|
Nail Rat posted:401k contribution limit is 17500 combined. For example you could do 10000 traditional and 7500 Roth if you so chose. Neither affects any IRA contribution at all. Thank you for that explanation of limits, that makes a lot of sense. I'm a bit confused about the taxes thing. According to this we will be firmly in the middle of the 25% MFJ bracket, more or less no matter what we do?
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:Thank you for that explanation of limits, that makes a lot of sense. Ah, my memory was wrong. However you have a combined 97k in pretax income - anything that's tax deductible takes away from that. You're right that you might not be able to get under that unless you are a high-percentage saver. If you maxed your traditional 401k and took two standard deductions, I think you'd get down to just under the 73k amount. I personally think maxing out should be easy for you unless you own a home, in which case you'll have plenty of other deductions to take instead. However, the good news is the math still works out that you'll benefit from the marriage brackets versus the single - if you were both single and filed, you'd be paying 25% on about 35k of your income assuming you managed about 10k in deductions. Now, assuming you have about 15k in total deductions you can take, you'll only have to pay 25% on about 19k. So you'll save a couple grand by being married. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Ah, my memory was wrong. However you have a combined 97k in pretax income - anything that's tax deductible takes away from that. You're right that you might not be able to get under that unless you are a high-percentage saver. If you maxed your traditional 401k and took two standard deductions, I think you'd get down to just under the 73k amount. I personally think maxing out should be easy for you unless you own a home, in which case you'll have plenty of other deductions to take instead. Cool, that makes sense. We figured that we were honestly leaving a lot of money on the table by not being officially married, especially since he is going back to school and so will probably have a low income for a while yet. $4k is more than we thought it would be though! I'm still going through our budget and working it out, but this time last year we were living on a combined income of about 30k, so I imagine that if we can keep up anything close to that we will be very high percentage savers indeed.  So what I'm taking away from this is that my plan should be:1) pay out my student loans - only about 4k away from this anyway 2) 5% of my income into a pre-tax 401(k) 3) max out Roth IRA 4) beef up my emergency fund to become "our" emergency fund (he doesn't have one) - this means adding another 2-4k 5) save to pay for his school so we don't have to take out any more loans (will will need 20k over 2 years, starting a year+ from now) 6) max out my pre-tax 401(k) 7) hookers and blow Does that sound right? T. J. Eckleburg fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:Cool, that makes sense. We figured that we were honestly leaving a lot of money on the table by not being officially married, especially since he is going back to school and so will probably have a low income for a while yet. $4k is more than we thought it would be though! I hosed up my math(again), sorry! I edited but not fast enough. It'll be a couple grand probably though. But yes your plan sounds very reasonable to me at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
What exactly is supposed to be the income tax rate when you start withdrawing from your 401k? The income tax rate you had right before you retired? Or is the number based on the value of hte 401k?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
.Z. posted:What exactly is supposed to be the income tax rate when you start withdrawing from your 401k? The income tax rate you had right before you retired? Or is the number based on the value of hte 401k? Neither. The income tax rate you pay is just the regular income tax rate. 401k withdrawals count as ordinary income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
I have no idea if this is in the right thread, although I don't really see a "short-ish term investing" thread. Anyway, I work for a large tech company. Over the years, I've accumulated a bit over ~$50k in vested stock through their stock purchase plan and RSU grants (~25% of my net worth according to YNAB). I have another ~$30k or so in unvested RSUs. The company stock price is currently at a decade-high this week. I just realized that I have a huge percentage of my money invested into one company and want to further diversify. If I sold off, say 50% of my shares, what should I consider investing this money into? Index funds? An ETF? I've been reading about these different investment funds but can't really parse all the information into which one would be more preferable. For my time table, I do not foresee needing this money for another year or two when I plan to purchase a second house. I already have a fully-funded Roth IRA through Vanguard and contribute to my company 401k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:
