Interesting peek into the future.... Roth vs RMDs

But THAT's not reality.

Reality is that *if* the father were to do Roth Conversions, they would be taxed at the 22% marginal tax level. THAT's reality, because THAT's what he is paying.

*IF* the father doesn't do Roth Conversions, reality is that the heir will pay taxes at the 0-10-12-22-24-32% level ... so reality is that his tax rate is 19% ... because THAT's what he is paying. THAT's real money.

Without the gift in the example given, the heir still goes into the 32% marginal bracket. Would you suggest that that bonus he received cost him 32% of taxes? Hopefully not, as the first dollar earned from his salary contributes the same to his actual taxes as the last dollar from the bonus. The same goes for the Inherited IRA, it is just more ordinary income and taxed the same way as his salary. Assigning the highest marginal tax rate to the gift is simply some sort of odd virtue signaling.

So the wise father is not paying 22 cents on the dollar now for an outcome where the son will pay 19 cents on the dollar later.
I know better than to jump into the middle here but can't control myself :)
The problem with this equation is that if the heir is in 22% bracket then any additional income (RMDs) will be taxed at the marginal rate not the effective rate.
Or maybe I didn't read closely enough to understand, if so just ignore my ramblings.
 
I know better than to jump into the middle here but can't control myself :)
The problem with this equation is that if the heir is in 22% bracket then any additional income (RMDs) will be taxed at the marginal rate not the effective rate.
Or maybe I didn't read closely enough to understand, if so just ignore my ramblings.
No worries. Come on in, the water's fine.

There is action and the result of the action. One's marginal tax rate is the way to view something like a Roth Conversion, i.e., the Action. That conversion had a direct consequence on your taxes. No one forced you to do it. The result of the action is taxed differently. That should be what you paid based on your actual taxes.

RMDs are not taxed at your marginal tax rate. They are taxed as ordinary income by the IRS. Thus, no different from any other ordinary income is taxed. If you wish to treat other income such as SS and pension income as unavoidable (or at least not the result of any specific action you took) and tax that at the lower tax brackets, leaving, perhaps, part of the 12 and 22% brackets, that still will leave a result lower than 22%. HOWEVER, that logic does not hold up for a gift that you received ... that is unavoidable income (unless you wish to disinherit the asset :crazy:).
 
But THAT's not reality.

Reality is that *if* the father were to do Roth Conversions, they would be taxed at the 22% marginal tax level. THAT's reality, because THAT's what he is paying.

*IF* the father doesn't do Roth Conversions, reality is that the heir will pay taxes at the 0-10-12-22-24-32% level ... so reality is that his tax rate is 19% ... because THAT's what he is paying. THAT's real money.

Without the gift in the example given, the heir still goes into the 32% marginal bracket. Would you suggest that that bonus he received cost him 32% of taxes? Hopefully not, as the first dollar earned from his salary contributes the same to his actual taxes as the last dollar from the bonus. The same goes for the Inherited IRA, it is just more ordinary income and taxed the same way as his salary. Assigning the highest marginal tax rate to the gift is simply some sort of odd virtue signaling.

So the wise father is not paying 22 cents on the dollar now for an outcome where the son will pay 19 cents on the dollar later.

That you keep saying this does not make it true. I will run through your case with actual numbers. We must consider total taxes paid in the two cases: (A) parent converts, (B) parent does not convert.

Let's put the parent at the bottome of the 22% bracket and have the heir $50000 into the 32% bracket. (I chose those because think that makes your case as strong as possible, but I actually think it doesn't matter.) I am using 2025 tax tables.

Case A
Parent pays $11157+0.22*$10,000 = $13,157.
Heir pays =$80398+(50000+0)*0.32 = $96,398.
Total taxes paid: $109,755


Case B
Parent pays $11157+0.22*0 = $11,157.
Heir pays =$80398+(50000+10000)*0.32 = $99,598
Total taxes paid: $110,755

The only thing that changed was whether the parent converted or not. As a direct consequence of this one action or inaction, the difference in taxes paid was $110,755 - $109,755 = $1,000.

Hmm, why the even number? Because [$110,755 - $109,755]/$10,000 = 0.1 which also = 0.32 - 0.22.
 
That you keep saying this does not make it true. I will run through your case with actual numbers. We must consider total taxes paid in the two cases: (A) parent converts, (B) parent does not convert.

Let's put the parent at the bottome of the 22% bracket and have the heir $50000 into the 32% bracket. (I chose those because think that makes your case as strong as possible, but I actually think it doesn't matter.) I am using 2025 tax tables.

