Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
- at 65 for HSAs being used for non-medical expenses

This is a bit of an aside to the conversation, but HSA expenses don't have to be withdrawn in the year of the expense. They can be withdrawn in any future year, as long as you have documented the expenses. The advantage of deferring the withdrawals is that the gains compound tax free and the withdrawals for allowable expenses are of course tax free too. Worst case is that it becomes essentially a regular IRA at age 65. This strategy requires a bit of planning and bookkeeping, but if you do it right the contributions and gains are never taxed.

And as you point out, if you plan on retiring early you have to plans financially navigate the time period between retirement and age 65 anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I apply a different 4% rule to my accounts -- an average of 4% in annual distributions from overall holdings (growth, bond, income, DGI).

The problem is - when accounts decrease in value, the 4% decreases, as compared to the original 4% rule (which is dollar based after the first year) where you would take out the inflation based dollar figure, even if it's higher than 4% The problem that you will run into with your rule is that when inflation increases and your account value decreases (kind of like 2022 so far), you are going to have significantly less purchasing power by following your rule. If you can cut your expenses that much, it can work, but if, because of inflation, you can't cut your expenses that much, it won't work. If it doesn't work, you're not going to be able to stick to your 4% rule - you're going to need to take more than 4%

That's no different than what you would be doing under the original 4% rule. So I'm not sure that I see what the point is in applying your 4% rule compared to the original 4% rule.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
re: The problem is - when accounts decrease in value, the 4% decreases.

How so? So long as they don't cut dividend or distribution my income stays the same (and grows as they increase payouts). The payout as a % of holding goes up -- but that's sort of academic. My automatic reinvestments get made at lower cost.

I've been doing this since early 2000's. I've had some along the way reduce or cut dividends/distributions but my total income has continued to increase.

I'm not trading in and out much. I'm buying on autopilot and also buying on sale at times like this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
re: I'm not sure that I see what the point is in applying your 4% rule compared to the original 4% rule

My backhanded sort of point is that I ignore the 4% SWR rule and all the 1000's of posts on this board discussing ad nauseum the 4% SWR. Because... drumroll I'm getting 4% payout.

"Don't touch the principle!"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
My backhanded sort of point is that I ignore the 4% SWR rule and all the 1000's of posts on this board discussing ad nauseum the 4% SWR. Because... drumroll I'm getting 4% payout.

More power to ya. The point behind the 4% rule isn't that you get 4%. The point is your inflation-adjusted dollar amount never decreases.

If inflation is 8% and you get 4% payout, you are 4% behind, right? Now do that for five straight years. In this scenario you are eating Alpo pretty quickly. In the traditional 4% rule scenario you maintain your lifestyle the entire time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
My backhanded sort of point is that I ignore the 4% SWR rule and all the 1000's of posts on this board discussing ad nauseum the 4% SWR. Because... drumroll I'm getting 4% payout.


That 4% SWR rule comes from the desire to have a fairly constant withdrawal, adjusted for inflation so the purchasing power in constant. Similar to a paycheck.

Your 4% withdrawal rule does not have that feature. Start with a $1,000,000 portfolio. 4% is $40,000/yr or $3,333/mo.

If you have a bad year and the portfolio has a 50% loss, then 4% of $500,000 is only $20,000 or $1,666/mo.

If you have a good year and the portfolio has a 50% gain, then 4% of $1,500,000 is $60,000 or $5,000/mo.

Very few people--especially retired people, are comfortable with an income that jumps around like that.

If you have 2 years in a row where the first year the portfolio gets cut in half, and the next year it doubles, you are back to the original $1,000,000.
But your "income" (withdrawal) jumps from $3,333 to $1,666 and then back to $3,333. Most people wouldn't like that. It's hard to maintain a budget with the income jumping around so much. Everybody knows how to budget with a steady, constant income.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How so? So long as they don't cut dividend or distribution my income stays the same (and grows as they increase payouts).

