I always see people talking about Roth IRAs versus traditional. Can you do max out on both in one year? In "Start Late, Finish Rich," the author really favors traditional IRAs because the contributions are pre-tax now. He says that lets you afford more dollars to contribute today. When the withdrawals are taxed at a later date, they will presumably be at a lower rate. I'm just wondering what the counter-argument is since so many people seem to go for the Roth instead.
Logging in...
why do people love roth IRAs?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by deca View PostWhen the withdrawals are taxed at a later date, they will presumably be at a lower rate.Steve
* Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
* Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
* There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.
-
-
Okay, that helps...I actually think our tax rate is fairly low now, between the home mortgage interest deduction, child care expenses, student loan interest, deducting health care premiums pre-tax, etc...we have had very little tax liability in recent years.
So our contributions now are practically pre-tax, and the withdrawals later will be tax-free, is that right?
Comment
-
-
No, contributions to a Roth are post-taxes.
At some point in time the government will tax the money. With Roths you pay the taxes now (and don't have to pay taxes on the withdrawls). With traditional IRAs you only pay taxes on the withdrawls. As mentioned before, we know the tax rate now, but not in the future so thats why Roths a good option.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by deca View PostSo our contributions now are practically pre-tax, and the withdrawals later will be tax-free, is that right?
And to answer your other question, no you can't max out both in one year. For instance, the maximum contributions allowed this year for most people is $4000. You can split that up between a traditional and a Roth but the overall total can't exceed $4000.The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes, he generally believes to be true.
- Demosthenes
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by kv968 View PostContributions to a Roth are post-tax and are tax-free when you withdrawl them. Traditional contributions are tax-deductable now but you will pay taxes on the contributions AND earnings when you withdrawl them.
Comment
-
-
Something else that I like about a Roth is that you can withdraw your contributions (not earnings) at any time, without a penalty or taxes due. That makes it kind of a "Holy Crap!" fund, above and beyond a traditional emergency fund.
I wouldn't want to withdraw money from a Roth pre-retirement, but sometimes life throws a curve ball and it's nice to have options.
Comment
-
-
How goes the return on the money get taxed on each? Or is it the same?
Say:
$1000 in a Roth IRA
$1000 in a Traditional IRA
Lets say you get a 10% return. Before you retire. And only only opened the account 1 year before you retired, for the purpose of making this easy.
You'd have $1100.
Roth IRA- Pay tax on the 100? or would it be free of tax also?
Traditional Pay tax on the whole 1100 I assume?
Comment
-
-
Cory - With a Roth, earnings are not taxed at all if you withdraw after the age of 59.5. You contribute with post-tax dollars, and are then never taxed again as long as you're old enough when you withdraw.
Of course, that's how it is right now. Congress could change the rules over the next 30 years and decide to tax withdrawals, which would suck big time.
Edit - With a Traditional IRA contributions are tax deductible, and total distributions (contributions + earnings) after age 59.5 have income tax due.
Another edit - sheesh! One peculiarity with Roth IRAs is that tax-free distributions are possible only if the money has been in the account for more than five years. So, if you retired one year after depositing that money, you'd have to wait five years or pay a penalty. I don't know if that applies to early withdrawals of contributions, though - anyone know?Last edited by Fizgig; 05-20-2007, 09:52 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by deca View PostNot sure if I was clear in what I was trying to say, that you responded to -- but since our current tax liability is very low anyway, the "pre-tax" advantage of contributions to a traditional IRA is almost a moot point. We might as well contribute to a Roth instead and have the advantage of tax-free withdrawals later. Is my logic right on that?The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes, he generally believes to be true.
- Demosthenes
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Fizgig View PostOne peculiarity with Roth IRAs is that tax-free distributions are possible only if the money has been in the account for more than five years. So, if you retired one year after depositing that money, you'd have to wait five years or pay a penalty. I don't know if that applies to early withdrawals of contributions, though - anyone know?The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes, he generally believes to be true.
- Demosthenes
Comment
-
-
Another argument for a Roth IRA instead of a Traditional is that the income limit for deducting your contribution to a Traditional is fairly low and depends on whether you have a retirement plan at work.
DH and I aren't eligible to deduct a Traditional IRA contribution, but can still benefit from a Roth.
Plus, if things turn out like I plan, I have no intention of being in a lower tax bracket when I retire!!!
Comment
-
Comment