Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
********************************************************************
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
By Josh @HeritageWealthPlanning.com
I’ve attached a quick / short analysis that pits a Roth retirement approach versus a pre-tax 401 approach. I’m a bit surprised at the outcome.
Here are the assumptions.
1. Married employee in both cases.
2. An employee who is 55 years old invests $25,000 into the company’s retirement account.
a. $19,000 limit, plus
b. $6,000 over 50 catch-up
3. One employee pays the taxes up-front and invests the net of $16,088 into a Roth.
4. Another employee avoids / defers the taxes and invests the entire $25,000 into a 401.
5. Both investments earn the same return.
6. After 10 years the 401 will be converted over to a Roth.
c. This conversion signals the retirement of the individual in a non-income tax state which is one difference between the two approaches. Their working career was in an income taxed state while they both retire in a non-taxed state.
7. The analysis is taxing the 401 at the same tax-rate level minus any state income tax. If you execute your conversions at a lower tax rate, say 12% the results could even be more divergent.(emphasis mine).
d. Also, the reason I’ve taxed the entire Roth amount at 22% Federal is because that is the bracket the employee’s income tops out at. For the retiree when any Roth conversions is likely to take place the taxes would be on a stepped approach topping out at possible 12%.
Assessment
What am I missing here? If this analysis is correct it seems advantageous to invest in the 401 and convert to a Roth when you are either in a lower tax bracket, in a non-income tax state or both.
LINK: https://heritagewealthplanning.com/contribute-to-a-roth-401k-while-working-in-a-high-tax-state/
***
Conclusion: Your thoughts are appreciated.
***
8
***
Share this:
Filed under: iMBA, Inc. |
Leave a Reply