Case A
Parent pays $11157+0.22*$10,000 = $13,157.
Heir pays =$80398+(50000+0)*0.32 = $96,398.
Total taxes paid: $109,755


Case B
Parent pays $11157+0.22*0 = $11,157.
Heir pays =$80398+(50000+10000)*0.32 = $99,598
Total taxes paid: $110,755

The only thing that changed was whether the parent converted or not. As a direct consequence of this one action or inaction, the difference in taxes paid was $110,755 - $109,755 = $1,000.

Hmm, why the even number? Because [$110,755 - $109,755]/$10,000 = 0.1 which also = 0.32 - 0.22.
I've been in a high bracket for my entire career, especially at the end when I retired last year. To the average person I'm a rich guy so I'm very careful about discussing tax optimization strategies outside of this forum and outside of my "considered rich guy friends" group. A good friend of mine who has NW over $100M and I were shooting the bull after lunch and we started complaining about all of the inconveniences of home ownership. I just had our tankless water heater break last week and it was two half days of my time spent taking care of this problem. I told him under no uncertain circumstances will I ever be a landlord, ever, ever, ever because I'm at the point in my life where I hate these type of interrupts, including talking to a property manager to give permission for these things. I view these interrupts as what really upsets me.

To me, Roth conversions for those who are multi-X FI is not necessarily a productive use of time, paying taxes now and trying to optimize for a few percent savings to your heirs? Is it worth it? Only you can make that call. Your Case A and Case B is great if everyone lives a normal life expectancy. What happens if some or all of the parties die, for instance? Anyone ever factor in normal contingencies like dying earlier than expected? I ask again, is it worth it for all corner cases? Optimism aside, as we get older the probability of checking out early increases at an increasing rate. I get it that someone on the hairy edge of 1X FI might be trying to optimize a percent here or there but for those who are multi-X FI, is it worth your time and trouble? Just asking....

So my friend was complaining about buying a vehicle for his mother-in-law to replace her unreliable vehicle. It is a high demand vehicle and he is complaining about $1000 markup.

Fast forward, I told him, "Look at us here, we are two grumpy old rich guys complaining about stuff that really doesn't matter and it really gets us lathered up for no reason."

At that point, we both looked at each other and burst out laughing.

Point is, I'm beginning to embrace my self-awareness of being Grumpy Old Man. I'm really trying to avoid being characterized that way. I'm working out at the gym everyday now, building muscle mass and attempting to reduce my A1C, I get a haircut every three weeks and keep my nose hair and ear hair neatly trimmed, I dress like a 30-something most of the time (shorts/jeans, T-shirt, etc.), I try to walk upright at an aggressive pace, I try to stay out of others' way in public (i.e. crowded Costco or supermarket), I exit parking places very quickly when someone is waiting, I return my shopping cart to the appropriate cart collection area, etc. I observe my senior peers and all of things that used to annoy me when I was younger are coming home to roost now. There is no excuse for going to Costco when it is crowded and getting in the way because you're too slow or too unaware you're in the way.

Back to the Roth vs RMD, I really feel that the RMD and IRMMA problem is a privilege. This goes for paying high income taxes, high property taxes and dealing with taking care of your home. The alternative is not attractive, just look at those who don't have these problems. Do you want to trade places with them? I encourage people to optimize for these things but don't let the tail wag your dog. Show some self-awareness and if you are in the position to be annoyed about RMD, just think about the case for all of the people who never have to worry about RMD and Roth conversions because they have no savings. You don't want to be that guy.
 
would be simpler if he used approximate dollar amounts.
.... Here is another way I'm looking at it... with $ amounts....
Current tax deferred nest egg $380K... Yup we be poor.
So $45600 is due @12% over the years to convert, being paid out of savings.
At RMD time that balance is now pushing $700K at 12% $85000 now due
Should one have passed and hit 22%.... $153K
1st projected RMD is $25K and goes up from there.
As far as heirs, we want to leave them money not burdens
 
Why do you pay 22% Tax on Roth IRA conversions? I'm near the top of the 12% tax bracket, and have 10% federal tax withheld for Roth IRA conversions for a couple of years. I always get a tax refund when filing.
 
I've been in a high bracket for my entire career, especially at the end when I retired last year. To the average person I'm a rich guy so I'm very careful about discussing tax optimization strategies outside of this forum and outside of my "considered rich guy friends" group. A good friend of mine who has NW over $100M and I were shooting the bull after lunch and we started complaining about all of the inconveniences of home ownership. I just had our tankless water heater break last week and it was two half days of my time spent taking care of this problem. I told him under no uncertain circumstances will I ever be a landlord, ever, ever, ever because I'm at the point in my life where I hate these type of interrupts, including talking to a property manager to give permission for these things. I view these interrupts as what really upsets me.

To me, Roth conversions for those who are multi-X FI is not necessarily a productive use of time, paying taxes now and trying to optimize for a few percent savings to your heirs? Is it worth it? Only you can make that call. Your Case A and Case B is great if everyone lives a normal life expectancy. What happens if some or all of the parties die, for instance? Anyone ever factor in normal contingencies like dying earlier than expected? I ask again, is it worth it for all corner cases? Optimism aside, as we get older the probability of checking out early increases at an increasing rate. I get it that someone on the hairy edge of 1X FI might be trying to optimize a percent here or there but for those who are multi-X FI, is it worth your time and trouble? Just asking....

So my friend was complaining about buying a vehicle for his mother-in-law to replace her unreliable vehicle. It is a high demand vehicle and he is complaining about $1000 markup.

Fast forward, I told him, "Look at us here, we are two grumpy old rich guys complaining about stuff that really doesn't matter and it really gets us lathered up for no reason."

At that point, we both looked at each other and burst out laughing.

Point is, I'm beginning to embrace my self-awareness of being Grumpy Old Man. I'm really trying to avoid being characterized that way. I'm working out at the gym everyday now, building muscle mass and attempting to reduce my A1C, I get a haircut every three weeks and keep my nose hair and ear hair neatly trimmed, I dress like a 30-something most of the time (shorts/jeans, T-shirt, etc.), I try to walk upright at an aggressive pace, I try to stay out of others' way in public (i.e. crowded Costco or supermarket), I exit parking places very quickly when someone is waiting, I return my shopping cart to the appropriate cart collection area, etc. I observe my senior peers and all of things that used to annoy me when I was younger are coming home to roost now. There is no excuse for going to Costco when it is crowded and getting in the way because you're too slow or too unaware you're in the way.

Back to the Roth vs RMD, I really feel that the RMD and IRMMA problem is a privilege. This goes for paying high income taxes, high property taxes and dealing with taking care of your home. The alternative is not attractive, just look at those who don't have these problems. Do you want to trade places with them? I encourage people to optimize for these things but don't let the tail wag your dog. Show some self-awareness and if you are in the position to be annoyed about RMD, just think about the case for all of the people who never have to worry about RMD and Roth conversions because they have no savings. You don't want to be that guy.
Agree in a generic sense. I will give you a different example.
My mom is a multi-millionaire, but not rich per se and has me managing her finances and investments.
I started building a Roth for her heirs, since she will not likely need it. In building that Roth, I took into account the current tax brackets of the heirs, her tax bracket with factoring in IRMAA and State taxes, which has a large retirement income type exclusion.
So my point is I really enjoyed calculating what I thought was the sweet spot taking into account all the variables from above. In the end, it could work out differently.
However, there are some of us who also love playing with numbers and what if scenarios in a calm and entertaining way. The first time calculation takes some time, then it is just simple maintenance.
 
For this heir, his taxes are a combination of two sources of income (salary/bonus and inherited IRA). All of this income will be taxed at the 0-10-12-22-24-32% brackets. Assigning all of the Inherited IRA income to the 32% marginal rate is based on what? And if you're doing that, in effect, you are assigning all of the 0-10-12-24% tax brackets to his salary/bonus income. What is the logic of one stream of income being treated differently?
This is an excellent question.
I take all "mandatory" income and average the taxation over all the brackets up to 24%.
This includes SS, pension/annuity, and RMD income.
The average or effective tax for that incis around 17% for last year.

Then I look at discretionary income which is mainly Roth conversions but would also include part-time work in my case (if I was so inclined).
This is taxed at my marginal rate of 24% or even 32%.

Individual situations vary on what is mandatory and what is discretionary...
 
Why do you pay 22% Tax on Roth IRA conversions? I'm near the top of the 12% tax bracket, and have 10% federal tax withheld for Roth IRA conversions for a couple of years. I always get a tax refund when filing.
Obviously, one's marginal Federal tax rate depends on all their other income before considering a Roth conversion.
My marginal rate has been 24% the past few years.

Whether one gets a tax refund or not isn't relevant...
 
I got a tax refund because withholding 10% from my Roth IRA conversion was too much - so this info WAS relevant!

Everyone, I urge you to run the numbers thru your tax program to confirm, but I suggest withholding 22% tax from your Roth IRA conversions is too much if you are in the 22% tax bracket.

That’s my advice.
 
.... Here is another way I'm looking at it... with $ amounts....
Current tax deferred nest egg $380K... Yup we be poor.
So $45600 is due @12% over the years to convert, being paid out of savings.
At RMD time that balance is now pushing $700K at 12% $85000 now due
Should one have passed and hit 22%.... $153K
1st projected RMD is $25K and goes up from there.
As far as heirs, we want to leave them money not burdens
I think many of us here are in similar boat with tax-deferred balance increasing over past decade+ in spite of moderate Roth conversions.
That's fine because it's neither necessary nor desirable to Roth convert your entire tax-deferred balance.

