vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I respectfully disagree with Eric.  If you invest from day one in a Roth, where, exactly will taxable income come from to put you in a higher bracket at retirement? I agree, maybe for other reasons than you list, that early on, post-tax is the way to go, because I'll assume that one starts work in a lower bracket. There's probably a majority who start work in the 15% bracket, but over time work their way to 25%. As they grow to 25%, using the pretax 401(k) and IRA can keep them at 15% for some number of years. In any year of low income, for whatever reason, they can convert the pretax money to Roth to top off the 15% bracket.  To bring the point home, if you went post tax the whole way, imagine retiring with $2M in the Roth, but no pretax money. You now have a standard deduction, exemption, and the full 10% bracket each and every year gone to waste. Money you paid 25% tax when you could be paying zero on some of it. The deduction and exemption add to $9750 in 2012, and the 10% rate applies to the first $8700 of taxable income. If you do the math, this is $17,500, and if you plan a 4% withdrawal rate, you'd need 437,500 pretax money to give you the 17500 each year. Last, all three factors (standard deduction, exemption, and bracket limits) all rise a bit each year. An increase of $200 is another $5000 to save pretax.  Edit - 2013 brought the ability to convert within one's 401(k) from the traditional pretax side to the Roth side. This makes possible turning 100% of one's 401(k) money to Roth, and retiring without the benefite of the standard deduction, exemptions, etc.
15-19% gains also includes 15-19% and greater losses. They may not be required to disclose that to you in Hong Kong. If it isn't a leveraged account then that isn't too bad. Hong Kong is a nice jurisdiction, The US Federal Government is the only person you don't hide your assets from - but they dont want anything - so just report the accounts as commanded and you'll be A-Okay.
"You definitely need more information. This could be a number of things. First of all I don't understand the reason for the 48 hours. I would definitely ask them to clarify why this is the case. Why are they noticing this a year later?  You are indeed a participant in the company 401k. the plan is theirs, and you are agreeing to play by their rules when you enroll. I would call HR and get more info. This could be excess contribution or a ""bank error in your favor"" that they have found. It sounds like they over matched your 401k sense they want the money back."
Are you saying that you did not tell your employer, more specifically, your payroll department, that you got married, via a W4?  The W4 does not say '25%' bracket, but it asks for how many withholding allowances you plan to take. In effect, you are withholding at the single rate, but are married now. When you do your taxes for 2013, you'll see the full effect of what the W4 has on your withholding.  I suggest you use this time to update the W4, and not lend money to Uncle Sam.   Here's the current tax table from FairMark Publishing. 2013 gives a single a combined $10K in standard deduction and exemption, with a couple getting $20K. For a simple return, this is the info you need to figure out what you'll get back, and conversely, how much to pay next year.  e.g. a gross of $50,000 - for single the tax is on $40,000. $5929. For a couple, $30K taxable is a tax of $3608.  On a side note - I strongly recommend Roth accounts when in the 15% bracket and shift to Pre-Tax accounts as you get into the 25% bracket.
I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.
A quick update for people finding this thread through Google. With the help of a few awesome Bogleheads, I compiled all the relevant research done into two Wiki articles: This includes comparing US to Irish domiciled ETFs, how to calculate tax withholding leakage and estate tax concerns. Hope you find this useful.
A rollover IRA is a traditional IRA.  Your rollover contributions are not taxed and rollover or counted against your annual limit, which is income dependent. A Roth IRA is one where your contributions will be taxed going into the IRA.  Note that there are adjusted gross income maximums for contribution to a Roth IRA (see here), and as far as I can tell those income maximums also determine whether or not you can rollover to a Roth IRA.
"myRA is a name for a proposal Obama made to make IRA more accessible to people who are employed but don't have access to the traditional employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, other than making IRA more accessible - there's nothing in that plan that doesn't exist already. You can open IRA yourself and deposit money there yourself. The only thing ""myRA"" proposal adds is an ability to deduct money automatically from your paycheck and deposit it into your IRA without you doing it manually. Bottom line - it is just a proposal, not an existing program, that makes things you're already doing easier for people who are not doing it yet."
IRAs were invented to help individuals save for retirement. 401(k)s were invented to help corporations provide more compensation to highly valued employees.
Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment.  Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts.  You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.
A self-directed IRA could be a good solution for you and all IRAs are qualified IRAs the administrator must allow for alternative assets. However, if you're looking to do the ROBS (Roll Over Business Start-up) system, there are not very many administrators that can facilitate that. There is also a checkbook IRA (aka single member LLC) that more administrators are able to work with, but the rules are different from a ROBS plan. Check with your financial adviser, CPA, tax guru and ask which method would work best for what you're looking to accomplish.
The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.
In general, Roth IRAs, are associated with the individual.  Unlike 401(k)s for which the business holds the retirement account in the name of the individual.  So, although the company may have helped you set up the Roth it is in your name and you can continue to contribute to it.  Wikipedia has some helpful information here. It should be noted, however, that sometimes businesses set up special deals with retirement service companies or brokers that hold Roth IRAs so you should check with the particular company/broker that holds your Roth.
You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth.  The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free.  With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free.  This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one.  And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.
You bring up a valid concern.  IRAs are good retirement instruments as long as the rules don't change.  History has shown that governments can change the rules regarding retirement accounts. As long as you have some of your retirement assets outside of an IRA I think IRAs are good ways to save for retirement. It's not possible to withdraw the money before retirement without penalty. Also, you will be penalized if you do not withdraw enough when you do retire.
If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection.
"A withdrawal from an IRA has a 60 day period during which time you may roll it over to another IRA, effectively ""borrowing"" and returning the money. Once that time has passed, the transaction is complete.  Your question asks in one place about deposit, then withdrawal. You might edit to clarify the timing of your situation and your intentions."
Why would somebody want an IRA if they have a 401K and a Roth 401K?
Since the I in IRA is individual. The retirement money from your accounts will end up in one or more IRAs. The retirement money from your spouses retirement accounts will end up in one or more IRAs owned by your spouse. How many IRA each will need depends on if the retirement fund contains pre-tax, post-tax, Roth and company match; and if you want to do any conversions.
The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).
"First, to clear up your misconceptions: The balance is not merely made up of deductible and non-deductible contributions. There are also earnings implied in the balance .. i.e. the whole reason you invest in the first place is to realize some return on investment. That return, a.k.a. the earnings, are included in the balance of the account. The balance is the sum total of everything in the account, the ""bottom line"". Generally speaking, basis for an account is all of the money that has been contributed (deposited) to the account. In the context of an IRA as described in the article, however, they are using basis to refer to only the non-deductible contributions. Of note, however, is that basis specifically excludes earnings. If you have deposited, say, $5000 one year and $5000 the next, then your basis is $10,000, even if the balance has grown to, say, $12,000 (which includes the earnings). As may be evident by now, earnings are not equivalent to deductible contributions. Earnings may arise from such contributions but they are not the same. Rather, earnings are the net positive investment results from all contributions. Again, if you had contributed $5000 one year and $5000 the next and the balance has grown to $12,000, then the earnings portion is $2000. So to interpret what happened in the specific example provided: Over the years, the account holder contributed (deposited) a total of $15,000 into his account. These must have been non-deductible contributions in the case of the IRA in order to arrive at basis of $15,000. Over time (and coincident with the deposits), that $15,000 grew to $24,000 .. i.e. earned $9,000 in earnings. Then, the nearly 50% drop caused the balance to decay to $13,000. This means all $9,000 of his earnings were wiped out, plus $2000 of the original basis. The remaining $13,000 is all basis .. that is, considered to be original money deposited to the account, no earnings.
Both types of plans offer a tax benefit.  A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free.  Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.
The advantage of a Traditional IRA is: tax deduction today.  The advantage of a Roth IRA: no tax on withdrawal. Both types are tax-deferred, and have no bearing on the question.
You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate).
"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. Well, this isn't a meaningful distinction. The mutual fund may or may not be in an IRA. Similarly, the mutual fund may or may not be in a 401(k), however. So I'm going to treat your question as if it's ""why would a person get a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that in an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into the same mutual fund in a 401(k)."" Same mutual fund, same amount of money, narrowing your question to the difference between the two types of accounts, as stated in your question's title. Others have answered that to the extent that you really have no choice other than ""pick which type of account to use for a given bundle of money"", other than nobody having mentioned the employer match. Even if there were no other difference at all in tax treatment, it's pretty typical that 401(k) contributions will be matched by free money from the employer. No IRA can compete with that. But, that's not the only choice either: Many of us contribute to both the 401(k) and the IRA. Why? Because we can. I'm not suggesting that just-anybody can, but, if you max out the employer matching in the 401(k), or if you max out the tax-advantaged contribution limit in the 401(k), and you still have more money that you want to save in a tax-advantaged retirement account this year, you can do so. The IRA is available, it's not ""instead-of"" the 401(k)."
OK, so first of all, employers don't set up IRAs.  IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account.  You can set up a personal IRA for yourself, but not for employees.  If that is what you're after, then just set one up for yourself - no special rules there for self employment. As far as setting up a 401(k), I'd suggest checking with benefits management companies.  If you're small, you probably don't have an HR department, so managing a 401(k) yourself would likely be overly burdensome.  Outsourcing this to a company which handles HR for you (maybe running payroll, etc. also), would be the best option.  Barring that, I'd try calling a large financial institution (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) for clear guidance.
The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.
Your Simple IRA account is yours and yours alone, not your employer's. The only thing your employer can do with it is putting more money into it. The best option is to simple let it sit for the two years, and then either:
To determine how much you can contribute to a regular and roth IRA you have to calculate your compensation: What Is Compensation?  Generally, compensation is what you earn from   working. For a summary of what compensation does and does not include,   see Table 1-1. Compensation includes all of the items discussed next   (even if you have more than one type).Wages, salaries, etc. Wages,   salaries, tips, professional fees, bonuses, and other amounts you   receive for provid-ing personal services are compensation. The IRS   treats as compensation any amount properly shown in box 1 (Wages,   tips, other compensation) of Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement,   provided that amount is reduced by any amount properly shown in box 11   (Nonqualified plans). Scholarship and fellowship payments are   compen-sation for IRA purposes only if shown in box 1 of Form   W-2. It a also includes commissions, self-employment income, and alimony an non-taxable combat pay. For most people it is what i in box 1 of the W-2. For the example in the question. If the sum of Box 1's equals $3,200 that is the maximum you can contribute to all your IRAs (regular and Roth). The funds can come from anywhere. It is not related to your net check. The money can be from savings, gifts, parents, grandparents... The IRS doesn't care about the source of the funds, only that you don't over contribute. Of course the calculation is more complex if the person is married, and if they have access to a retirement account.
"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically ""I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains"", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter."
"What are reasonable administrative fees for an IRA? was recently discussed here. My answer was zero.  An IRA is not an investment, it's a container representing the tax status of an account. Once you decide what to actually invest it in, you'll likely incur additional fees. Mutual funds, for instance can range from .05% per year to 2.00% or more. In your case, you are telling us you are spending 2% per year even before you decide what to invest in.  The real question I'd like to see answered is ""what value can an advisor bring to one's retirement account to deserve a 2%/year fee?""  My final thought - most financial types had been suggesting that a retiree can target a 4% per year withdrawal after retiring. This rule of thumb has been debated since the lost decade of 2000-2009, and the safe number may be lower. If an advisor is taking 2% off the top, you are basically sharing half your income with him. A million dollar IRA, you get $20K, he gets $20K?"
People will save the money in ira's so it is taxed now instead of later. They don't care about the people at all or the economy in the long run. It is a way to make the economy look like it is growing now, regardless of any long term problem that causes.
Investment baking is a financial organization which would underwrite for government sectors and corporations that would issue securities like bonds and treasury bills.Apart from these, they also offer services to companies and individual clients in matters of financial solutions, advisory services.