![]() |
Scambo
Well, yes rhetorical, but sort of my point--any .gov "annuity" is worth more than it looks because it might be collected at any age and it has no (little?) risk of failure. Using 401k money always puts the risk on the individual, which is why companies want them gone. GF |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 1578104)
Scambo
Well, yes rhetorical, but sort of my point--any .gov "annuity" is worth more than it looks because it might be collected at any age and it has no (little?) risk of failure. Using 401k money always puts the risk on the individual, which is why companies want them gone. GF |
I could be in considerably worse company as a tool.
Hey, congrats to all DL pilots as "Airline of the Year"! Now if only my bags would show up! :D GF |
"A low income individual should bias towards a Roth to minimize the payment of taxes over his/her lifetime. Higher income individuals should be biasing toward taking the deduction now by contributing to a deductible 401K (for example) while their effective tax rate is likely higher, rather than contributing to a Roth now and paying that higher effective tax rate when they could have paid less tax in the future when they're likely making less money during retirement"
If you're a high earner, you should do both the Roth and the 401K. Minimize the taxes you pay now, and minimize the taxes you pay later. If you don't qualify for a Roth, it's easy to contribute to a traditional IRA and convert to a Roth, penalty free, the next day (ie backdoor Roth). We gave an investor friend less than 20K of our traditional IRA money, 16 years ago. Three years ago, when it was worth 150K, we converted it to a Roth. Sucked up paying 50K in taxes (painful) for the conversion. It's now worth over 300K, and if he continues his annual rate of return of over 18%, (I know, amazing and hard to match, even for Bernie Madoff)...in 20 years, that's about 8 million. Tax free. If we hadn't sucked up the 50K in taxes, all that money would taxed at the highest tax rate. With all the debt and entitlements this county is going to be paying for, that tax rate is only going straight up. |
Originally Posted by busdriver12
(Post 1578131)
"A low income individual should bias towards a Roth to minimize the payment of taxes over his/her lifetime. Higher income individuals should be biasing toward taking the deduction now by contributing to a deductible 401K (for example) while their effective tax rate is likely higher, rather than contributing to a Roth now and paying that higher effective tax rate when they could have paid less tax in the future when they're likely making less money during retirement"
If you're a high earner, you should do both the Roth and the 401K. Minimize the taxes you pay now, and minimize the taxes you pay later. If you don't qualify for a Roth, it's easy to contribute to a traditional IRA and convert to a Roth, penalty free, the next day (ie backdoor Roth). We gave an investor friend less than 20K of our traditional IRA money, 16 years ago. Three years ago, when it was worth 150K, we converted it to a Roth. Sucked up paying 50K in taxes (painful) for the conversion. It's now worth over 300K, and if he continues his annual rate of return of over 18%, (I know, amazing and hard to match, even for Bernie Madoff)...in 20 years, that's about 8 million. Tax free. If we hadn't sucked up the 50K in taxes, all that money would taxed at the highest tax rate. With all the debt and entitlements this county is going to be paying for, that tax rate is only going straight up. 18% a year? :rolleyes: If it sounds too good to be true...it probably is. How do you know for certain your investor buddy isn't the next Bernie? Read this: No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller: Harry Markopolos: 9780470919002: Amazon.com: Books I'll give you the cliff notes: There are a whole lot more Bernie Madoffs out there. |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1577939)
Call me a cynic, but your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Here's my prediction -- feel free to cut it out and save it for 10 years and tell me I'm wrong.
Today's marginal tax bracket for a guy making $250k with a "reasonable" amount of deductions is lower than his marginal tax bracket will be in retirement when his taxable income is $100k.
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1577939)
No you didn't. Your PBGC benefit will still be taxed as ordinary income. Same with your military retirement (if you have one). Same with all the money Delta has contributed to your 401k and DC plans. That's a lot of taxable income in retirement. Even if you converted some to a Roth, I'll bet you'll still have 80% of your income in retirement coming from taxable sources. That also results in 85% of your SS being taxed too.
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1577939)
You shoudn't. I really think you'll be glad you did, when Uncle Sam finally jacks marginal rates up to 50%+ as they were for the 60 years prior to Reagan. They will have to. We will be among the small group of people who actually have good income, even in retirement, to pay tax on.
The discussion is interesting, and has got me thinking about reevalutaing my strategy... |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1578154)
18% a year? :rolleyes:
If it sounds too good to be true...it probably is. How do you know for certain your investor buddy isn't the next Bernie? Read this: No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller: Harry Markopolos: 9780470919002: Amazon.com: Books I'll give you the cliff notes: There are a whole lot more Bernie Madoffs out there. I wish he could have taken over our 401K's instead of having us flounder with them. We would have been retired by now. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1578175)
I don't itemize. I have zero deductions.
Most of what you said is true. No military retirement. All my 402k contributions from here on are ROTH. I'll believe the PBGC if I start cashing checks. Democrats cannot do math, and the physics of what they are doing will not stop because they feel bad about it. One way or another, they are coming after our retirement monies.... We'll see. On one hand, I think you are right, because these clowns won't have anywhere else to get the money from. On the other though, If I don't take it out, they won't tax me on it, and the Mrs and I really aren't big consumers. (I STILL don't have a smart phone).... The discussion is interesting, and has got me thinking about reevalutaing my strategy... Outright ownership is the way to go with these. There is work involved, but the tax savings/income potential is great. DYODD. In several years, I think the gold bugs will have been proven right also. Bottom line, staying liquid can put your assets in Pelosi's hand. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1577817)
Yeah but you'd get that "extra" $1500 regardless of chosing to allocate it to your 401 or just taking the cash, right? The way I read your original post it implied that only if you sent it to your 401 would you get the additional contribution.
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1578235)
Strategy: Non-leveraged tax deductible assets that provide income and depreciation for a long time...They make your taxable income smaller, but more than pay for themselves (the best are the ones that pay for themselves in depreciation (appraisal or leveraged value) alone)...car washes, rentals, store fronts, farms, office space, Laundromats, trailer parks, etc.
Outright ownership is the way to go with these. There is work involved, but the tax savings/income potential is great. DYODD. In several years, I think the gold bugs will have been proven right also. Bottom line, staying liquid can put your assets in Pelosi's hand. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands