- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Roth 401K
Posted on 1/15/13 at 11:29 am
Posted on 1/15/13 at 11:29 am
my company offers this as well as a traditional 401k
would this be a good idea?
would this be a good idea?
Posted on 1/15/13 at 11:34 am to LSU6262
You get the best of both worlds IMO, and I would do it in a heartbeat.
Keep in mind however that you don't get the same liquidity as you would in a personal Roth (nothing stops you from opening your own Roth though).
And that employer matching receives tax deferred treatment as if it were a regular 401k
Keep in mind however that you don't get the same liquidity as you would in a personal Roth (nothing stops you from opening your own Roth though).
And that employer matching receives tax deferred treatment as if it were a regular 401k
This post was edited on 1/15/13 at 11:35 am
Posted on 1/15/13 at 11:38 am to LSU6262
There is no way to say for sure. It all depends on how you are taxed at retirement.
What is your top tax bracket now?
If you are being taxed at 39% now, I would stick with a traditional 401(k). If you are more like 15%, then the Roth might be a better bet.
What is your top tax bracket now?
If you are being taxed at 39% now, I would stick with a traditional 401(k). If you are more like 15%, then the Roth might be a better bet.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 11:43 am to PhillyTide
I lot of people say that, but I don't buy that.
Unless I'm off on my math, there is NO reasonable circumstance where it is advantagatous to put into a tax deferred plan if you are more than 10 years from retirement/pulling from that account. You will pass the tax hit, and then you have completely tax free growth.
And the longer after that tipping point mark you can let that money sit, the rapidly more powerful the Roth becomes.
Unless I'm off on my math, there is NO reasonable circumstance where it is advantagatous to put into a tax deferred plan if you are more than 10 years from retirement/pulling from that account. You will pass the tax hit, and then you have completely tax free growth.
And the longer after that tipping point mark you can let that money sit, the rapidly more powerful the Roth becomes.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 12:02 pm to Siderophore
quote:
You will pass the tax hit, and then you have completely tax free growth.
Not saying you are wrong, just saying you can't know for sure, and it depends on your situation.
Some want to switch to a VAT tax. I could see that happening in 20-30 years.
Getting a guaranteed 40% return right now is pretty powerful too. But like I said, if your taxes are relatively low today, then the Roth is probably a good bet.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 12:02 pm to Siderophore
Another way of thinking about it:
Let's say you are putting 10k a year, with 25 years to go to retirement.
Assuming tax rates stay the same, at your 39%, that comes out to 97500 more in taxes over the period if you put it in a Roth over a traditional IRA. 97,500 and you are done tax wise.
Assuming the standard growth of the stock market, and subtracting average inflation to normalize these numbers, you have 581,500 in your account.
Pulling from that for a term of 25 years, and factoring in both withdrawals and a highly conservative bond centric approach, you are looking at an additional 394,996 in earnings, for a total tax payout of 146,474 in 2012 dollars.
And dear Lord, do you really take in the difference if you don't go 100% bonds for the entirety of your retirement.
Let's say you are putting 10k a year, with 25 years to go to retirement.
Assuming tax rates stay the same, at your 39%, that comes out to 97500 more in taxes over the period if you put it in a Roth over a traditional IRA. 97,500 and you are done tax wise.
Assuming the standard growth of the stock market, and subtracting average inflation to normalize these numbers, you have 581,500 in your account.
Pulling from that for a term of 25 years, and factoring in both withdrawals and a highly conservative bond centric approach, you are looking at an additional 394,996 in earnings, for a total tax payout of 146,474 in 2012 dollars.
And dear Lord, do you really take in the difference if you don't go 100% bonds for the entirety of your retirement.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 12:05 pm to Siderophore
Granted, I am not assuming a VAT.
But I feel that it's VERY safe assumption that we will never do away with federal income taxes, with VAT/sales taxes being in addition to them.
Still a risk, but a very safe one IMO
But I feel that it's VERY safe assumption that we will never do away with federal income taxes, with VAT/sales taxes being in addition to them.
Still a risk, but a very safe one IMO
Posted on 1/15/13 at 2:04 pm to Siderophore
As in the Roth IRA thread, I certainly hope you do not do this for a living.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 2:13 pm to Siderophore
quote:
Unless I'm off on my math
You are, sorry.
It's true that increased time should lead to increased dollar returns, but that doesn't matter. The rate matters, and the rate is the same on both ends.
Suppose you are in the 25% tax bracket and you have $1000 to contribute today. If you contribute to a Roth, you only get to put in $750, whereas if you contribute to the regular 401 you can put in the full $1000 - that's $750 plus $250.
However long you have the account before you pull it out, you are earning whatever return you get - call it "r". So in a regular 401 your finally tally is (750+250) times r = 1000r, but if you'd used a Roth instead you'd have 750r.
If you are still in the same bracket, now you get to pay 25% tax in the regular withdrawal. What's 25% of 1000r? 250r. So you're right back to square one.
Notice this is true no matter how many years are involved. The only variable here is whether you pay the same tax rate.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 2:51 pm to foshizzle
quote:
foshizzle
Ding ding.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 5:00 pm to foshizzle
quote:Another quality post
foshizzle
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:19 pm to LSU6262
Foshizzle dominates the math.
I would add though if you are a maxer-outer, Roth will allow you to shelter more (16.5k after tax as opposed to 16.5k pretax).
I would add though if you are a maxer-outer, Roth will allow you to shelter more (16.5k after tax as opposed to 16.5k pretax).
Posted on 1/15/13 at 7:23 pm to LSU6262
I think you're best to split it between Roth and tax deferred acct.
I do 401k up to the match, and then max an independent Roth.
No need to go all in on one.
I do 401k up to the match, and then max an independent Roth.
No need to go all in on one.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 5:03 am to foshizzle
Hmmmm.
Yes, from that perspective you are correct.
My problem was that I looked at contributions and tax separately. My math works out in scenarios of high disposable income, but not in most practical settings.
Thank you for explaining to me.
Posts like this are why you are one of the posters I make a point of reading when I see you chime in on a thread.
Yes, from that perspective you are correct.
My problem was that I looked at contributions and tax separately. My math works out in scenarios of high disposable income, but not in most practical settings.
Thank you for explaining to me.
Posts like this are why you are one of the posters I make a point of reading when I see you chime in on a thread.
Popular
Back to top
4