Sell 100% of your company stock; merely by working at that company you are already hugely exposed to their rises and falls. If you are planning on using this money in a year or two (that is a very short horizon), any kind of stock or bond index fund is basically too high-risk. A money-market fund, savings account, or CD is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:I have no idea if this is in the right thread, although I don't really see a "short-ish term investing" thread. Unless you are or intend to be an executive at this company with the interest and capability to positively influence its stock price, there is no reason for that percentage of your net worth to be invested in it. You should sell, basically in full, as soon as you are able to do so. If you want to bet on a company with growth potential, there are thousands of others that aren't also the people who pay your salary. If you don't, well, this is how things like Enron happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:Sell 100% of your company stock; merely by working at that company you are already hugely exposed to their rises and falls. If you are planning on using this money in a year or two (that is a very short horizon), any kind of stock or bond index fund is basically too high-risk. A money-market fund, savings account, or CD is the way to go. This is right. Holding stock in your own company (for longer than is required for stock purchase plan discounts) is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:I just got hired at a company that offers three 401(k) options: "before-tax", "after tax", and "roth". before-tax and roth are what you care about until you hit your contribution limits (typically 17500 + 5500). After-tax has limited benefits, but you can get up to 52k total (your 17500 limit + employer contributions + your after-tax contributions) into your 401k. The main advantage is that if you leave the job or are otherwise able to roll it into a Roth you can roll it over into your Roth IRA. You'll pay tax again on the appreciated amount (so 100k now worth 120k = 20k is taxable) but then when you have it in your Roth it will grow tax free henceforth. It is mostly just useful for stuffing extra money in beyond usual retirement caps, if you aren't already maxing out your 17500 in your 401k and the 5500 in your roth IRA it is irrelevant. Also might not be a great idea if you think it is likely that you'll stay with that company for 10+ years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
I agree with the others that you should sell your stock, Henrik, but I caution you to immediately make sure you understand what your tax liability will be for the profits. ESPPs and the like are not tax-sheltered, so you will owe money on the amount you got, and exactly how its taxed isn't always straightforward. But definitely sell it, and any money you intend to spend in less than five years should be in a money market account or, at the most, CDs. Basically, FDIC insured so you can't possibly lose any of it short of a governmental collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:Sell 100% of your company stock; merely by working at that company you are already hugely exposed to their rises and falls. If you are planning on using this money in a year or two (that is a very short horizon), any kind of stock or bond index fund is basically too high-risk. A money-market fund, savings account, or CD is the way to go. bam thwok posted:Unless you are or intend to be an executive at this company with the interest and capability to positively influence its stock price, there is no reason for that percentage of your net worth to be invested in it. You should sell, basically in full, as soon as you are able to do so. If you want to bet on a company with growth potential, there are thousands of others that aren't also the people who pay your salary. If you don't, well, this is how things like Enron happen. Yeah definitely not. Seeing as the stock price is at a decade-high, I can definitely see the sense in selling off 100%. Chin Strap posted:This is right. Holding stock in your own company (for longer than is required for stock purchase plan discounts) is a bad idea. We can contribute 5% of our paycheck toward SPP and get a 15% discount. Stock automatically gets purchased quarterly and we have the option of quick-selling it the same day (to take the free ~15% minus taxes). Historically, I've held onto the stock and hadn't considered selling until I was in long-term capital gains tax territory. Leperflesh posted:I agree with the others that you should sell your stock, Henrik, but I caution you to immediately make sure you understand what your tax liability will be for the profits. ESPPs and the like are not tax-sheltered, so you will owe money on the amount you got, and exactly how its taxed isn't always straightforward. Yeah, this is going to be a messy tax year. This would probably be the first year I would consider paying someone. I haven't sold off stock in a few years now, so I usually just plug it all into Turbo Tax. I'm single and only have kids by proxy, so my taxes are usually easy. Thank you all for the feedback so far. It has definitely confirmed that I have way too much money sitting in one place. The only thing that sucks is losing the ~$150/month dividends I'm collecting 
Henrik Zetterberg fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
I'm thinking about signing up for my company's 401k. It's John Hancock and the fees are stupidly high, but it's something. My company matches dollar-for-dollar up to 3%, and then $0.50 for every dollar between 4-5%. The fund with the lowest fees is the 500 Index Fund at 0.68% - everything else is over 0.9%  Should I just go with that? Also have a question about profit sharing. My company offers profit-sharing contributions that they dump once-a-year into our retirement funds. How do these work? Does the company just say like "put $500,000" into profit-sharing bonuses" and then it's split evenly among the participants? Or is the profit-sharing proportionate to how much money you have in the retirement plan compared with your co-workers? If it's an even split, what would stop me from just allocating $1.00 every month into the 401k and getting a free $1000 (or whatever) bonus from profit-sharing each year? My plan literature says the profit-sharing contribution can't exceed 5.7% of an employee's annual income, so I could potentially get a maximum of $1500 if the company's doing well. EugeneJ fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I'm thinking about signing up for my company's 401k. It's John Hancock and the fees are stupidly high, but it's something. My company matches dollar-for-dollar up to 3%, and then $0.50 for every dollar between 4-5%. Yeah, probably, especially if you're also investing and diversifying with an IRA. With an effective 4% match (if you contribute 5%) it's definitely worth it even at 0.68% ER. 0.68% ER isn't ludicrously bad, but it's not particularly good either especially for just a passive S&P 500 index. Almost certainly your best option if everything else is 0.9% or higher, though. If you're already maxing an IRA (and HSA if applicable) and still have money you want to save for retirement on top of the 5% for the 401k match, even at 0.68% I think it'd still be worth it to contribute more than 5% to your 401k before going with a taxable brokerage account. Some day you'll be able to roll it over to a cheaper IRA and 0.68% in the meantime isn't total buttrape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
I found this comment about why John Hancock 401k's have high ER's: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/04/john-hancock-401ks-suck.html quote:Most John Hancock plans are group annuity contracts and do not use retail mutual funds. This is the reason for the hight expense ratios and why you cannot download the info into Quicken as the NAV's (net asset values) are not reported daily as they are for mutual funds. This is a typical broker sold plan. The brokers sell these plans at "no cost", and bury all of the plan expenses and their commissions into the expense rations of the underlying investments. These plans generally have "all in" costs of 2-3%, not a good deal for the employee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:before-tax and roth are what you care about until you hit your contribution limits (typically 17500 + 5500). After-tax has limited benefits, but you can get up to 52k total (your 17500 limit + employer contributions + your after-tax contributions) into your 401k. The main advantage is that if you leave the job or are otherwise able to roll it into a Roth you can roll it over into your Roth IRA. You'll pay tax again on the appreciated amount (so 100k now worth 120k = 20k is taxable) but then when you have it in your Roth it will grow tax free henceforth. It is mostly just useful for stuffing extra money in beyond usual retirement caps, if you aren't already maxing out your 17500 in your 401k and the 5500 in your roth IRA it is irrelevant. Also might not be a great idea if you think it is likely that you'll stay with that company for 10+ years. Nail Rat, you may potentially have a good 401k for saving lots of money, depending on your investment options. Very few 401ks offer After Tax contributions. Talk to your company finance rep and or 401k provider and see if they will allow you to do an After Tax to Roth 401k or After Tax to Roth IRA conversion. Usually the latter is better, but it's equivalent to being able to funnel an additional $20,000 into a Roth IRA with a tiny bit more work. Most 401ks which offer an After Tax account allow the conversion. Keeping money in an After Tax account by itself without conversion is useless and worth less than a taxable savings account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:The company stock price is currently at a decade-high this week. I just realized that I have a huge percentage of my money invested into one company and want to further diversify. If I sold off, say 50% of my shares, what should I consider investing this money into? Index funds? An ETF? I've been reading about these different investment funds but can't really parse all the information into which one would be more preferable. Vanguard has a handy ETF picker on the website, low expense ratio ETFs are pretty awesome. For picking ETFs it just boils down to your risk tolerance and also how much to want to diversify. But pretty much focus on getting mix of US core stocks, overseas stocks and also some bond ETFs for diversification For lazy people there are also services such as Betterment and Wealthfront that offer a software approach for things such portfolio rebalancing. For tax purposes assuming you held the stocks for enough time you get a decent break since the long term capital gain tax is much lower than if sold you the stock before meeting the long term hold requirement. etalian fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:Yeah definitely not. Now, how do I convince my company (financial services / life and disability insurance) to go back to 15% ESPP discount... I know the involvement has decreased since they dropped it to 5%, for obvious reasons...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Now, how do I convince my company (financial services / life and disability insurance) to go back to 15% ESPP discount... I know the involvement has decreased since they dropped it to 5%, for obvious reasons... In my (very limited) experience, you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:My only thought on the matter is to continue holding the non-LTCG qualifying stock for a bit longer. I am guessing that would reduce your exposure to under 10% of your net worth, which is still very high in your employer, but LTCG is always nice, depending on your tax bracket, it can be a huge savings. Yup, about only ~10% of my holdings are under a year old, so the rest is in LTCG territory. We used to be able to sock 10% of our pay into ESPP, but they reduced that to 5% about 5 years back. Bummer that they'll never bump it back up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:I just got hired at a company that offers three 401(k) options: "before-tax", "after tax", and "roth". What's the difference between After-tax 401k and Roth 401k? Aren't they different names for the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
No, after tax is taxed twice (once when you contribute and again when withdrawn), Roth-401k is only taxed when you contribute. The only benefit of an after tax 401k is that you can possibly later roll it into an IRA and thereby increase the maximum limit you can contribute per year. But there isn't any benefit over a traditional or Roth 401k aside from that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:What's the difference between After-tax 401k and Roth 401k? Aren't they different names for the same thing? Roth is tax sheltered, "401k after-tax" is not. You have already paid taxes, and then when you convert it or cash it out you pay taxes on the appreciation. Roth is part of the 17,500 cap, after-tax is not. The only advantage after-tax has over just regular taxable investments is that you can roll it over into a Roth IRA later when you leave the company. So if you put a bunch into your after tax (up to a 52k cap) and then leave the company, you can roll the after-tax stuff into your Roth IRA and it won't be taxed ever again after that conversion is paid for. It is mostly just useful for piling extra money beyond normal limits into a Roth and has no other advantages and a few disadvantages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:The only advantage after-tax has over just regular taxable investments is that you can roll it over into a Roth IRA later when you leave the company. So if you put a bunch into your after tax (up to a 52k cap) and then leave the company, you can roll the after-tax stuff into your Roth IRA and it won't be taxed ever again after that conversion is paid for. You can roll over the after-tax account into your Roth IRA without leaving the company in many cases too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Was reading an article about financial knowledge and investment performance in the Economist and this troubled me:quote:In a study Robert Arnott and his co-authors picked 100 portfolios, each with 30 equally-weighted stocks from the 1,000 largest American stocks by market capitalisation. 94 of the 100 “dartboard portfolios” did better than a market cap-weighted portfolio of all the 1,000 stocks. Similarly, in another study Andrew Clare, Nick Motson and Steve Thomas randomly picked American stocks to construct ten million indices. An additional twist to their experiment was that the stocks were also randomly weighted. Nearly all of the ten million "monkey indices” delivered “vastly superior returns” compared to a cap-weighted index. Trying to think about how this could be, my best guess is that market cap-weighted portfolios are naturally 'biased' towards very large companies, or in other words, companies that have already made it big. Such companies would have little room to grow, so investing in companies equally* would deliver better growth. Does that make sense? * not really since the weightings are random, but on average looking at ten million indices I guess it averages out to being equal edit: do equal-weighted index funds exist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:You can roll over the after-tax account into your Roth IRA without leaving the company in many cases too. Do you have any more details on this? When I mentioned this possibility, our company's financial advisor mentioned that rollovers were only possible for those 59.5 and above and that employees under that age limit were not able to take advantage of in service rollovers. Information on the interwebs on this is pretty sparse, so would love to know more. Eric
