Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by Joe Louis, Jul 12, 2010.
I have. It’s better assuming tax rates stay consistent.
Depends entirely on your tax bracket now and in the future. You can’t possibly know.
Exactly the point. No one knows what the future tax rates are going to do but if you assume you make the same amount now as you will in the future and that tax rates stay constant, the Roth is a better option because you can contribute more.
That’s the only point I’m trying to make with this.
That’s fair. Personally, I’m banking on my tax bracket being much higher in my peak earnings years than in retirement.
I don’t disagree which is why close to 60-70% of my tax advantaged stuff is in traditional. That being said, unless you’re a fortune teller it’s always a good idea to have some diversification in your portfolio.
That’s not true, I contribute whatever I want to my SEP based on the wages I pay myself. That far exceeds what a Roth can do
Cool but that’s not what we are talking about here.
It’s in the context of your original point
There are so many factors that go into determining what the best approach is. People who will be straight W-2 for life it's a little easier (but far from straight forward). Small business owners have a lot of room to really set themselves up well or totally fuck themselves, just need a CPA and/or CFP on your side who can advise.
In general though it's hard to argue against having a mix of pre-tax and post-tax pools to draw from. Lots of bracket manipulation opportunities exist.
I don't think he understands time value of money and tax brackets
I thought this video was really good for helping to choose between tax-deferred and Roth.
Basically, what’s your marginal tax rate now and what will be your effective tax rate in retirement? That should help someone choose which route to go.
Anyone have an HSA (or advice on them) and use it as a tax deferral retirement account of sorts? I guess I didn’t realize my new employer offers this (thought it was FSA) and I’ve been contributing a minuscule amount to it.
I’m going to be into the 30% brackets this year and am looking for ways beyond maxing out my 401k contribution to defer some taxes. I have a long term medical condition so this feels quite appealing but not sure what I should look out for here.
great option if you don't have many medical expenses and are cool being in a high deductible plan
Thanks, edited my post because I was wrong about my options. Gonna put the post back even though I’m a dumbass.
Yes, they're very good since they are triple tax advantaged. You can also just pay for medical expenses as normal and not use the HSA and let it build up. Just save your receipts, and if you need the money, you can then get the money out equal to the receipts, similar to an emergency fund.
Does your HSA have a minimum for the cash account? Mine is $2k. Im guessing that’s normal?.
mine has this also
think its mandated
My HRA cannot be accessed but for medical bills.
“I’d like access to the money and I am fine with paying a penalty and taxes.”
“You cannot use funds accept for medical expenses.”
Any other account for an emergency fund would be advised. Medical expenses? None better.
If you have a high deductible health plan, HSA is a must. At worst, it’s an IRA during retirement. At best, it’s tax-free money for health expenses now and in retirement. I max mine every year. It’s not nearly as valuable to your heirs as an IRA, though, so optimally you use it up before you die for all health expenses and secondarily as a tax-deferred retirement money similar to 401k or IRA.
I know. You save your medical receipts but don't pay using the HSA. At a later time, you can then submit all of the receipts at once and get all of the money equal to the sum of the receipts out of the HSA, if you want. Or you don't bother and let it build over the years.
i just bought some BYND calls going into earnings in 5 minutes.
how much am i going to lose?
-24 cents a share compared to -.08 expected
So a bit?
they raised full year guidance on revenue. looks like it's pretty flat.
I don't touch my HSA (barring a major medical issue). Max it out every year. Save that shit.
What'd you buy at? I imagine like 230 ish?
haha yeah the secondary offering is no bueno
I bought some MDR puts right before closing (down 27% in after hours)
And I sold my MYL calls today for 110% gainz
BYND throwing out a secondary like all the shitty biotechs that I used to let burn me
Just realized that my company’s service contribution (in addition to their 6% match) went up from 2% to 3% for me a few weeks ago based on my years with the company.
I’m moving up to 3% from 2% this year as well based on service years
I moved up from 5% to 6% in my cash balance this year for service years.
