vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
e.g. convert to a taxable income of exactly $137,300, and pay a marginal rate of 25%. I'll be the first to congratulate those who tell me they have a defined benefit pension that will replace their income to such a level, that with their investments, they are retiring at a higher income level than while working. Roth is the answer for them. Roth is great for the 80 yr old woman I help. 10 years ago, I observed her marginal rate to be 15%, and we convert just enough to put her at the top of that bracket, this year $34,000 in taxable income. This helps slow down the effect of her RMDs (required minimum distributions) continuing to rise and potentially put her in the 25% bracket. So, to be clear, I'm not anti-Roth, I'm just in favor of a thorough analysis and avoiding the ""Roth for everyone"" mentality. Edit - I was asked by a financial writer Kay Bell to write on this very topic, and appear on her site in a guest post Roth IRAs and your retirement income. It goes into greater detail than I could offer here. Tell Kay Joe sent you."
Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages. That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc. As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800. That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement. In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k. In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters). So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821. You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income. [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now.
If you're a Canadian resident then yes, it is taxable to you. The islands don't have income taxes on income earned there, but your country does. If you lose your Canadian residency and move to live in these islands, then the answer may change.
As for income tax purposes, dg99's answer is correct. The entire amount that is converted is post-tax (you had to pay tax on any pre-tax amounts upon conversion), so you do not pay tax on it when you withdraw it in a non-qualified distribution, similar to with contributions. However, there's another, perhaps more important, consideration here -- the early withdrawal penalty for non-qualified distributions from Roth IRA. For non-qualified distributions of contributions, there is never an early withdrawal penalty. For non-qualified distributions of rollovers and conversions, there is an early withdrawal penalty if withdrawn within 5 years of the rollover or conversion, but only on the part of the rollover or conversion that was taxable during the conversion. So if you want to withdraw within 5 years of the conversion, then it works differently from direct contributions. Because contributions and conversions have different treatment for the penalty, the ordering between them matters too. Contributions are always withdrawn before rollovers and conversions (a later contribution still comes before an earlier rollover or conversion). But within rollovers and conversions, they are ordered by year (an earlier rollover or conversion comes before a later one), and within a year, the taxable part is ordered before the non-taxable part.
(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying.  If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)
I would look at it as more of a balance in general assuming you have the ability to contribute pre or post tax money and you expect your retirement tax rate to be about the same. Pre-tax money gives you flexibility of withdrawal during retirement. Say one year you have unusually high expenses you can pull money from your taxed accounts until you hit the top of your target tax bracket and then pull the rest out of already taxed accounts. Note that if you have the same tax rate today as when you retire. The traditional account will net you slightly more money, but not a huge amount.
"Changes in graduated income tax rates don't necessarily drive how you should allocate money to a Traditional vs Roth account (true for both IRA or 401k). What does drive this decision is what your income tax rate is now compared to what you believe your rate will be when you retire. So, if you expect the tax rate change to still be in effect when you retire, it doesn't matter if the change is a tax increase or decrease; your previous allocation could likely remain the same. This means that if Congress passed the change effective immediately, it would be too late for you to make a meaningful adjustment. But if Congress passes the change effective next year, then most likely your tax rate will decrease for next year, meaning you are probably better off switching all Roth allocations to Traditional, and then switching them back to whatever allocations you have now for next year. The reverse would be true if you knew about an upcoming tax increase (in which case you would load up Roth this year and then switch back to whatever you had for next year). That being said, regarding after the fact reallocation considerations, I suppose it would be fair to say that if the country is accustomed to a higher tax rate, and then rates are dropped, if spending is not cut to make up for it, then rates would likely have to go up again in the future to make up the difference. If you believe that will happen then Roths would become a little more attractive since rates would be lower than what you expect them to be when you retire. As a side note, if you ever had reason to believe that Congress was going to move away from the ""graduated income tax"" structure, all bets are off. For example if the income tax was replaced with a tax on spending such as the FairTax, then in the interim period Roths would become worthless and you'd want to switch to Traditionals until the change went into effect. (And then once in effect both Roths and Traditionals would be pointless.)"
Go with a TFSA before RRSP unless your wages put you in the top two tax brackets.  The promise that your tax rates will be lower in retirement is just a sales pitch.  You can see how this plays out with your own assumptions using the spreadsheet at http://www.retailinvestor.org/SaveInRRSPorTFSA.xls There are long list of differences between the accounts (see http://www.retailinvestor.org/rrsp.html#tfsa) but most all come down on the side of the TFSA unless you are a high roller.
If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.
There is no segregation of amounts that you have in Rollover (Traditional) IRAs when it comes to figuring out how much of your basis is being converted from  your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.   So, yes, you will lose the benefit of being able to make nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA each year and rolling them over into a Roth IRA without tax consequences. Since your  401k amount may be  substantially more than the $5K basis you create each year, converting the 401k amount into a Traditional IRA will mean that most of the money converted to the Roth IRA is pre-tax money, and so you end up paying tax on most of the converted amount.
Registered Retirement Savings Plans allow you to contribute money based on your employment income accrued over your lifetime in Canada. The contributions are deducted from your taxable income in the year you make them. When you withdraw money from your RRSP, the amount you withdraw gets added as additional income in that year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in an RRSP, and get a $5k deduction from your taxable income this year. The investments grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k next year. Your taxable income increases by $6k [note that if the investments were held 'normally' {outside of an RRSP}, you would have a taxable gain of only 50% of the total gain; but withdrawing the amount from your RRSP makes the gain 100% taxable]. On January 1st next year, you CANNOT recontribute this amount. Once withdrawn, it cannot be recontributed [except for below items]. RRSP's are good for long-term investing for retirement. There are a few factors at play here: (1) you get an immediate tax deduction, thus increasing the original size of investment by deferring tax to the withdrawal date; (2) your investments compound tax-free [you only pay tax at the end when you withdraw, not annually on earnings]; and (3) many people expect that they will have a lower tax-rate when they retire, than they do today. Some warnings about RRSP's: (1) They are less liquid than TFSA's; you can't put money in, take it out, and put it in again. In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?]
You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire.
Didn't see it mentioned so far, but depending on modified AGI you may be prevented from a tax deduction for your contribution to a Traditional IRA if you or your spouse are offered a retirement plan at work, even if you don't participate in it.  See the IRS page here for the details of deduction limitability: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work In my opinion, because I heavily favor all the benefits of the Roth, I'd contribute first to a Roth IRA and then to the Roth 401(k).   The former first because it puts the money in a place where you have more control over fees and how it is invested.   The latter because the contribution limits are much higher than the IRA, and the money grows tax-free and incurs no taxes on withdrawal.
@JoeTaxpayer's answer outlines how to value it. Some other considerations: As I understand it, some public pensions may be tax-free if you still live in the state that is paying the pension. E.g. when a Massachusetts teacher receives pension, it is exempt from state taxes, but if that person moves to Vermont he will have to pay Vermont income tax on those payments. So if you plan to stay in the state post-retirement, this provides additional value. Pension payments aren't fully guaranteed by the PBGC. And not all pension plans are fully funded. Depending on the political and economic environment when you hit retirement, your retirement plan could suffer. (And if you aren't working, you may not have a union vote any more when the other working members are voting on contract amendments that affect pensions.) I'm not certain of all of the rules, but I hear news reports from time to time that formulas like what you've posted in the original question are changed through negotiation with the union. If you make an employment decision using the formula in year X and then the formula changes in year X+10, your expected pension payment will change.
401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you.
@Victor above has provided a very good answer, I shall try and highlight some differences. The differences are specific to a country, however, it does offer some insight regarding the difference between investing in retirement fund vis-a-vis investing in stock directly: In many countries the retirement fund is mandated by the govt. and has to be invested in (in form of direct deduction from salary) ~ Investing in stock is up to the individual In many cases (if not most) capital gain/interest accrual in retirement funds are not taxable ~ Depending upon current laws capital gain (long term/short term) from stocks are taxable Retirement funds are managed and are (in general) more stable in their returns ~ Returns from direct stock investments are dependent on investment decisions of the investor Retirement funds tend to, (though this is very country specific) return somewhat less than market, as an example, in India Public Provident Fund (PPF)/Employee Provident Fund (EPF) return 8.68% tax free ~ As for direct investment on stocks, Nifty has returned approx. 17% CAGR over 15-20 years. Given the above, if you can invest in stock by taking informed calls and you have a good understanding of the financial markets and their underpinning and (probably) looking at long term investment, then investing directly in stock could fetch returns that might not be paralled by retirement funds. If on the other hand, if you feel investing in stock is not for you, then it probably is better to stick with retirement funds and other low risk investments. Either way, you probably have to (and may be you should) carry some portion of your portfolio as retirement funds.
Yes, it really will hurt you to keep pulling your money from your IRA. Your best bet is to set up a payment plan with the IRS, and pay the taxes you owe now, as well as adjust your withholding (with a new W-4 to your payroll department) so that you don't have a large tax liability next year. These tax advantaged plans really are designed to penalize you if you pull the money out early to give you incentive to keep the money for retirement. Your best bet is to make a monthly budget that includes your tax payments for taxes owed this year, as well as higher deductions from your paycheck to properly withhold taxes for next year.