Except that's not how you explained your rule. You said:

an average of 4% in annual distributions from overall holdings (growth, bond, income, DGI)

See that bolded part there - when your investments go down, you don't get growth, you get shrinkage. Thus, even when everything else (dividends, bond payments, etc.) stays the same, your income based on 4% will decrease, rather than increase. If you're willing to take a higher percentage out, how do you determine that higher percentage?

I've had some along the way reduce or cut dividends/distributions but my total income has continued to increase.

If you are willing to increase your income by some amount that seems to be unspecified by a rule, even if it's a higher percentage of your portfolio, I still don't see what the point is in applying your rule vs. the original 4% rule. Seems to me that the original 4% strategy has a set rule to increase your income by, and it's been backtested for many years. Your strategy doesn't seem to have a set rule about how to increase your income, and you haven't shown any backtesting to back up your rule.

If it works for you - that's obviously your choice. But it doesn't sound like a strategy I want to bet my portfolio on.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Feel free to try to change my mind. I'm always open to input from adult supervision. :)

Are you married ? Is money in tax-deferred accounts ? How close are you to RMDs (at whatever age applies at this second) ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
when your investments go down, you don't get growth, you get shrinkage.

In portfolio total. And your point is...?
There's always going to be a Y2K, 2004, 2008, 2020. Those earlier cycles income stayed flat 2020 was the worst where income has pulled back ~10% due to things like REITs suspending distributions -- and since recovered and grown. In the other years I've seen income grow ~5% on average (DGI choices).

Thus, even when everything else (dividends, bond payments, etc.) stays the same, your income based on 4% will decrease, rather than increase

"wait whut?"
I don't get income shrinking when stocks go down. That only happens when distributions are reduced.

I don't much care about the cycling (down) of my growth stocks. They come back. I buy good stocks with a long view. The less I look at my day to day portfolio value -- the better I do.
And there's the rub. Because I've got well covered income coming in from that part of my portfolio I don't have to look at the value in downturns. I bought good growth stocks for long term and I leave them be.

FWIW, I'm not actually managing for a 4% average payout -- that was just sort of literary device to hook folks into thinking about a different paradigm. <sort primal scream after years of 4% SWR handwringing threads. aaahhh how do you all live with that sort of stress?>

Me taking notice of a 4% payout number is just how it works out currently. That is increasing as dividends & distributions are increased.
Also in an upcycle as I'm moving from accumulation toward retirement I'm shifting more from growth to income stocks. But selling good growth stocks on down cycles like now is just silly when my income stream is more than sufficient. I'll take a look sometime later this year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you married ? Is money in tax-deferred accounts ? How close are you to RMDs (at whatever age applies at this second) ?</>


Yep married 38 years to a much smarter and harder working (and better looking) woman.

Almost all the income producing stuff is in tax deferred accounts. Tax deferred holdings are about 60% of total (other than real estate -- have 3 rentals).

Income in taxable accounts is from K-1 stocks. Except for that pesky employer stock that keeps coming in with it's 2.5% divi.
Turning 62.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There's another aspect to this. DGI makes my instructions on death (or dementia) as simple and clear as can be for my wife and heirs.

"Don't touch the principle. Spend the income -- if you're smart you'll put what you don't need onto auto reinvest"

When I imagine trying to explain to my wife how to manage a 4%SWR in the event of my passing... Well let's just say that's not good for my mental health or our marriage.

Also I'd hate to saddle any of my kids with managing that for her. And I'd like to condition my heirs to thinking in terms of maintaining and growing principle instead of just blowing all on Dodge Vipers and World Cruises the month after they put me in the ground.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Don't touch the principle. Spend the income -- if you're smart you'll put what you don't need onto auto reinvest"

When I imagine trying to explain to my wife how to manage a 4%SWR in the event of my passing... Well let's just say that's not good for my mental health or our marriage.


That's pretty sad. Her income taxes and medicare costs could change significantly. And RMDs need to be understood.

But who knows, maybe she know it's "principal" and not "principle". ;)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
""Don't touch the principle. Spend the income -- if you're smart you'll put what you don't need onto auto reinvest""

once you hit 72 now, the government will decide how much of your IRA/401K you MUST take out each year. By age 75, it is approaching 4% a year.

That is determined by the value on Dec 31 for the coming year. If you look at this year, if you were in all stocks in the index, you're down by 20% likely, but you MUST take out money based upon that Dec 31 value this year. And pay taxes on it.

Now, maybe you sold stock on Jan 2 and put the money into a MMF to fund the year's withdrawal. Many for the past couple years likely decided to wait until Dec to sell, seeing that the usual year had stock rises of 11% a year year after year.

Of course, if you had other assets other than stocks in your IRA, you could sell some bonds or REITs and likely not take a 20% decrease. Or if you had SP500 that pays 2% dividend, you could use that for half your yearly withdrawal and if you had some corp bonds paying 3%, or junk bonds paying 5%, you might not be so bad off.

For assets outside an IRA, if you get dividends and interest you'll be paying income tax on them no matter whether you 're-invest them' or not. You're choice.

- ---

Now another 'plan' of withdrawal has always been to take a fixed percentage of total assets each year - about 5%. So your income will rise and fall with the market. Some years more, some less. It's not 'inflation' adjusted. You can do it monthly so if the market is going down, you take LESS. If the market and your portfolio is down 20 or 50%, you TAKE 20 OR 50% LESS.

that, as opposed to 4% inflation adjusted from the day/year you retire.

Of course, once you hit now 72, Uncle Sam will make you take over 3% annually from tax deferred savings, and by age 80, up to 5%. 10% by age 90 should you live that long.

your options

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/retiremen...


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't get income shrinking when stocks go down. That only happens when distributions are reduced.

Then you didn't explain your rule correctly. It can't just be 4% annually of your total portfolio if your income it doesn't go down when your portfolio drops. And yet, this was your 'rule':

an average of 4% in annual distributions from overall holdings

How does distributing 4% annually from overall holdings not mean that you are taking a 4% distribution?

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Almost all the income producing stuff is in tax deferred accounts. Tax deferred holdings are about 60% of total

You seem to be setting up the survivor after one of you dies for significantly higher taxes, especially after RMDs hit. RMDs from that 60% will not change significantly, so the survivor will have similar income. Yet, their standard deduction (and exemption beginning in 2026 under current law) that will be about half, and they will be taxed at single rates. For those who are in or below the current 24% bracket, that generally results in approximately double the tax bill when than when they were filing MFJ. For those in a 32% or higher bracket, there will likely still be a significant increase.

Income in taxable accounts is from K-1 stocks.

Let's see - you don't feel your wife can understand anything beyond "Don't spend the principle(sic)" and yet, you're planning on leaving her with MLPs for a significant part of her income. What could possibly go wrong?

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'd like to condition my heirs to thinking in terms of maintaining and growing principle instead of just blowing all on Dodge Vipers and World Cruises the month after they put me in the ground.

Don't forget - those tax deferred accounts must be completely emptied within 10 years of being inherited by a non-spouse. Again, likely to be a significant tax bill for your heirs. Unless they have significant other assets that they are willing to spend on taxes in order to not spend your principle(sic), they're probably going to have to spend some of it.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But who knows, maybe she know it's "principal" and not "principle". ;)


Now I'm really glad I started this thread. Something of real substance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Don't touch the principle. Spend the income -- if you're smart you'll put what you don't need onto auto reinvest"

When I imagine trying to explain to my wife how to manage a 4%SWR in the event of my passing... Well let's just say that's not good for my mental health or our marriage.


That seems really condescending re your wife. And she should know EXACTLY how everything is handled in case you die or become incapacitated.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, it’s really not a 4% thing. You’re just living off your dividends, correct?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, it’s really not a 4% thing. You’re just living off your dividends, correct?

