tIRA still has a balance and deferred tax liability.

Second, it ignores that fact that the IRA lives on beyond your lifetime. It's not like the SS breakeven point where you really can collect more if you live long enough, or come out ahead if you die before the breakeven. If you die with a tIRA balance, your heirs still have to pay the deferred tax, and it's now in a condensed 10 year time frame. If your heirs are in a lower tax bracket you may need to prioritize which is more important. Some don't care about their heirs, but dying with a tIRA balance means you left some money behind that you could not spend until you withdrew and paid the deferred liability.

Since the breakeven seemed to be the crux of the paper's conversion decision, I just saw no reason to really dig into it. Maybe I missed something valid. But my course is already set and my remaining conversions will be at 0, 10 or 12%. So my motivation to try to find a nugget in the paper is low.

If you want to leave your unused tIRA balance to charity, or do QCDs, that's a different story. If you have a certain amount you want to leave, rework your conversion calcs to leave that balance. If you want to leave any amount you don't need, then don't do any more conversion than you expect to need, and leave the rest for the charities, because the charities will receive more from the tIRA than your Roth or taxable account because they don't have to pay the tax you deferred.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 02:52 PM   #138
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 32,247
An interesting approach but I'm not too keen on wading through 40 pages of drivel, but it did spark an interesting different take at evaluating Roth conversions for me.

The table below is looking at solely my 2021 Roth conversion in isolation. If I do an $80k conversion in 2021, I'll pay $9,328 in tax (vs $0 if my conversion is zero). To keep things simple, I'll assume 0% growth. Given the RMD tables, I'll start saving taxes beginning at age 72 because my RMDs will be lower because my tax-deferred accounts will be $80,000 lower... and based on the RMD tables I can project how long it will be for my lower RMDs to equal the $80,000 Roth conversion.

I'm very sure that we'll be in the 22% tax bracket when RMDs begin so I calculate the tax benefit as 22% of the lower RMD. The $8,272 of tax savings is the $17,600 tax that I'll surely pay if I don't Roth convert ($80k * 22%) less the $9,328 that I know that I'm paying in 2021. So the Tax column are the differential cash flows from doing the Roth conversion and the IRR of those differential cash flows is 6.81%.

Works for me. YMMV. Part of the reason that it works well for me is that we are trading off paying 11.7% now (a blend of 0%, 10% and 12%) to avoid paying 22% later. So if the 2021 RMD is beneficial, then presumably each year that I can convert at less than 22% is beneficial... I guess I could do a cascade of annual Roth conversions but I'm convinced enough that they are beneficial to me that I'm not going to bother.

And this analysis doesn't even consider things like the likelihood that future tax rates will be higher (25% or more vs 22% based on today's tax brackets), the potential jump in tax rates if one of us dies prematurely, etc. ... so if anything this analysis is probably conservative.

If one is trading 22% for 24% then it probably wouldn't be near as attactive.... if I take the same scenario but assume paying 22% now to avoid paying 24% later then the IRR is only .84%

YearAgeRMD factor2021 RMDTaxBalance
      
202166 80,000-9,328-9,328
202267   -9,328
202368   -9,328
202469   -9,328
202570   -9,328
202671   -9,328
202772 25.6 -3,125688-8,641
202873 24.7 -3,239713-7,928
202974 23.8 -3,361739-7,188
203075 22.9 -3,493769-6,420
203176 22.0 -3,636800-5,620
203277 21.2 -3,774830-4,790
203378 20.3 -3,941867-3,923
203479 19.5 -4,103903-3,020
203580 18.7 -4,278941-2,079
203681 17.9 -4,469983-1,096
203782 17.1 -4,6781,029-66
203883 16.3 -4,9081,0801,013
203984 15.5 -5,1611,1352,149
204085 14.8 -5,4051,1893,338
204186 14.1 -5,6741,2484,586
204287 13.4 -5,9701,3135,900
204388 12.7 -6,2991,3867,285
204489 12.0 -4,4849878,272
      
Totals  08,272 
      
IRR   6.81% 
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 03:07 PM   #139
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 561
There is a long and very informative thread about the McQuarrie article over at bogleheads. I specifically asked the Prof about the possibly misleading terms like "payback" that Chassis is focusing and other terms like "return on investment" and the professor confirmed it was just shorthand terminology and in fact the article goes back to more normal ways of discussing Roths in the appendices.

The extended discussion in the thread resembled the one here and in many ways was more informative than the paper. The Prof. was engaging, responsive and pleasant, just not able to incorporate all mankind's knowledge in one paper. He specifically excluded discussion of tax increases, one spouse passing early, the liquidated affect on heirs, and used as his base case the situation where taxes on conversions were paid from tax deferred and the asset allocations in all accounts was held constant. Since those are all pretty much the opposite of my situation, for me the paper was a fun read, but not "on the nose" for my situation.

The biggest issue in the whole discussion is that like the blind men describing the elephant, there are so many widely differing situations, that what seems obvious to me (that Roths help up to a point), may seem utterly ludicrous to others if they are using differing assumptions about tax rates, filing status, rates of return, and life expectancy different from mine, plus of course different ages, SS + pension income and balances of accounts.

Prof. McQuarrie's article does not refute any conventional wisdom from this thread. My quick summary of his 42 page paper was that within his framework (no early deaths, no looking at heirs, tax laws stay the same) that the remaining effect of Roths is that since the government owns a fraction of your tax deferred account (the exact number only known later), their weeds in your t-IRA garden are growing too, presumably faster than tax brackets. So when you take RMDs, the bottom brackets get full sooner. Slowly over time, that compounds and more of your money is exposed to higher tax rates, but it takes quite a while to build up to become important. Hope you didn't fall out of your chair in shock.
Exchme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2021, 05:52 AM   #140
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RetireBy90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cville
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post
We humans tend to seek out and quickly accept information that supports our already-existing opinions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I agree with that. Good thing I'm normally correct
__________________
FIRE 31 Aug, 2018 - Always leave every place better than you found it, always give more than expected or Due
RetireBy90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roth Conversions to Next Highest Bracket? PatrickA5 FIRE and Money 51 01-13-2019 11:57 AM
The 29% Bracket in Roth Conversions sengsational Health and Early Retirement 14 11-18-2017 11:35 AM
Roth Conversions at 15% or 25% Tax Bracket? Felix Mulier FIRE and Money 41 12-14-2016 08:32 PM
Roth conversions beyond the 15% bracket MrLoco FIRE and Money 46 05-15-2016 02:40 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.