You will owe tax on all but the deposit that was not taxed.  e.g. You deposited $5000/yr for 3 years, and deducted $5K for each of 2 years (the third $5K  deposit was a nondeductible IRA contribution which you reported to the IRS by filing Form 8606 with your tax return for that year). Now you convert the total balance of $18K ($15K of contributions plus $3K of interest/gains). In this case, $5K is not taxable income while the $13K is taxable income. This calculation is done on Form 8606 for the year of the rollover. Edit in response to OP's comment. The Roth conversion is text based on the value of a day it was  converted. One thing to be aware of is that you can re-characterize up until the time you file your taxes for 2017 in April 2018 (or with extension up until October).  This offers you the opportunity to undo the conversion if for whatever reason the value is lower at the time you do your taxes or if the converted amount will put you into a higher tax bracket. You don't need to give the IRS a reason, it's up to your discretion. As Dave note in a comment, the conversion isn't all or none. The recharacterization, along with this fact, help you to fine tune exactly how much in converted in hindsight.
"Your premise is false.  When you withdraw money from a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), there is no tax due.  Yes, you can read that again:  withdrawals from a TFSA are tax free.  They are labeled ""tax free"" for a good reason!  After-tax money is deposited, and then from that point forward, no tax, no tax, no tax.  :-) On a ""normal"", non-registered investment or savings account with no special treatment, your investment earnings will be taxed whenever gains are realized or income received (e.g. dividends or interest).  You will necessarily have less in a normal non-registered investment or savings account compared to a TFSA, as long as the rate of return was positive, i.e. growing. Perhaps you were thinking not of comparing a regular investment account to a TFSA, but rather to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP)? In the case of an RRSP, there is an up-front tax deduction, then earnings grow tax-deferred, and then on withdrawal, income tax is paid at regular rates.  Even then, with RRSPs, if your marginal tax rate remains the same over time (not necessarily a reasonable assumption, but let's go with it) then you should still realize more after-tax income from your RRSP than from a normal non-registered investment or savings account.  (Though, there's likely an exception case when most income came as qualified dividends and the capital itself hasn't appreciated.)"
As fennec mentioned, it is about your tax rate today vs your tax rate when you retire. One of the big issues is whether you have a lot of tax deductions today that will disappear when you retire, which is likely.  These include dependents (aka kids) and your home mortgage. For a person with kids and a mortgage, it seems likely that the Roth would be beneficial.   If you do not have a lot of deductions, you might be ok with the regular 401k to help reduce your tax burden today.
"Regarding tax deferred retirement plans you said:  ""In fact, I would dare say that in most cases, people end up paying more in taxes, because they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG.""  And that's totally wrong.  Maybe you should re-read my post because I in no way agree with that.  The ordinary rate being higher than the LTCG rate was never in dispute.  That point isn't even relevant."
I think others have made the key points. Let me just add: As others have pointed out, the traditional IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is lower than it is when you are building the account. The Roth IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is higher. For most people, your income in retirement will be lower than your income in most of your working years. On top of that, a significant percentage of your income will come from Social Security, which is generally not taxed, and so the tax rate you pay on the remaining income will be lower still. If you're just starting out, if you're in your 20s, it's likely that your income will go up significantly in the next couple of decades and so you might be making more in retirement that you are now, and so the Roth is probably your better bet. But if you're in your 40s or 50s you are probably making your peak income, you will have much less in retirement, and the traditional IRA is likely better. If your income is well above average and you are saving enough to have a retirement income well above average, then social security may be a very small part of your retirement and my comments on that may not be relevant to you. It's true that tax rates could change in the future. But will they go up or down? It's also possible that the laws about retirement accounts will change. If you think you have some insight into what will happen in the future you may want to take that into account when making plans. But politics is very hard to predict.
I would say yes, it makes sense to keep some money in taxable accounts.  Retirement accounts are for retirement, and the various early withdrawal penalties are designed to enforce that.  If you're anticipating using the money before retirement (e.g., for home purchase), it makes sense to keep it out of retirement accounts. On the other hand, be aware that, regardless of what kind of account it is in, you face the usual risk/return tradeoff.  If you put your money in the S&P 500 and the S&P 500 tanks just before you were going to buy a house, your down payment evaporates and you will have to wait and buy a house later.  You can manage this by shifting the allocation of this money and perhaps cashing it out if a certain amount is gained (i.e., it grows to the level of your target down payment) and you are close enough to the house purchase time that you don't want to risk it anymore. Basically, if you invest money for a pre-retirement use, you may want to keep it in a taxable account, but you also need to take account of when you'll need it and manage the risk accordingly.