Started By
Message

re: Basic math of Roth vs Traditional many get wrong

Posted on 5/17/26 at 2:10 pm to
Posted by BestBanker
Member since Nov 2011
19622 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 2:10 pm to
It's amazing what math proves. It truly comes down to income tax rates at distribution vs. current.
Posted by gpburdell
ATL
Member since Jun 2015
1615 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 3:22 pm to
quote:

Correct. There is a strategy for this. You really need three different retirement vehicles to draw from. I realize for a lot of folks this isn’t an option but if you have a 401k, Roth, and HSA for example you are going to be able to have a huge advantage when it comes to to withdrawal strategies.


Don't forget taxable account and 0% capital gain tax rate.

A single person with no regular income with $65k in capital gains & std deduction would pay 0% in taxes. A MFJ couple would pay no tax on $131k of capital gains.

I like this this site which lets you see how taxes between income & capital gains affect each other:

https://engaging-data.com/tax-brackets/

Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 4:46 pm to
Thanks for sharing, this visualizer is great.
Posted by LSUFanHouston
NOLA
Member since Jul 2009
41340 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 7:20 pm to
I don’t think anyone was argue basic math. Some of us argue your assumptions.

You mentioned IRMAA, that’s a big part of the reason people convert.

Another is not needing their RMD (Roth does not have an RMD)

Another is future tax rates - for many… they will not be at 12.

There are also legacy and estate tax issues. If someone is going to be subject to estate tax, it makes sense to pay the tax on distribution before imposition of the estate tax. And remember some states start estate taxes at relatively low threshold and without portability,

Plus state tax issues. What if I’m working in Nevada but plan to retire in Cali to be close to the grandkids?

I discuss conversions 3-4 times a week with clients. 99 percent of them have $1M plus in trad IRA / 401k money. I always tell them, if anyone tells you everyone should convert, and if anyone tells you no one should convert, ignore both, every situation is fact dependent.

Also effective tax rate is a garbage stat. Why? Because for most people, the lower rates will get eaten up with SS benefits, pension, passive income sources, etc, it’s even worse if you are widowed. Almost all of my clients project to be at 22 or higher before any Ira distributions. Who cares what their effective rate is? What rate am I gonna pay if I take one more dollar of income. That’s what matters.
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:13 pm to
Right, overall effective tax rate doesnt matter I specifically said effective tax rate of withdrawals.

My only assumption in previous thread was to address your scenario of 22% vs 12% without adding factors you didnt specify. You repeatedly mentioned time value of mpney and my "short sighted strategy" seemingly missing the point that if duration, growth rate, and starting capital are same (constants) only the withdrawal vs contribution tax rate (variable) matters. That's just the basics but we must get it right before figuring out complexities like IRMAA, RMD, legacy plan, widow penalty, LTCG rates etc

I get it, those are reasons I'm strongly leaning to Roth convert up to 22% or 24% despite falling in 12% bracket. If I wait to convert, most will eventually be in those higher brackets anyway and trigger IRMAA, higher LTCG rates, and likely burden heirs in their high earning years.
This post was edited on 5/17/26 at 8:15 pm
Posted by gpburdell
ATL
Member since Jun 2015
1615 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 8:24 pm to
quote:

Thanks for sharing, this visualizer is great.



Yeah I bookmarked it the first time I saw it as it's really useful.

Fyi if you didn't notice, there are two chart options. It defaults to the block one but I much prefer the flow one; just click on the Flows tab to switch.
Posted by dragginass
Member since Jan 2013
3308 posts
Posted on 5/17/26 at 9:04 pm to
Indeed. Sean Mullaney's tax planning book hammers this home. Everyone should read it.
Posted by Sho Nuff
Oahu
Member since Feb 2009
14126 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 4:04 am to
quote:

This is why I contribute 100% of my 401k traditional and supplement with 2 Roth IRAs and cash.