Congress Has a Dangerous Idea for Your 401(k)
BloombergJuly 29, 2019, 11:00 AM UTC
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Saving for retirement can be a perilous endeavor in the U.S., thanks in part to the Trump administration’s moves to weaken safeguards against unscrupulous sellers of financial products. Now Congress is poised to make things worse -- by undermining protections governing the country’s most popular investment vehicle, the 401(k) plan.
Named after a once-obscure 1978 provision in the tax code, the 401(k) allows people to set up retirement-savings accounts through their employers, with income taxes deferred until the money is withdrawn. Employers and their chosen administrators assume fiduciary responsibility for the plans, meaning that they’re supposed to offer a menu of sensible investment options. Ideally, these include low-fee mutual funds, sometimes targeting a specific retirement date.
Amid growing concern about the number of people financially unprepared for retirement, Congress is considering tweaking how the 401(k) works. The overall intent of the relevant bipartisan legislation, known as the SECURE Act in the House and RESA in the Senate, seems admirable: Encourage people to save more. Among other provisions, the bills could help small employers band together to create efficient 401(k)s, and increase age limits for contributions to tax-deferred accounts.
Yet the bills also seek to encourage a currently rare option in 401(k) plans: annuities. In principle, this could be wonderful, if the bills permitted only true annuities -- that is, investments that pay a guaranteed, fixed sum of money each year -- and if the fees they charged savers were kept in check. Unfortunately, neither is the case.
Many annuities sold in the U.S. are complicated, overpriced products with payments determined by sometimes deceptive formulas that even sophisticated investors struggle to understand. Worse, the legislation specifically frees 401(k) providers from any hard obligation to pick the lowest cost products, allowing them wide leeway to consider a range of factors. That’s startling, given that excessive cost is the single greatest critique leveled against both 401(k) plans and many forms of annuities.
Granted, it’s possible that 401(k) providers will work with insurance companies to offer annuities with genuinely transparent, predictable streams of retirement income. The providers’ fiduciary duty should hold them to a higher standard than the insurance agents who typically peddle the worst products. Yet given 401(k) plans’ mediocre track record, coupled with the insurance industry’s long track record of selling inappropriate products, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Why would legislators expose savers to such risks? I won’t speculate, but I will note one potentially relevant fact: Over the past 30 years, according to OpenSecrets.org, people and entities associated with three organizations -- Mass Mutual Life Insurance, FMR (the parent company of Fidelity Investments) and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors -- have collectively been the largest donors to Congressman Richard Neal, who introduced the legislation in the House.
Congress should make substantive fixes before it sends the legislation to President Trump’s desk. Specifically, limit the “safe harbor” that shields 401(k) providers from liability, making it apply only to true fixed annuities. Explicitly place the burden of proof on fiduciaries to justify any inclusion of a higher-cost investment option in a 401(k). Lastly, require plan fiduciaries to evaluate and justify the expected returns on annuities and other proposed investment options compared with low-cost bond and equity index funds.
Otherwise, instead of helping secure Americans’ retirements, Congress could end up making them even more vulnerable.
Do you have kids? Just curious how often you're at the doctor, etc. I'm assuming you just pay out of pocket for any general visits?
I have a less than one year old. I have a pre ACA high deductible for me that I can't add anyone to without jacking up my premium so my son has his own policy
How many doctor's visits would you say you typically have in a given year (especially now with a < 1 year old)? Just curious what your out of pocket looks like in a given year.
sold for 533% profit
We've been lucky that the only visits have been scheduled checkup for shots, so every 2 months or so. I'm not sure what those cost for him since his plan is a hmo and he met his deductible being born.
The haters are going to be very mad when BYND closes at like 215
Broke to $204.5 before heading back down
Which calls do you own?
The ones I bought yesterday I don’t want to talk about :(
This morning I bought some $220s that expire Friday for $2
got up to 217 and now back between 206-209
there is like a 10% chance this thing closes green after being down 17% at the open
about the same chance beyond meat is still a company in ten years
bought PRTY $10 calls expiring January
it was a lot more fun when BYND was at 214 than at 204 an hour later
What is the price now GK it's been 33 minutes without an update