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Was reading an article about financial knowledge and investment performance in the Economist and this troubled me: They link to the article's abstract here: http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/jpm.2013.39.4.091#sthash.K05abSaP.PXiVZDYE.dpbs quote:Even Burt Malkiel’s legendary blindfolded monkey, throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal’s stock page, would produce a portfolio with a substantial value- and small-cap bias that would have historically outperformed the S&P 500. The value and small-cap tilts stem from the fact that non-price-based weighting schemes sever the link between a company’s share price and its weight in the portfolio. - See more at: http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/jpm.2013.39.4.091#sthash.K05abSaP.PXiVZDYE.dpuf More or less what you said. I'm curious what statistic they used (Sharpe ratio? Alpha vs. the market?) to measure this outperformance. Cicero posted:edit: do equal-weighted index funds exist? Yes, RSP is an example (Guggenheim Equal-Weighted S&P 500 ETF)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Due to the nature of it, wouldn't equal weighting cost more in terms of fees because of all the extra maintenance involved? Cap weighting is natural, stock goes down in value its cap weight goes down an equal amount. Equal weighting would involve lots of buying and selling. So the real world version of this wouldn't be as good as the theoretical version http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2013/04/29/no-free-lunch-from-equal-weight-sp-500/
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
So, in sports they are doing a lot of analysis based on if you replaced player A with a random replacement player. It looks like market funds needs to start publishing their performance vs a random (for a standardized definition of random) collection of stocks. People have been talking about randomly picked stocks outperforming most managed funds for a long time now, has anyone ever actually offered an index of random stocks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So, in sports they are doing a lot of analysis based on if you replaced player A with a random replacement player. I would suspect something like the total stock market index would see similar performance, but if the above theories are correct about it being an issue of small cap stocks being more heavily weighted due to the method, then you could certainly match that performance with a small cap index fund as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
I have been recently looking at my finances, and I have an old 401k from an employer 5 years ago. I want to roll that into a traditional IRA, however, it is with John Hancock. If I roll change it into a John Hancock traditional IRA, I will be assessed a $25 maintenance fee which I don't want. I don't have any other traditional IRAs. I do have a 401k at my current job, but it's with Fidelity and the options are really limited in what I can invest in, so I would prefer a traditional IRA. Is there a way to start up a traditional IRA with the rollover funds. All of them seem to require an initial deposit to set up, then I have to rollover the funds from the 401k. I just don't want to keep paying maintenance fees on that 401k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you can roll it over to Vanguard at least without an initial deposit, as long as there's enough in it to meet the fund minimums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
The reason most of the random picks outperform the index is because small caps happened to outperform large caps in the recent past and a random selection of tickers is statistically very likely to overweigh small caps. Since in general any two stocks are overall pretty correlated with each other, this means that a random selection of small caps is likely to beat the index simply because small caps overall beat the large cap market in the recent past. Diversification within one asset class has dimishing returns due to the internal correlation mentioned above, but a small randomly selected portfolio of 30 smallish stocks will still have plenty of room for improvement and is unlikely to outperform a small cap fund on a risk-adjusted basis. As mentioned equal weighting will also incur more fees and higher turnover. I don't see much reason to deviate from cap weighted funds though, unless your risk appetite is so insanely high that 100% stocks isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:I'm pretty sure you can roll it over to Vanguard at least without an initial deposit, as long as there's enough in it to meet the fund minimums.