This is my first posting on the board so forgive me if others have recently asked this question. I just graduated from law school in 2003, and am about to open my first IRA and plan to contribute for 2003 before April 15. I currently work for the government and my spouse and I have a combined income low enough to make us eligible for a Roth IRA for both 2003 and 2004. However, at the end of 2004 I will be taking a job at a private law firm and our incomes will then be too high to be eligible for a Roth (not that I'm complaining about that). Anyway, what I'm trying to figure out is whether it is still advantageous to open a Roth rather than a traditional IRA when I know I won't be able to contribute to a Roth anymore after the next two years. Should I put 2 years of contributions into a Roth and then open up a traditional IRA for 2005? Or should I just open a traditional IRA now? Which makes more financial sense and why?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra