Dave Allman: "I’m 46 with a $250,000 zero basis IRA and the Roth conversion numbers absolutely make sense, if I can meet the $100,000 AGI cutoff. My concern is the "tax risk" of assuming that today’s law will control in 20, 30 or 40 years. It wasn’t long ago that Social Security wasn’t taxable (okay, special case, but point is the same). Any speculation on the risk of paying taxes today only to have to (perhaps) pay them again someday?"
It’s a real risk, though there will be lots of senior voters by then to keep Congress from daring to do it directly. The Roth would never be taxable per se, I suspect. But if they decided that income from your Roth IRA should be counted in determining your eligibility for Social Security or other benefits, say, or in figuring some 21st century alternative minimum tax, it would amount to much the same thing.
The best you can do is make some educated guesses, comfortable in the knowledge that, by and large, whatever choice you make is secondary in importance to the fact that you’re saving in the first place. That’s the big decision, and either way you go — traditional IRA or Roth IRA — you’re making it right.
Quote of the Day
The guy who invented playing cards was brilliant. But the guy who invented chips was a genius.~As recounted by Ricky Jay
Request email delivery
- Apr 9:
What Your Kid Should Be Doing June 1st-5th
- Apr 8:
The Most Qualified President Ever
- Apr 7:
- Apr 6:
Two Listens: A Minute And An Hour
- Apr 3:
Why? Why? Why? Who? Watch!
- Apr 2:
Make These Weeks Count
- Apr 1:
The Path To Re-Opening
- Mar 31:
Equal Time: Listen To Trump Activists
- Mar 30:
The Doctor Is In
- Mar 27:
The Word From St. Louis: Not Your Ordinary Recession
- Apr 9: