The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Honest IRA/Roth Comparisons||Date: 3/30/1998 9:18 PM|
|Author: tc001||Number: 2531 of 76082|
<<I doubt that you'd tell me that a family earning $40k (the *beginning* of the nondeductible phase-out range for 1997!) can't afford $2k for an IRA.
<Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. I think the data gathered by the US government bear me out.
$40,000 annual income, family of four.
Fed tax= $4,500 ($10,000 std deduction)
FICA = $3,000 (7.5% of $40,000)>
It's hard to argue with estimates, but the numbers I can check are wrong.
Income = $40,000
Std. Deduction (married filing jointly) = $6900
Personal Exemption = 4 x 2650 = $10,600
Taxable Income = $40,000-6900-10,600 = $22,500
Tax = 3379
Your 'estimate' is $1121 (or 33.2%) too high. Also, FICA is 7.65%, which adds $60 to your estimate. And that's the trouble with estimates. The numbers that you could calculate came out wrong which leaves the numbers that are really estimates wide open to dispute.
I guess my bigger concern is that, if you are correct (which I don't believe), then the majority of families in this country could not afford to save for retirement (which I *really* don't believe!). The one point I was willing to concede was that the IRA contribution could not be afforded if the money was already going into a 401K to get the employer match. But your arguement precludes even that possibility. While I admit that it would be easier to live on double the national family income (about 32k), I think you draw much too bleak a picture for people with average earnings.
[By the way Ray, thanks for all the work on the DDA board. I think the opportunity cost of you spending time being wrong here is that I lose the chance for improved returns from your futher work into better Dow strategies ;^) Is that fair to me!?]
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|