TMFPixy at it again:You're gonna pay taxes on that $2K at 28% whether you contribute to a Roth or not unless you put it in a fully deductible traditional IRA.That was my whole point. You're normally a 15% taxpayer. In a particular year you have sufficient income to put you into the 28% bracket -- but you expect to return to 15%.In that scenario, should you pay an extra 13% tax to contribute (non-deductibly) to a Roth or take a $2,000 deduction to contribute instead to a trad. IRA money you expect to later pay 15% on?In my reading of your past posts on this topic, it always seemed to me you favored the trad. IRA. or at least questioned that the Roth would put one ahead. that $560 paid today in taxes is recovered in three years inside the Roth. After that, everything is tax-free gravy. The same applies to conversions, doesn't it?Are you in essence saying that recharacterization is worthwhile even for *conversions* only if the value of the account since conversion has decreased dramatically, and *not* because of any tax bracket considerations.That is, are you opposed to recharacterizations of Roths just because they are being taxed at 28% in the case of someone who normally pays taxes at 15%?Thanks.
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 Rat