Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Investing
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2016, 08:05 AM
 
26,191 posts, read 21,568,036 times
Reputation: 22772

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV View Post
I wish that people ( not you ) would say Roth IRA/Traditional IRA/Roth 401(k)/Traditional 401k(k) because when bouncing around the terms, it matters. RIRA TIRA R401k T401k would eliminate the ambiguity.
If they already have money in an IRA ( any kind ) they can contribute up to their limit in any year. I'm sure you know this, but as I read it, you are saying if they have an old TIRA then there is a limit to their TIRA or RIRA contribution, but there is none based on any old accounts. Since 99% of the people reading are not contributing, I want to make that clear.

From irs.gov The same general contribution limit applies to both Roth and traditional IRAs as does the income limit.

Traditional retirement accounts are a current year deduction from income.

Roth's are not deductible.

The contribution limits are the same. For instance, a 40-year-old can contribute $5,000 to an IRA if their employer doesn't offer a 401k. However, that could be $3,000 to a TIRA and $2,000 to a RIRA or any combination to make it to $5,000 ( or any lower total ).I think this is a personal decision. As long as the retirement-saver understands the difference today and at retirement, it doesn't matter.

I personally like the instant gratification of the current-year tax deduction, but that's ENTIRELY personal.

As for rolling over old IRAs and 401(k)s into current employer 401(k)s
( R or T -- must be the same type ),
that's a topic for a separate thread and doesn't belong here in this one.

If you are stating Ira or 401k those are industry standard for pretax and thus if you mean Roth or Roth 401k you are using the wrong terminology. The terms that should be used are

Ira
Roth IRA
401k
Roth 401k

You can add a T if you want but it's overly redundant and you should simply be using the above correctly

/psa
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2016, 09:37 AM
 
1,870 posts, read 1,900,404 times
Reputation: 1384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
The terms that should be used are

Ira
Roth IRA
401k
Roth 401k
I vote for what you said, as long as we enforce this. I've got a feeling I'll be quoting your post a lot.

Thanks for showing us ( me ) the Standard. I'll keep my 'T's' to myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2016, 10:06 AM
 
5,342 posts, read 6,164,572 times
Reputation: 4719
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV View Post
I wish that people ( not you ) would say Roth IRA/Traditional IRA/Roth 401(k)/Traditional 401k(k) because when bouncing around the terms, it matters. RIRA TIRA R401k T401k would eliminate the ambiguity.
If they already have money in an IRA ( any kind ) they can contribute up to their limit in any year. I'm sure you know this, but as I read it, you are saying if they have an old TIRA then there is a limit to their TIRA or RIRA contribution, but there is none based on any old accounts. Since 99% of the people reading are not contributing, I want to make that clear.

From irs.gov The same general contribution limit applies to both Roth and traditional IRAs as does the income limit.

Traditional retirement accounts are a current year deduction from income.

Roth's are not deductible.

The contribution limits are the same. For instance, a 40-year-old can contribute $5,000 to an IRA if their employer doesn't offer a 401k. However, that could be $3,000 to a TIRA and $2,000 to a RIRA or any combination to make it to $5,000 ( or any lower total ).

The same mix applies to Roth accounts of both types. Income limits and catch-ups are all the same.I think this is a personal decision. As long as the retirement-saver understands the difference today and at retirement, it doesn't matter.

I personally like the instant gratification of the current-year tax deduction, but that's ENTIRELY personal.

As for rolling over old IRAs and 401(k)s into current employer 401(k)s
( R or T -- must be the same type ),
that's a topic for a separate thread and doesn't belong here in this one.
Yes, I was referencing the backdoor Roth. lowexpectations mentioned what I was referring to on page 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
401k isn't a problem it's any Ira with pretax monies and then the conversion becomes prorata even if you have multiple accounts

Ira #1 55,000 pretax
Ira #2 5500 non deductible

Convert 5500 to Roth 91% of the conversion would be taxable
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Investing

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top