Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chic_hearne who wrote (83822)	3/21/2001 11:33:37 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

chic - ...That said, I've contributed my $2K the last 4 years. I haven't put much thought into this so maybe my logic is wrong. It just seems the only difference is a bet on whether you will be paying more or less taxes when you retire. There's more complication to it than that, but you're not wrong. The following are some points for which I have opinions. 1. A Roth IRA contribution seems preferable to a taxable account. 2. A Roth conversion should be done if and only if it is exposed to a low tax bracket rate. This could mean during a low income year, or during a year with available capital losses, and it may imply that only a partial conversion is done to the extent that the lowest tax bracket is filled. 3. The biggest advantages of the Roth are in its distribution phase. The traditional IRA has the problems that increasing distributions face higher and higher tax rates and minimum distribution rules apply, as well as the fact that it is hard to keep it from being heavily and inflexibility taxed in an estate. The Roth faces none of these problems other than a straight estate tax. (AFAIK) 4. But the real reason for the Roth is that it can allow you to manage the distribution tax rate of a traditional IRA. The ideal situation is to have both a traditional IRA and a Roth IRA. With a sufficiently large Roth, you can limit your yearly traditional IRA withdrawals to one or more of the lower tax brackets and fill in your additional living expense requirements from the Roth tax free. Also, the combination of the two types of IRAs represents a type of diversification against unpredictable tax law changes which might affect one or the other type more or less. Regards, Don EDIT - forget the capital losses as the conversion will be ordinary income and the $3K limit will still apply.

To: chic_hearne who wrote (83822)	3/22/2001 12:51:05 AM
From: XBrit	Respond to of 436258

chic, Roth IRA conversions are almost always done by paying the taxes out of non-IRA money. In that case, it can make sense because it's effectively a way to transfer assets from taxable to tax-sheltered. The $ amount in the IRA stays the same, but each $ is more valuable. However, the usual advice is to only convert as much as you can squeeze into low brackets in the year(s) you convert. As you said, a Roth conversion where the taxes are paid from the IRA itself is usually not worthwhile. I was thinking of doing a Roth conversion this year, since I'm not working. But the recent drop in the markets has already *put* me over the income limit and cut that idea *short*. Not that I'm complaining, ho ho ho.