Miss Edith gets it. Leave to a southern lady to cut thru the smoke. LOL :) And I betcha she got the joke right up front. /heh/

Saving countless hours obsessing, fretting and reading&posting to endless threads on a forum about the apparently impossibly difficult to understand and apply 4% SWR rules.

I wonder how much hard drive space in the Fool's forums data center is dedicated to "4% SWR"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Saving countless hours obsessing, fretting and reading&posting to endless threads on a forum about the apparently impossibly difficult to understand and apply 4% SWR rules."

Once you hit SS age......or wait till 70.....

Once you hit 72 now and have to start RMDs

If you get a pension....that amount is determined.....

A lot of your income will be determined by the 'rules' the government set up.

then you look to savings for additional income...

If most of your portfolio is in an IRA, it starts at about 3.5% RMD each year......and ratchets up year after year.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Saving countless hours obsessing, fretting and reading&posting to endless threads on a forum about the apparently impossibly difficult to understand and apply 4% SWR rules.

It's hard to get simpler than the 4% SWR strategy.

Setup:

Step 1: Invest all your assets in self-balancing 60/40 index fund like the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund.

Step 2: On your first day of retirement, take out 4% of your assets and live on that for a year.

Each year:

Step 1: Look up the annual inflation rate for the past year.

Step 2: Look in your records for the amount you withdrew a year ago and multiply by the inflation rate. This is your new withdrawal amount.

Step 3: Withdraw this new amount and live on that for a year.

Rinse and repeat. Takes a few minutes a year.

Your spend-the-dividends strategy is maybe a bit simpler as long as you put all your money in a single investment and never change it. Your posts suggest you actively manage your income producing investments. How many investment decisions do you make in a year and how much time do you spend researching them?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I wonder how much hard drive space in the Fool's forums data center is dedicated to "4% SWR"?

And how much additional space did you add to that count by claiming you had a 'different 4% rule' that wasn't really a 4% rule, but an income harvesting strategy?

If your income harvesting strategy works for you, that's great. As already pointed out, you are setting yourself and your heirs up for some significant tax issues that you seem to want to ignore. But you apparently don't want to discuss that.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"It's hard to get simpler than the 4% SWR strategy."

Oh really?

First and foremost, you have to consider the mix of 'tax deferred' and regular savings.
You can't easily touch your tax deferred savings (unless you know about SEPP) until age 70 or maybe even want to.

The 4% rule is based upon a mixed portfolio - but who is going to have ALL their money in one fund?

Once you reach SS age, your SS payments can provide a good chunk of your income.
Once you reach age 70, your RMDs will provide a good chunk of your income (starting at 3.5% of deferred value).

Then, you might really wish to read up on Scott Burn's Spend to the End and consumption smoothing.

"Rich or poor, young or old, high school or college grad, this book, written by economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff and syndicated financial columnist Scott Burns, can change your life for the better! If you follow the advice in this book, it will raise your living standard (possibly by a lot), improve your lifestyle, and help you spend 'til the end. And it will completely transform your financial thinking, turning every bit of conventional financial wisdom on its head.

Spend 'Til the End substitutes economic wisdom for the "rules of dumb" that currently pass for financial advice. .... The result is that most people are scrimping and saving during the years when they could be spending and enjoying their money -- and with no sure payoff."

https://www.amazon.com/Spend-Til-End-Revolutionary-Standard-...


one comment on the book: "-spend rate of 4% of initial assets is dumb; 4% of remaining assets is better; consumption smoothing is the best"

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
claiming you had a 'different 4% rule' that wasn't really a 4% rule, but an income harvesting strategy?

If your income harvesting strategy works for you, that's great.


It also isn't actually a 4% income harvesting strategy. The S&P500 currently yields 1.38%. BND (Total Bond Market Index Fund) yields 3.06%. The blended 60/40 yield is 2.05%. Far cry from 4%.
To get up to 4% you'd have to bring in a number of dividend paying stocks/ETFs. That becomes a lot more work, now you have to do a bunch of active management.