Just retired last year. While I had my SCorp I would max my i401k and then max Roth. Always i401k first for the pre-tax treatment. Nearly all years I could max my Roth other than a couple where we were over the limits. This is the first year of us doing Roth conversions. Will be doing a mix of that and LTCG for a while.
Posted by Sho Nuff
Oahu
Member since Feb 2009
14126 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 4:19 am to
Nice link, hadn't seen that one before. Just ran a scenario I will potentially do next year with a Roth conversion of ~$100k(will need to figure out dividend of course) and LTCG of $30k. MFJ, just used the Std ded for now. 0% LTCG and 5.9% effective on the conversion. Nice to see it on the graph and easily calculated.
This post was edited on 5/18/26 at 4:23 am
Posted by KWL85
Member since Mar 2023
3885 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 11:09 am to
Agree with this. The variables make it difficult to have a one size fits all approach. Having diversity in how income is taxed is a good option for the future. The length of time that earnings can grow is a high criteria in these decisions. Most can earn sizeable profits given enough time to earn it. This makes Roth a good option to have for many. Focusing on Roth earlier in one's financial journey and traditional later seems logical. Having both, as well as hsa, is a good model for most.
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 11:39 am to
quote:

The length of time that earnings can grow is a high criteria in these decisions
Again, this misconception is why I shared the video. Time is a constant in the Roth vs Traditional choice. Length of compounding doesn't change the math (assuming you have same investment duration & growth rate whether you choose to go Roth or Trad).

Eta: of course timeline of withdrawal has effect on complexities such as RMD, widow penalty, inheritance etc
This post was edited on 5/18/26 at 11:41 am
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 11:46 am to
quote:

Focusing on Roth earlier in one's financial journey and traditional later seems logical.
Yes, but not because of investment duration but because early career is typically lowest tax rate and traditional is least likely to be advantageous compared to avoiding potentially higher tax rate at withdrawal.
This post was edited on 5/18/26 at 11:46 am
Posted by igoringa
South Mississippi
Member since Jun 2007
12434 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 11:47 am to
Being marginally in a top bracket now, I just cannot rationalize to myself to do Roth at this time.
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 12:18 pm to
Yeah, in top marginal bracket if choice is between traditional and Roth then traditional is usually best.
Even so, if you can take advantage of backdoor Roth or mega backdoor Roth using dollars that are going to be taxed at current rate no matter what, it still makes sense to use Roth for additional tax free growth
This post was edited on 5/18/26 at 12:19 pm
Posted by proger
Member since Nov 2007
750 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 12:32 pm to
I wish I understood this a little more. I am a reasonably bright individual but the world of finance is a foreign language to me. I was a late starter to beginning retirement contributions due to putting myself through school with a young family. I have been able to max out both a 401k and 457b now for 8 years. Began looking at supplemental additional funds for investment and am reading more about the topic here. Ultimately I may just need to hire a finance person to give me advice.
This post was edited on 5/18/26 at 3:00 pm
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 1:09 pm to
Backdoor Roth works because you are stuck paying income tax on the $ anyway it is just a way to get tax free growth on post tax $ instead of investing in taxable brokerage where gains will be taxed.

It is simple to put in place.
Assuming you are above income limit for deductable traditional IRA (stated you are in top marginal bracket)

Step 1:Contribute to a traditional IRA (but cant deduct the contribution from income so there is no advantage)
Step 2: Immediately convert to Roth IRA (there should be no tax on conversion since there is no gain yet)
Step 3: Invest the Roth IRA as desired for tax free growth.
Repeat annually (for you and spouse if married)

*Note: if you already have traditional IRAs there will be taxes due at your marginal rate on conversions due to pro rata rule so this may not be advantageous. It works best if you do not already have traditional IRA or a very small balance.
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 1:18 pm to

More detailed step by step process
Posted by proger
Member since Nov 2007
750 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 1:18 pm to
Thanks. That was becoming my understanding of the situation. Yes top marginal bracket. I only have a small amount in a Rollover IRA but from what I am reading that isn't considered a Traditional IRA for purpose of conversion to a Roth. Thanks for the advice
Posted by TorchtheFlyingTiger
1st coast
Member since Jan 2008
3288 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 1:22 pm to
I think a rollover traditional IRA counts as a traditional IRA. Never heard of an exception for that.

But as the graphic mentions (step 3 of graphic) you may be able to roll it into your 401k or just bite the bullet and pay tax on converting it to Roth to clean things up and make backdoor Roths easy moving forward.
This post was edited on 5/18/26 at 1:24 pm
Posted by proger
Member since Nov 2007
750 posts
Posted on 5/18/26 at 1:39 pm to
its only $4700 in the rollover. $1440 in about 16 years ago and the rest interest gained. For the yearly contribution limit I assume the whole $4700 counts to the $7500?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

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

FacebookXInstagram