<<I'd be careful about the way you word these things,>>>Yes, well, I worded it to say _exactly_ what I meant.<Yes, well, I figured you did. I was just looking for a polite way to say, "You are spreading your opinion as fact, and, on top of that, your opinion is way off base." Sorry you couldn't take the hint.<g>>>>LOL! The possibility that Congress won't change the tax laws significantly over the next few decades is about the same as the possibility that the Sun won't continue to rise in the east. You might want to take a look at what they did with ordinary IRAs a dozen years ago, when they made them non-deductible for most people. Look at the record.<<<The record? Did they go back and suddenly make you pay taxes on those older IRA contributions? No. Did they in any way affect any contributions you had already made? No. When they made the changes, they did not do so retroactively. So, while Congress will surely change some tax laws, and the sun will surely rise in the east, the possibility that they will retroactively change the Roth rules and begin taxing withdrawals is not as sure.>>>All the complete analyses that I have seen have basically shown that the NET effect of paying taxes now vs. later is nil (for all but extraordinary circumstances).<<<And all the complete analyses I have seen have shown the net effect to be significant if you expect to be in a higher tax bracket when you retire.<< But I don't think "It's starting to look likethis isn't a good idea for most people.">>>Ok, we differ here.<Yep. I agree with Pixy: "Many will find the Roth inappropriate, many will find it advantageous, and many will find it neutral. I don't think a majority of "most" will fit in any category."orangeblood
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<