Started By
Message

re: Uh oh - savings

Posted on 4/24/13 at 6:42 pm to
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69956 posts
Posted on 4/24/13 at 6:42 pm to
quote:

Since you can only do one or the other, the ROTH is better because you can contribute to it and if the emergency doesn't happen, you are good. If the emergency happens, you're still good. If you just put it in the Emergency fund outside the ROTH and the emergency doesn't happen, you lost out.


In this scenario, yes I agree. But 1 is not a replacement for the other, you should do both if you are able.
Posted by Teddy Ruxpin
Member since Oct 2006
39646 posts
Posted on 4/24/13 at 6:51 pm to
Ya, I was in my first full year of employment in 2012 so I'm starting the building process. Being almost 28, I figured I had good odds.

Then I broke my damn finger playing in a flag football game I didn't even know about an hour earlier until they needed a guy. Such shitty luck.
Posted by foshizzle
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
40599 posts
Posted on 4/24/13 at 8:51 pm to
quote:

you should do both if you are able.


If you are able to max your Roth and max your 401, you probably don't need an emergency fund that badly b/c you can borrow $50K against your 2% HELOC without a problem. Keeping money in cash may still not be your best option.

But yes, using your Roth as an emergency fund is clearly better than keeping it outside a Roth, since the taxman won't take a slice off your returns.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram