I used to not have any doubts about a Roth, but I’ve been considering that maybe it’s a little too much like giving the government a free loan. Do you know if there’s a thorough comparison anywhere between a traditional and Roth IRA that takes into consideration the opportunity cost of paying tax on the contributions?
Compound interest will far outweigh paying taxes now for a Roth. Especially if you also have a 401k, the taxes in retirement will be potentially large based on the growth of the fund over decades. A Roth makes it so you pay nominal taxes now for potential large tax free growth later.
The exception would be if you think your income will decrease in your later working years, in which case a traditional IRA could make more sense. That however is a unique case. Generally it’s better to take advantage of a Roth if you can for tax free gains later.
I understand how having a higher income and tax rate in retirement makes a Roth attractive. However, the comparisons I’ve seen don’t fully account for the opportunity cost of paying the taxes up front in the case of a Roth, since a traditional IRA lowers your taxable income by the amount you contribute. This tax break allows for a greater contribution. In other words, I think a fairer comparison would show a greater initial contribution for a traditional IRA.
The biggest question is, do you think your tax percentage will be higher now, or higher in the future? If you think your income might increase later (placing you in a higher tax bracket), or that the government might increase your tax burden later, then it’s better to pay taxes now.
That is a helpful comparison, but it assumes the same initial contribution. I think a better comparison would assume a higher initial contribution with a traditional IRA in order to account for the money being paid in taxes with Roth as being a missed opportunity. The money that went to taxes in the case of a Roth could have been additional investment in the the case of a traditional.
I used to not have any doubts about a Roth, but I’ve been considering that maybe it’s a little too much like giving the government a free loan. Do you know if there’s a thorough comparison anywhere between a traditional and Roth IRA that takes into consideration the opportunity cost of paying tax on the contributions?
Compound interest will far outweigh paying taxes now for a Roth. Especially if you also have a 401k, the taxes in retirement will be potentially large based on the growth of the fund over decades. A Roth makes it so you pay nominal taxes now for potential large tax free growth later.
The exception would be if you think your income will decrease in your later working years, in which case a traditional IRA could make more sense. That however is a unique case. Generally it’s better to take advantage of a Roth if you can for tax free gains later.
I understand how having a higher income and tax rate in retirement makes a Roth attractive. However, the comparisons I’ve seen don’t fully account for the opportunity cost of paying the taxes up front in the case of a Roth, since a traditional IRA lowers your taxable income by the amount you contribute. This tax break allows for a greater contribution. In other words, I think a fairer comparison would show a greater initial contribution for a traditional IRA.
Here’s a useful comparison.
The biggest question is, do you think your tax percentage will be higher now, or higher in the future? If you think your income might increase later (placing you in a higher tax bracket), or that the government might increase your tax burden later, then it’s better to pay taxes now.
That is a helpful comparison, but it assumes the same initial contribution. I think a better comparison would assume a higher initial contribution with a traditional IRA in order to account for the money being paid in taxes with Roth as being a missed opportunity. The money that went to taxes in the case of a Roth could have been additional investment in the the case of a traditional.