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Thanks for the commentary guys, I'm going to research equal weighted funds more before I decide anything. This seems bizarre to me: quote:For married couples with a MAGI between $115,000 and $178,000 in tax year 2013, the contribution result in a situation where one member of the couple is eligible to make deductible IRA contributions (such as a non-working spouse, or a spouse working part time or as a consultant or at a company without a retirement plan) while the other member of the couple (the one working at a company with a retirement plan) is not eligible for deductible IRAs, but might still be eligible for Roth IRAs. My MAGI this year will probably be close to/slightly above the bottom limit for married filing jointly (96k), so since my wife is in grad school and has no income (she gets the GI Bill but apparently it doesn't count), it seems like we could contribute to an IRA set up in her name and deduct the full amount, right? Does contributing to my wife's IRA affect my ability to contribute to my own IRA? edit: ok yeah quote:Your total contributions to both your IRA and your spouse’s IRA may not exceed your joint taxable income or the annual contribution limit on IRAs times two, whichever is less. Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So, in sports they are doing a lot of analysis based on if you replaced player A with a random replacement player. well most index funds have something called tracking error which is nice stat way to track how well the investment matches the target index.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Vilgan posted:Do you have any more details on this? When I mentioned this possibility, our company's financial advisor mentioned that rollovers were only possible for those 59.5 and above and that employees under that age limit were not able to take advantage of in service rollovers. Information on the interwebs on this is pretty sparse, so would love to know more. TLDR: This is one of the ways that rich people somehow manage to get really large Roth IRAs and avoid having to pay taxes legally. It's uncommon and not a lot of people know about it so that's why there's little information. --- Did your company's financial adviser say if this was a limitation imposed by your 401k administrator? If your plan does not allow you to rollover After Tax money or withdraw it, then you are out of luck. Otherwise, an in service withdrawal is one that is done without a triggering event. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inservicewithdrawal.asp. Reaching 59.5 years of age is a triggering event. Some plans allow for in service withdrawals and rollovers from the After Tax 401k. Typically, you would have to pay a penalty if you do not hit a triggering event. See http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/401(k)#Roth_401.28k.29 and read the After Tax 401k section. However, the IRS has clarified specifically what the penalty is on. The penalty only applies to money that is taxed during the conversion. If you are putting money into an After Tax 401k, you have already been taxed on most of the money there, and will not pay a penalty for that. Say for example, Sally has a salary of $2000 before tax and decides to put 100% of that into an After Tax 401k account. Lets say she is in the 25% tax bracket. The company will deduct 25% of that money for taxes, and put $1500 into the After Tax 401k account. Lets say that on the day Sally decides to convert, that money has grown to $1600. Sally now owes a penalty of 10% on the $100 in capital gain, and must pay standard taxes of 25% on that $100. The other $1500 goes into the converted Roth 401k/Roth IRA without any penalties or additional taxes. The details of the above can be found in the IRS Publication 575, but is very difficult to understand. Even more details can be found by searching "after tax rollover" and going to Bogleheads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
I recently switched companies. My new company's 401(k) plan is with Merrill Lynch, which seems to blow. The available funds all charge 1% or more. In any case, maybe one of y'all has a 401(k) plan with ML and wouldn't mind sharing an optimal balance of investments for a 26 year old? Also, I rolled over my previous 401(k) into a rollover traditional IRA. According to my reading, I cannot deduct contributions to a traditional IRA from my income if my income is over 69,000. My income is over 69,000. Is there any reason to use a traditional IRA instead of opening a separate Roth IRA? e: maybe I should read the previous few pages. Celot fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Celot posted:I recently switched companies. My new company's 401(k) plan is with Merrill Lynch, which seems to blow. The available funds all charge 1% or more. In any case, maybe one of y'all has a 401(k) plan with ML and wouldn't mind sharing an optimal balance of investments for a 26 year old? Traditional IRA is tax deductible but on the flip side the distribution is taxed. Roth IRA on the other hand lets you grow your money and make all tax free on distribution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 07:16
|
|