It also has the problem that your withdrawal/income will vary considerably from one year to the next. Not a comfortable situation for a retiree who is living off their portfolio.

As was previously mentioned, the 4% SWR rule is simple. If you think it is complicated then you just don't understand it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Come on, t. Geesh

The 4% rule is based upon a mixed portfolio - but who is going to have ALL their money in one fund?

Um, anyone who wants low-effort, simple & easy? Anyone who doesn't want to spend a significant effort on managing their investments. That is, MOST PEOPLE. Most people aren't like us folks who haunt TMF and other investing sites.

Scott Burn's Spend to the End

O..M..G..

Spend 'Til the End substitutes economic wisdom for the "rules of dumb" that currently pass for financial advice.

Simple?!

"advice on whether to work, how to pick a career, which job to take, where to live, what sort of house to buy, how much to save, when to retire, which kind of retirement account to use, whether to have kids, whether to divorce, when to take Social Security, how fast to spend down your assets in retirement, and how to invest."


A 336 page book telling them how to live their life, advice on career, marriage/divorce, kids, house. Better read it in your 20's, because when you are at or nearing retirement all that advice is much too late.

Just what people are looking for. Not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Step 1: Invest all your assets in self-balancing 60/40 index fund like the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund.

You must be assuming that everyone only has investments inside a tax-sheltered account. Otherwise, self-balancing accounts can create nasty tax surprises:

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/yo...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Scott Burns Couch potato

https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/for-almos...

50% stocks.....50% bonds.....

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I agree.

1poorlady didn't really want to know, but once I thought I had a glioma she allowed me to show her everything. Once it was removed and declared benign, she isn't interested again. It's not that she can't understand, just that she prefers to worry about other things.

I'm only interested because I have to be. Both to know our status, and plan for FIRE.

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
To the extent I understand "your rule", which seems similar to conversations had around my house the pitfall is in asset allocation. IF you start with a portfolio set to spinoff 4% income, the longer term average return of that portfolio will be substantially lower than the typical portfolio used to determine the 4% SWR. That is why many are talking about your income collapsing with inflation. Attempts to preserve principle and only spend income will push you toward investments with overall lower long term returns.

A $1M principle today, isn't as valuable as $1M 10 years from now. You can preserve the principle and you will be falling backward.

As an aside, I discovered Schwab has an online tool that looks at your assets, and projected spending, and will determine the range of your long term outcomes.
Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
You can't easily touch your tax deferred savings (unless you know about SEPP) until age 70 or maybe even want to.

Wow, tele - you really don't understand taxes, and continue to demonstrate that lack of understanding in post after post.

Tax deferred savings are easily accessible without having to use SEPP or pay penalties starting:

- when you leave your employer in or after the year you turn 55 for that employer's savings plans like 401(k)s or 403(b)s

- at 59 1/2 for IRAs (Roth, Traditional, Simple, SEP, etc.) and employer plans where you left the employer before the year you turned 55

- at 65 for HSAs being used for non-medical expenses

- at any age for Roth IRAs where you are just withdrawing original contributions or conversions from at least 5 years prior

All of those timeframes are well before age 70.

The 4% rule is based upon a mixed portfolio - but who is going to have ALL their money in one fund?

Nothing says it needs to be in a single fund, a single account or even at a single broker. Where did you get this idea? There's no reason that you can't have a 'mixed portfolio' by having bonds and stocks in one or more accounts at multiple brokerages. And nowadays, there's a lot of aggregation software, both stand-alone and at brokerages, that allow you to track your overall portfolio allocation.

Once you reach age 70, your RMDs will provide a good chunk of your income (starting at 3.5% of deferred value).

Nope. The RMD age was increased to 72 for anyone born after June 30, 1949 with the passage of the SECURE Act in 2019. And the proposed SECURE Act 2.0 will increase the age to 75 if it passes. Not to mention, the age used to be 70 1/2, not 70.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
alan81: "A $1M principle today, isn't as valuable as $1M 10 years from now."