You can do QCDs to offset your RMD and very few recipients of an inherited tIRA will consider it a burden...
 
I got a tax refund because withholding 10% from my Roth IRA conversion was too much - so this info WAS relevant!

Everyone, I urge you to run the numbers thru your tax program to confirm, but I suggest withholding 22% tax from your Roth IRA conversions is too much if you are in the 22% tax bracket.

That’s my advice.
I agree on running the numbers.
But you likely would have gotten a refund that year had you done zero Roth conversion, due to overpaying estimated taxes during the year one way or another...
 
Well then that makes no sense, sorry. If you are already at the top of the 12% bracket with fixed income before the Roth conversion, then it is impossible to only pay 10% tax on the amount of the conversion. Period.

When I Roth convert, like most, I pay the taxes out of after tax savings to maximize the amount going in to the Roth. But when/if that savings drops too low (say like $50k), then (assuming it still makes sense) I will just pull more from the tIRA to meet the limit I set. The assumption also being that reducing the tIRA is important. In my case, it probably doesn’t as my heirs will always be in a low tax bracket, so me prepaying taxes for them is stupid. I only look at the last man standing tax situation. If there is a definite projected surplus, then conversion is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Perryinva.
You are twisting my words - I never said I was near the top of the 12% bracket, not including Roth IRA conversions.
 
That you keep saying this does not make it true. I will run through your case with actual numbers. We must consider total taxes paid in the two cases: (A) parent converts, (B) parent does not convert.

snip ...
Obviously, you put some time and effort into this so I'll be glad to review it when I can give it a fair look.
 
Your Case A and Case B is great if everyone lives a normal life expectancy. What happens if some or all of the parties die, for instance? Anyone ever factor in normal contingencies like dying earlier than expected? I ask again, is it worth it for all corner cases?

I do not address any of your philosophical musings about what your time is worth. But I am replying to your reply to my post to point out that the math of doing a Roth conversion (or not) does not depend upon length of time that passes after the conversion. That is a misconception. The marginal tax rate (broadly defined) at contribution vs. withdrawal is the important criterion.
 
I do not address any of your philosophical musings about what your time is worth. But I am replying to your reply to my post to point out that the math of doing a Roth conversion (or not) does not depend upon length of time that passes after the conversion. That is a misconception. The marginal tax rate (broadly defined) at contribution vs. withdrawal is the important criterion.
I agree, but I'd broaden that to just say that the marginal tax rate at conversion is all that matters.
I have a nice slush fund Roth now.
I don't expect to withdraw it all before my end, but I've been wrong before...
 
We look at effective (not marginal) rates, which include any Roth conversions.

Last year our effective tax rate (federal & state combined) was only ~15%.

We hope we never need to tap our Roth accounts.

With the kids will inheriting, in a much higher effective bracket, we're converting now.
 
I got a tax refund because withholding 10% from my Roth IRA conversion was too much - so this info WAS relevant!
We pay the tax outside the conversion so all the money is invested in Roth. I'm have 22% withheld from my SSDI to help cover that. Just did our quarterly tax and owed $220 fed and $80 to NC to meet 110% of last year. Now I'm having extra withheld from my pension to cover that and review it again in July. Will need to come up with a new game plan for next year... with DW starting her pension in Oct we will be on a fixed income to the penny every month. Considering 90% Roth conversion in January, going to nothing withheld period and just pay quarterly to meet 110%.
 
That's fine because it's neither necessary nor desirable to Roth convert your entire tax-deferred balance.
You can do QCDs to offset your RMD and very few recipients of an inherited tIRA will consider it a burden...
Converting everything is very desirable for us. Its not a huge pile and would be nice to have in case we need it without the worries of income limits. Our kids are grown and our heirs are the 4 grandchildren.
We are gifting them some now already.
QCDs..... I don't quite understand the concept. I understand supporting a cause and we do give to several charities locally. But I don't get giving away our hard earned and saved money we didn't pay tax on just so we don't have to pay tax on it.... I guess it would be different if we had millions.....
 
@Al18 Ahh, I wasn’t twisting; I didn’t see the point of your post, which was I guess, you should be paying less tax than the marginal bracket you are in. But that obviously depends on where you are to begin with before conversion. Compared to the 12% and lower brackets, the 22% and up are larger and encompass more.
 
Last edited:
We look at effective (not marginal) rates, which include any Roth conversions.
Last year our effective tax rate (federal & state combined) was only ~15%.
Ours was 10.7% or 11.07% if you subtract the 15% of SS not taxed, Includes Roth conversions
 
Back
Top Bottom