vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You can't just move money out at will because of IRS rules for the account. However, you do seem to qualify for hardship.  &gt; I investigated a hardship withdrawal, the amount I would be allowed to withdraw was $75.00  You need to look into this more. Normally with a hardship withdrawl, you can pull out what you need. Ask your HR why it is you have a $75.00 limit. We really can't answer.  Also, this question is really for /r/personalfinance . This subreddit is about investing.
"You didn't have a situation of ""excess contribution"". If you have proof that someone in Fidelity actually told you what you said, you might try to recover some of your losses through a lawsuit. However, their first (and main) defense would be that they're not in the business of providing tax advice, and it is your problem that you asked random person a tax question, and then acted on an incorrect answer. By the way, that only goes to say that anything you might read here you should, as well, take with a grain of salt. The only one who can give you a tax advice is a licensed tax professional. I explained it in details in my blog post, but in short - it is either an EA (Enrolled Agent, with the IRS credentials), or a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or Attorney licensed in your State. Back to your question - ""Excess Contribution"" to a IRA is when you contribute in excess to the limits imposed. For Traditional IRA in 2012 the limit was $5000. You contributed $4000 - this means that you were not in excess. There's nothing they can ""correct"", the 1099-R you got seems to be correct and in order. What you did have was a case of non-deductible contribution. Non-deductible contribution to your IRA should have been reported to the IRS on form 8606. Non-deductible contribution creates basis in your IRA. Withdrawals from your IRA are prorated to the relation of your basis to your total value, and the taxable amount is determined based on that rate. It is, also, calculated using form 8606. So in short - you should have filed a form 8606 with your 2012 tax return declaring non-deductible IRA and creating $4000 basis, and then form 8606 with your 2013 tax return calculating which portion of the $4000 you withdrew is non-taxable. If your total IRA (in all accounts) was that $4000 - then nothing would be taxable. Talk to a tax adviser, you might need to amend your 2012 return (or send the 2012 form separately, if possible), and then do some math on your 2013 return. If 60 days haven't passed, you might want to consider depositing the $4000 in a Roth IRA and perform what is called ""Conversion""."
If there were no contribution limits, you could shelter practically all of your income from income tax. The government would not have sufficient tax revenue. Hence, there are limits which ensure some personal income remains taxable today. Similarly, when you retire, there are rules for minimum required distributions (withdrawals) which ensure the government gets to tax some of your income each year in your retirement, depending on the account type. One other advantage of limits is to encourage people to approach saving for retirement using regular, ongoing contributions made in the context of each year's limit. The limit, in a sense, can be a form of guidance. Some aim to contribute to the limit, and some even save beyond it using plain taxable investments.
I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can   not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and   subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any   conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert   just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the   backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may   not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you   need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA   contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you   if the 401(k) has poor investment options).
How do I direct deposit my paycheck into a high yield financial vehicle, like lottery tickets? And can I roll over my winnings into more lottery tickets? I want to wait until I have a few billion before touching it, maybe in a year or two.
"As JoeTaxpayer says, ""It's a very rare circumstance where an early 401(k) withdrawal actually makes any real economic sense."" Your statements that one year's salary for you is $60K and the combination of your spouse's income and yours puts you into the highest income tax bracket together lead to the conclusion that your spouse's income is considerably higher than yours. If this income will continue past your death (e.g. you two are not in a joint venture that will collapse when you pass away because she cannot do the work by herself), then it is very definitely to your joint advantage to leave your money in a tax-deferred account for as long as possible. Her income should be enough to cover the mortgage payments.  Also, rather than take the money out and paying taxes at a high rate right now, your  spouse can roll over the 401k money into an IRA and withdraw only small amounts per year, paying taxes spread over the years rather than in a lump sum."
Separate from some of the other considerations such as the legality, it is likely going to be worth your will if you employer has company matching even if you have to pay the early withdraw penalty because the matching funds from your employer can be viewed as gains on the money deposited. For example, using round numbers to make the math easy: No 401(k) Deposit With 401(k) Deposit So as you can see there is a benefit to deferring some of the earnings to the 401(k) account due to the employer matching but the actual dollar amount that you would be able to take home will be different based upon your own circumstances. Depending upon what the take home would be at the end of the day the percentage return may or may not be worth the time involved with doing the paperwork. However, all of this only applies if you have to pull the money out early as once you hit 59.5 years old you can start withdrawing the money without the tax penalty in which case the returns on your initial deposit will be much more.
"Hah!  Edit: to elaborate, markets are closed. Unless your firm made a bunch of moves before EOD Friday, there's very little they can do to avoid the bloodshed (if there is any after the vote on Sunday) come Monday morning. Not to mention most 401k funds have contractual limits placed on them in terms of how much they can do in terms of buy/sell actions in a given window of time - usually that's a good protection, however in ""outlier"" occurrences it's a really, really bad thing.  Now, if you're in it for the long haul (in your 20s-early 30s) it's no big deal (yes, you'd be better off in a panic if you divested, but short-term drops are somewhat built into the long-term model). If you're about to retire I'd be really, really nervous."
You should fund the 401(k) and get the 4% matching because it's free money. When you leave the US, patience is a virtue to get the money penalty-free: Or you can take the 10% penalty and take out the money all at once. You'll still owe income tax in either case, something to keep in mind if an early withdrawal would put you into a higher tax bracket. Also see this article: Can Foreigners Withdraw 401(k) Funds Early? Another thing to keep in mind is that you never know what might happen -- you could fall in love with the US (or someone in the US, [smiley face]), apply for residency, decide to stay a long time, and that 401(k) with the 4% matching might turn out to have been a very nice thing when you retire.
"Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis.  I've seen people choose the ""sure thing"" prepayment VS the ""risky"" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up.  2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a ""pre-pay vs invest"" question."
Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college.  Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts.  Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income.  With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal.  This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement.  It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need.  Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere?  Could a relative loan you money?  Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash?  Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same?  Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash?  Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation?  Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there.  Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.
No. Few reasons.   1) You'll pay a penalty (tax) if you liquidate your 401k. 2) Instead of using your 401k, adjust your monthly budget and live frugal for some time. 3) Look for 0% balance transfer offers and transfer debt to that so you'll be able to reduce interest accumulation.  4) 401k is your savings, one of many I hope, keep that as is and don't touch it. 5) Sell things that you don't need and pay it towards the credit card  6) Do an analysis of your spending and figure out how you got to 21k.
I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match.  Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.
The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended. To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now. (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet. The second is purely cash flow, in which case one might justify a higher rate, and going from 15 to 30 years, but freeing up cash that can be better deployed. Even though the rate goes up say 1/2%, the payment drops due to the term. Take that savings and deposit to a matched 401(k) and the numbers may work out very well. I offer this to explain why the math above may not be consistent with other answers of mine.)
I would advise to never cash out retirement funds unless you're actually retired, or in case of an extreme emergency. Not only because of the huge tax bill that you'd incur (as @Rick mentioned - in addition to your top bracket rate - add 10%), but also because you will never be able to recover from the loss. Your current retirement fund is the one that will compound the most. By the time you deposit the same amounts you're thinking of withdrawing now, the compound effect would have grown the original amount further. By the time you could catch up - it would compound further. You will never be able to repair the damage of early withdrawal at this stage. Consider this calculation (lets say you worked for 10 years out of 40 years of your career path, and have $1K to deposit a year, for ease of computation): Essentially, by withdrawing now, you'll reduce your retirement savings by about 50% in thirty years from now. How much is that 6% interest on your student loan? I seriously doubt its worth it.
"In general taking money out of a 401k to repay a loan is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  Taxes and penalties if you are under 59 and 1/2 you will pay a 10% penalty on withdrawals from a traditional 401k plan. Then you are going add the amount you withdraw to your income in determining your current tax bill. If you make a large withdrawal you will likely push yourself into a higher tax bracket and will end up paying additional taxes than if you made several smaller withdrawals or waited until retirement when your income would presumably be lower. Taxes and penalties will mean you will need to withdraw ~225k in order to pay taxes and penalties while still having 150k to pay toward the mortgage (this assumes you are single and have no other income). You miss out on the growth your 401k could have had.  Lack of diversification the average person has the majority of their net worth tied up in their home and by paying off your mortgage you are putting even more of your money into residential real estate. By moving money from a 401k to your personal residence you could also lose some protection from creditors and lawsuits. Retirement accounts are generally off limits to creditors where as your house is limited by the homestead exemption (varies greatly from state to state). There are a few times when it might makes sense to use 401k money to pay off a mortgage. If you are older than 59.5 and have little tolerance for risk it might make sense to take the amount of money between your current income and the next higher tax bracket and ""invest"" the money in your mortgage each year. You would still want to avoid taking out a large chunk at one time though to avoid pushing yourself into a much higher tax bracket."
I'm going to assume that the 401K is not a Roth.  If that's the case, no, you should not withdraw from your 401K to pay off your mortgage. You will pay taxes on the withdrawal as if it is income, and that loss will far exceed the 6% you are paying in interest on the mortgage (which is deductable, so may actually be less than 6% all things considered). The calculation is really more complicated, but in general, this sounds like a bad idea.
