rivermobster
Club Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 56,558
- Reaction score
- 53,933
Yes? No? Maybe so?
Thanks.
Thanks.
If you have a match ya maybe. But do the Roth if you have the option.
Its RDP. Everyone is a "financial advisor" on here! lol
I thought ROTH was 5000 max per yearIf you have a match ya maybe. But do the Roth if you have the option.
The money is ready and waiting to be taken advantage of. It's time.
I'm questioning where to move/re-invest what I have after a couple small withdrawals. Already discussed at the tax implications with Hamed.
The tax implications is why I don't like them period. That and tax deferred sux.
I thought ROTH was 5000 max per year
Its RDP. Everyone is a "financial advisor" on here! lol
IRA's got bumped up this year
"The annual contribution limit for 2019 is $6,000, or $7,000 if you're age 50 or older."
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plan...yee/retirement-topics-ira-contribution-limits
So why recommend ROTH over 401k?5,500 or 6,500 if over age 50.
I thought ROTH was 5000 max per year
not when contributing to a ROTH 401k. You can Max out your Roth 401k contribution up to 2019 limit of $19,000. Above that limit, you can contribute additional after-tax $$$, which you can convert to Roth (immediately or later). These additional after-tax contributions you convert to Roth, will require you to pay the state, fed, local taxes now on the conversion (as I understand it anyway).
So why recommend ROTH over 401k?
saving 5-6,500k a year isn’t jack shit.
Shouldn’t you max out 401k to take full advantage of employers match and then max out ROTH?
If someone can’t afford to max out the 401k no need to worry about ROTH.
If you only do ROTH you got big problems would you agree?
Would you rather pay taxes on 100 today or 10,000 in 30 years?
It depends on your tax situation and rate of returns honestly. If everything remains constant and your returns remain predictable sure paying today makes sense.... but we can’t tell the future.
Then factor in the tax paid on those contributions over your lifetime, and your higher taxable income, it can be closer to a wash than one might think.
No it isn't even close man.
It depends on many factors. I agree there are situations where you are absolutely right though.
In talking with my planner he makes a case for switching from one to another at certain ages/income levels.
Aight
Just fyi I have back tested and ran about 10,000 illustration models comparing 401K to the product I sell and it never comes even close. And that is assuming no market crashes which my product includes a 2% guaranteed floor. I won't discuss the product here because I don't really care to explain it.
Aight
Just fyi I have back tested and ran about 10,000 illustration models comparing 401K to the product I sell and it never comes even close. And that is assuming no market crashes which my product includes a 2% guaranteed floor. I won't discuss the product here because I don't really care to explain it.
Would you rather pay taxes on 100 today or 10,000 in 30 years?
I’m not sure why you’re so bent against investments other than the one you sell. Every time a 401k thread is started you post it categorically sucks and basically anyone putting their money in one is a fool. Then you push a product you sell (which has been posted in the past). There’s many ways to invest and some are good for certain people and vise versa. If you hate 401k’s why bother posting in a 401k thread?
A more accurate comparison is this, would you rather pay taxes on $100 today, or taxes on $100 in the future? If a person believes their tax liability is lower today, then invest after tax funds in the Roth structure.
If a person believes they will be in a lower tax structure in the future, then defer in a 401k.
Sounds like your your a financial analyst or maybe a financial advisor or do you sell new York life
So the 100 won't grow over the next 10,20,30 years?
Of course it will. For each $100 you withdraw, what is the tax liability? The pitch is that most people in retirement will be in a lower tax bracket because they are no longer receiving a paycheck. It is true for some and not true for others. That is why investment advice is very personal and situation specific.
Guess I won't be like most people. I plan on being in the same or higher tax bracket when I retire in a couple years. Having a 401 type pension fund for 38 years has helped.Of course it will. For each $100 you withdraw, what is the tax liability? The pitch is that most people in retirement will be in a lower tax bracket because they are no longer receiving a paycheck. It is true for some and not true for others. That is why investment advice is very personal and situation specific.
Correct
A couple of serious questions,I primarily sell life insurance and annuities. My wife and our other partners do managed money such as 401K's, Roth's, variable products, bonds, etc. Most of our clients have a number of these products working together.
Personally my primary product is IUL. I try and avoid it on the internet because it gets pointless fast. But the product when designed correct does this...
12-14 % cap
0 % guaranteed floor - with option to take 2.5 guaranteed.
71% probability it will average 8.3%
Access to loans at 3% charge annual. With positive arbitrage in yrs where the index goes over 3%.
Tax free loans for income.
Access to CV without penalty.
The biggest highlight is the fact you are sheltered form a market crash. Think of people relying on there 401K to retire in 2007. And of course the tax free income and compounding interest.
A couple of serious questions,
Would you recommend an IUL over a simple Term Life policy?
If so, why?
Do you feel everyone needs either an IUL or a Term Life policy or Both?
Do you feel some people don't need either?
Yes? No? Maybe so?
Thanks.
Thanks for your reply and honest opinion.Yes I do suggest it because it is an asset. Only 1% of term policies pay out so it has zero return on investment. But term policies with living benefits are awesome. That means if you have a critical or chronic illness you can access monies to pay for anything. But when we do IUL's we usually do it on the person with the cheapest cost of insurance. So for us my wife has the IUL and I have some GUL and term.
I feel anyone that has debts, kids, wife etc should have some form of life insurance. Permenant products always have a return on investment. The younger people do it the cheaper it is. I own a GUL on both my parents and as weird as it sounds it is part of my retirement....
I suppose people that don't have any debts or obligations in life don't need anything.
A GUL is a form of permenant life insurance that has zero accessible cash value. It is just a guaranteed death benefit.
Putting an IUL on a newborn for 100 a month can set the child up for life.
Personally my primary product is IUL. I try and avoid it on the internet because it gets pointless fast.
The tax implications is why I don't like them period. That and tax deferred sux.