Originally Posted by petegz28:
A ROTH 401k maxes out at $19,500, bro
$19,500
The contribution limit for a designated Roth 401(k) for 2020 is $19,500, up from $19,000 in 2019. Account-holders who are age 50 or older may make catch-up contributions of up to $6,500, for a potential total annual contribution of $26,000.
$19,500 would still be the limit if contributing to both a 401k and ROTH 401k correct? [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
I've thought about that before and thanks for breaking it down! I definitely need to crunch the numbers on it.
I do think dropping a tax bracket currently helps us quite a bit, but with the standard deduction being so much I might be able to split my 12% contribution to 6% 401k and 6% ROTH 401k instead of all to the 401k.
Thanks for a great post.
If your situation would cause you switch tax brackets then yeah, I would run the numbers but I myself am starting to put everything into all of my ROTH accounts. I contribute the minimum I have too to get the employer match to my pre-tax and the rest is ROTH, baby! I don't want to fuck with taxes when I am old. If I need a few G's I want to put out what I need. Not what I need and Uncle Sam wants. [Reply]
Thanks for posting the Roth 401k advice. 3 years ago I would have argued against it as saving money now on taxes is better than later with the time value of money, but currently with income tax rates historically low and expected to increase by the time I retire in 20-25 years it makes more sense to pay them now. I also max out my 401k every year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Great Expectations:
Thanks for posting the Roth 401k advice. 3 years ago I would have argued against it as saving money now on taxes is better than later with the time value of money, but currently with income tax rates historically low and expected to increase by the time I retire in 20-25 years it makes more sense to pay them now. I also max out my 401k every year.
It's what this thread used to be. Now it's just wallstreetbets. [Reply]
I still say people should have a solid mix of Roth and traditional. Too many things are hard to predict over multiple decades to go 100% one way.
My state could remove income tax later, or we could end up in FL or TX because the kids/grandkids moved there, or health reasons.
Federal taxes seem like they should go up but it seemed that way after the stimulus during the GFC and trillion dollars deficits that ensued yet nearly a decade later we went back to trilly deficits and lowered taxes. Japan's got nearly twice our debt to GDP with negative rates so clearly we can keep going for a long time possibly. The Fed just created 3 trillion at the Treasury's behest and the long end didn't even budge.. and that's at the lowest rate it's ever been in history. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiliConCarnage:
I still say people should have a solid mix of Roth and traditional. Too many things are hard to predict over multiple decades to go 100% one way.
My state could remove income tax later, or we could end up in FL or TX because the kids/grandkids moved there, or health reasons.
Federal taxes seem like they should go up but it seemed that way after the stimulus during the GFC and trillion dollars deficits that ensued yet nearly a decade later we went back to trilly deficits and lowered taxes. Japan's got nearly twice our debt to GDP with negative rates so clearly we can keep going for a long time possibly. The Fed just created 3 trillion at the Treasury's behest and the long end didn't even budge.. and that's at the lowest rate it's ever been in history. :-)
Sound thinking here.
I won’t bust on a guy for going the traditional route because the big thing is it is I a fund.
If someone is putting money away, I’m happy.
I have some in both. Part of it is my Cabela’s 401 was traditional and I didn’t want to fuck with basis so I left it traditional. [Reply]
There was an article in WSJ last week with data from Fidelity.
Originally Posted by :
Data from Fidelity Investments suggests millions of individuals have decided to do the latter. Nearly a third of investors ages 65 and up sold all of their stockholdings some time between February and May, compared with 18% of investors across all age groups.
18% went to 0 allocation to stocks. That seems terrible. At least people in their 60s makes some sense.
Originally Posted by :
Mr. Eberlin said he missed out on much of the market’s stunning recovery after the last financial crisis because he never figured out a time to move more of his money back into the stock market.
But he is 66. And he hasn’t worked since late March because the pandemic has dented demand for contract work in Chicago residential buildings.
I like hearing that because it means some money will move into the market at some point.
Today was not a good day for me. The market was up, and I think I ended up down slightly. I'm stuck in my REIT and cruise line stocks that get panic-hammered every time a Seattle anarchist coughs. I'm at the point where I'm hanging on to them because they're down so far that I hate to sell them at a big loss and I'm afraid to miss a spike when the bad news stops. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I like hearing that because it means some money will move into the market at some point.
Today was not a good day for me. The market was up, and I think I ended up down slightly. I'm stuck in my REIT and cruise line stocks that get panic-hammered every time a Seattle anarchist coughs. I'm at the point where I'm hanging on to them because they're down so far that I hate to sell them at a big loss and I'm afraid to miss a spike when the bad news stops.
They'll come back , You have to have the patience of Warren Buffet. People are gonna cruise. [Reply]