Definitely don't borrow from your 401K.  If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost.  The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year.   As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate?  You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are).  When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property?  Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future?   You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years).  In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term).   I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.
I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments.  Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal.  You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose.  You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils.   The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice.  My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster.
Ok. I'll ask - Does the job offer a 401(k)? Matching deposits? You see, the answers given depend on your risk tolerance. There are two schools of thought, one extreme will tell you not to start investing until you have the emergency fund set up, the other, start from day one. I accept there are pros and cons to either approach.  But - if you have access to a matched 401(k), even a conservative, risk-adverse approach might agree that a 100% match (on the first say 5% of your income) is preferable to saving in a low return emergency fund. If the emergency occurs, a low interest loan for the need is a cheap way out. Since the money goes in pre-tax and is matched, being able to borrow out half (IRS rules) effectively lets you borrow more than you deposited out of pocket. And the word emergency implies a low occurrence event. Deposit to the match and start the emergency fund in another account.  If no matched 401(k) at work, the other two answers are great.  Edit - To clarify, and answer a comment below - say the risk isn't just a money emergency, but job loss. $1000 deposited to the 401(k) cost $850 out of pocket, assuming 15% bracket. After the match, it's $2000. After the job loss, if this is withdrawn, if the 15% still applies (it may be 10% or even 0%) the net is $1700 less the 10% penalty, or $1500 back in your pocket.  There are those who will say they are just not comfortable running an emergency account so lean, I understand that. For the OP here, $800/mo is nearly $10,000 per year. If even half of that can be deposited pre-tax and matched, the account will grow very quickly and there would still be cash on the side.
One additional note related to Roth vs regular: for a regular 401k or IRA, you pay the 10% penalty on any withdrawal.  For a Roth, you can withdraw the contributions early (but not the earnings) without any penalty or tax. Of course, if this is a retirement account it's better to leave it that way.  Personally it's one reason I avoid Roth - in addition to probably being in a higher bracket now, I also would prefer not to be able to touch my money.  But for some there could be advantages in having that ability (such as in an emergency).
I like the way you framed this question. There is no single right answer for what to do with your savings, but there are some choices that are wrong in the sense that they are dominated by other choices you could make. Of the choices you listed, there are two that fall into that category. The ones that seem like a bad idea to me are: Putting it into your Roth 401(k). You can't do this directly anyhow, but you could do it indirectly by increasing your contributions and using the growth fund to cover the hole in your budget, but that's a lot of work for a relatively small gain. You would essentially be exchanging one long-term investment for another long-term investment. You would pay capital gains taxes on the investment when you sell it today, in order to not pay taxes on its earnings when you eventually withdraw it. There is some benefit there, but it's a long way off, not that large, and probably not worth the effort. Things that might change your mind: If your 401(k) was a traditional 401(k) (paying tax at capital gains rate today to get a deduction at your normal income rate is likely to be a win). You're not contributing enough to get the full company match (always try to get that match if you can). Putting it into your emergency fund. Once again, you are likely to pay capital gains tax if you do this, and you will be putting it into an investment that is likely to get a lower return than your current one. It isn't really necessary to incur these costs, since if you encounter an emergency that you can't cover with your existing emergency fund, you could always liquidate the growth fund then, when you know you need it. Now, a growth fund is going to be more volatile than what you would normally want for an emergency fund, but the risk isn't that bad, if you think about it. Say your emergency comes up and you find that the growth fund is down 20% (which would be a pretty horrible run). That's $600 less that you have to deal with the situation. Keep in mind that you already have $2000 (and building) in your current emergency fund.
"If my wife and I tried this, we'd call it grounds for divorce. However, I think most long term couples actually do this, and it is just a budget.  It is common practice for two spouses to deposit money into a single checking account.  All of the household expenses are then paid from that single account.  Same as you describe: if I spend money from the joint checking that is less money available to my wife. Based on your dollar amount, I'd have to say great work on thinking about saving early on in life.  I think though, if you are actually starting out, getting into the habit of saving a ""dime of every dollar"" would be more beneficial. At some point your income will increase, and when it does so should your savings.  By ""paying yourself first"" your savings will keep pace with your spending and you will be a happier person when you income starts to fall again."
Unless you have an actual hardship (bankruptcy or other emergency), you will be better off leaving that money alone. This excellent answer, gives more than enough reasons why a withdrawal or loan is not recommended.  I would love some advice because I need to know if I should contribute more into my 401k or less. If your priority to purchase is high enough, it may be worth considering stopping 401k contributions for a short time to help pile up a down payment.  I also encourage you to consider that if you cannot pool the money from non-retirement sources, then you cannot afford that much house at this time. This might mean looking for cheaper houses or delaying purchase for a number of years.