vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The Roth-IRA or for that matter a regular IRA is generally not connected to your place of employment.  Now a 401(k) is linked to your place of employment. If the business no longer exists, they should have turned over the 401K. The US department of Labor has information regarding plans that have been abandoned. I suspect my plan is abandoned, but I have never received a notice of   plan termination. How could I find out if a QTA has elected to   terminate and wind up my 401(k) pension plan? EBSA has developed an Abandoned Plan searchable database to help   participants and beneficiaries find out if a particular plan is in the   process of being, or has been, terminated. The site is searchable by   plan name or employer name and will provide the name and contact   information for the QTA, if one exists.  If you do not have access to   a computer to conduct the search, you may contact one of EBSA’s   Benefits Advisors to assist you by calling toll-free, 1.866.444.EBSA   (3272).
The deposit slip at the institution that keeps your Roth IRA should have a place where you can designate the tax year the contribution should apply to.
Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account).  Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500!  Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life.  I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children.  I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.
There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer.  Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.
The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.
"So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never ""taxed""). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later).
"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket  UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about ""the fiscal cliff"" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year."
401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.
I'd open the Roth IRA account and fund for 2015 and 2016. For the very long term, I'd learn about index funds, specifically a low cost S&P mutual fund or ETF.
Your best bets are a Roth IRA or traditional IRA.  If you roll it to a Roth, you will have to pay taxes on the amount you roll over (unless it was a Roth 401k), however what is in the Roth will grow tax free and it will be tax free when you withdraw.  With a traditional IRA, you won't owe taxes on the money now but will pay taxes when you withdraw. You won't be able to withdraw this money until 59 1/2 years of age without paying a penalty, the same goes for your current 401k.  If you take the money (for mortgage, other investment, etc.) and don't roll it over to a qualified account, you will owe taxes on it plus a 10% penalty.  So you will only get between 60% and 70% of its value.
If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)
The IRA contribution for the year are allowed until the tax day of that year. I.e.: you can contribute for 2015 until April 15th, 2016 (or whatever the first business day is after that, if the 15th is a holiday). You'll have to explicitly designate your contribution for 2015, since some of the IRA providers may automatically designate the current year unless you explicitly say otherwise. If that happens - it will be very hard to fix later, so pay attention when you're making the contribution. You get a couple of things from your IRA provider: Form 5498 - details your contributions for the year, account FMV, and RMD details. You can see the actual form here. You don't always get this form, if you didn't contribute anything and no RMD is required for you. Since the last day to contribute is April 15th, these forms are usually being sent out around mid-May. But you should know how much you've contributed by the tax day without it, obviously, so this is only for the IRS matching and your record-tracking.  Form 1099-R includes information about distributions (including withdrawals and roll-overs). You may not get this form if you didn't take any money out of your IRA. These come out around end of January.
The problem with this plan is that in order for your children to put money in their own IRA, they need earned income of their own.  If your child doesn't have $3000 in earned income for the year, you won't be able to put the $3000 into their Roth IRA.
If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your   employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were   allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the   tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or   within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the   plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a   check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are   still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you   can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually   contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)
Other people have pointed this out, but there are a few considerations in whether you should do a Roth or Traditional IRA, such as: One of the major arguments for using a Traditional IRA is that you can (at least in theory) afford to contribute more money initially than you'd be able to afford if you were using a Roth IRA. While this is, in theory, true, I'm not at all convinced that using a Traditional IRA will actually cause people to contribute more to it. Realistically, how many people will actually contribute, say, $500 more to their IRA because they knew that their contribution for this year will save them $500? To know if this is the case, consider the last time that you actually invested some of your tax refund in your retirement account; I haven't seen any actual statistics on this, but I'm guessing that very few people do this. Please see other people's answers for details on the mathematics behind that. The second argument for contributing to a Traditional IRA is if you expect your future income tax rate to be lower than your current tax rate for some reason - e.g. due to a change in government policy (e.g. replacing income taxes with Value Added Tax or something like that), the fact that you're doing the contribution relatively close to when you're planning on withdrawing it, etc. Please see this question for more discussion about this. Keep in mind that, while a Traditional IRA saves you tax money this year, a Roth IRA saves you money when you withdraw it, so it's not really a question of paying taxes on $5000 now or $5000 later, it's a question of paying taxes on $5000 now vs., for example, $50,000 later (or however much the money's grown by the time you withdraw it). Maybe the Traditional IRA is still worth it, though, if there are changes to tax policy or you end up with a lot more money in your Traditional IRA due to being able to contribute more.
Do you have an emergency fund? If so, one idea is to put money into a Roth IRA, and invest it conservatively (short term government bonds, or a IRA savings account).  Since you can withdraw your contributions from a Roth at any time, this could serve as most of your emergency fund, which means you could then use your existing non-tax-sheltered emergency fund to pay down the loans. This way if an emergency does come up, you have access to the money.  And if an emergency doesn't come up, you have some tax-sheltered funds that you would not otherwise have.
"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the ""riches"") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above)."
"From your description, it seems that you should have $75k of ""basis"" (i.e. after-tax amount) in your Traditional IRA. (As others have mentioned in comments, you might have had to report this in the year it was rolled over. I will assume that you will have figured this out.) Having after-tax amounts in a Traditional IRA is tricky as you usually can't choose to take out only the after-tax portion. Withdrawals as well as conversions to Roth IRA must be ""pro-rata"", which means that the amount of pre-tax and post-tax money in the withdrawal or conversion follows the same proportion as in the IRA overall. So say 7.5% of your Traditional IRA is after-tax, and the other 92.5% is pre-tax, that means any withdrawal will consist of pre-tax and post-tax in those proportions. So e.g. if you withdraw or convert $1000, $75 will be post-tax and $925 will be pre-tax. So any withdrawal or conversion will consist overwhelmingly of pre-tax amounts, which will be taxed, and you may not want that at this time. There is one way to separate the pre-tax and post-tax amounts in a Traditional IRA, but it involves having an active 401(k) (which I doubt you have at this point as you're retired). Some 401(k) plans allow people to rollover funds from Traditional IRA into it. If they allow this, then you can use it to ""siphon"" only pre-tax money from the Traditional IRA, as IRS does not allow rollover of post-tax money into a 401(k). This way you can rollover the entire pre-tax amount of the Traditional IRA into the Traditional 401(k), leaving behind only after-tax money in the Traditional IRA, which you can immediately convert to Roth IRA with no tax."
If you received a distribution to buy, build, or rebuild a first home and the purchase or construction was canceled or delayed, you generally can contribute the amount of the distribution to an IRA within 120 days of the distribution. This contribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the IRA. This is from my friend, Publication 590. See Page 51, next to 'TIP' in second col.
You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.
It is not clear whether the exact meaning of ""transfer"" (given as either ""transferencia"" or ""traspaso"" in the document) corresponds to the US usage of IRA transfers (i.e., nontaxable events); some information I found indicates that the end of the quote above might be translated as ""does not qualify as a rollover"". In any case, it seems that moving an IRA to or from Puerto Rico at least potentially has tax consequences. There is also a previous question on this site which likewise says ""You cannot transfer or rollover an IRA that was established in PR to USA and vice versa"". These are not exactly authoritative sources, but they all seem to point towards the same conclusion, namely that you won't be able to avoid taxation on your IRA by moving to Puerto Rico. Of course, I am no expert. To be sure, you would have to talk to an accountant versed in the tax laws of both Puerto Rico and the incorporated US (and probably also whatever state you'd be moving from, to be on the safe side.)"
The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal.  If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.
Maxing out an IRA would probably be step 1, if you exceed that probably just aim for saving in a taxable brokerage account. Just try and stick to ETFs if you're gonna index since they're slightly more tax efficient than a mutual fund
Do you have a spouse? You can contribute to a spouse's IRA if you guys are filling a joint tax return
Yes for sure.  It would be redundant.  I have three of them, so what.  Its just more money in retirement.  I would prefer a ROTH IRA in your tax bracket and you next employer may not offer that.   And yes there are tax breaks either putting money in to a IRA or if you go the Roth route, on the way out.   So if you put money in a Roth now you will have some money at your tax rate in 40 years from now.  And if you put money in a traditional IRA when you are an employee you will save on the tax rate you are at then.  So you are hedging you bets on tax rates by paying them in two different decade.  Personally we are probably all on a tax holiday right now and I would be that taxes will be higher in the future as they are historically pretty low right now.
"One thing people are missing is that you may not be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA based on your MAGI. There are income ""phaseout"" ranges which determine how much, if it all you can contribute."