I believe you stated this backward, unless you are expecting deflation?

A $1M principle today, is more valuable as $1M [principal] 10 years from now.

OR

A $1M principle 10 years from now, isn't as valuable as $1M today.

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
50% stocks.....50% bonds.....

Wow, that sounds like a 'mixed portfolio'. How do you do that without having it all in one account?

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
AJ:"Wow, that sounds like a 'mixed portfolio'. How do you do that without having it all in one account?"

Simple. Vanguard. Couch Potato Portfolio

comparison Couch Potato vs SP500

Once a year, rebalance in your IRA.

I left work at 52.5. Had no choice but to roll my 401K over to an IRA. Plus 401K had 5x higher fees than Vanguard index funds.

I had to take RMDs at 70 1/2...and that was the year I turned 70 since I was born in June. So do millions of baby boomers - the first part of the wave.

Luckily, insurance premiums for health hadn't gone through the roof. Very reasonable first 10-12 years, getting more expensive as I approached 65. Then Medicare

If you start tapping your 401Ks and IRAs in your mid to late 50s, your looking at 35-50 0 year withdrawal periods.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
you are correct! My post was self contradictory. Thanks for clearing it up.
Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Simple. Vanguard.

Then why did you ask who was going to have ALL their money in one fund in order to have a 'mixed portfolio' so they could use the 4% SWR rules?

I had to take RMDs at 70 1/2...and that was the year I turned 70 since I was born in June. So do millions of baby boomers - the first part of the wave.

Except that, as already mentioned, that law changed in 2019. Only those who were born on or before June 30, 1949 had to start taking RMDs at 70 1/2. Since the baby boom started in 1946, at most, it's those who were born in just the first 3 1/2 years out of the 19 year (1946 - 1964) baby boom. The vast majority of boomers won't have to take RMDs until 72 - or possibly later if the SECURE Act 2.0 becomes law.

If you start tapping your 401Ks and IRAs in your mid to late 50s, your looking at 35-50 0 year withdrawal periods.

So? 401(k)s and IRAs just some of the different types of accounts that can be in your overall portfolio. No matter what type of accounts you have in your portfolio, if you retire in your mid to late 50s, you probably need to be planning on drawing down your entire portfolio over the same 35 - 50 years. In order to draw your portfolio down in the most tax efficient manner over a lifetime, you need to consider the tax consequences from each account type over your lifetime - not look at them as isolated from each other.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Each year:

Step 1: Look up the annual inflation rate for the past year.

Step 2: Look in your records for the amount you withdrew a year ago and multiply by the inflation rate. This is your new withdrawal amount.


Hopefully you don't expect someone to literally follow step 2.
You might want to modify it to say:

Each year:

Look in your records for the amount you withdrew a year ago and multiply by the inflation rate PLUS 1.0. This is your new withdrawal amount.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
- at 65 for HSAs being used for non-medical expenses

This is a bit of an aside to the conversation, but HSA expenses don't have to be withdrawn in the year of the expense. They can be withdrawn in any future year, as long as you have documented the expenses. The advantage of deferring the withdrawals is that the gains compound tax free and the withdrawals for allowable expenses are of course tax free too. Worst case is that it becomes essentially a regular IRA at age 65. This strategy requires a bit of planning and bookkeeping, but if you do it right the contributions and gains are never taxed.

And as you point out, if you plan on retiring early you have to plans financially navigate the time period between retirement and age 65 anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is a bit of an aside to the conversation, but HSA expenses don't have to be withdrawn in the year of the expense. They can be withdrawn in any future year, as long as you have documented the expenses.

Correct, but I would add the caveat that the documented medical expenses need to have been from after you opened and funded the HSA - so you can't claim the expenses from the tonsillectomy you had in 1975, for instance.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
My new 4% rule is to stop reading posts about the 4% rule.

It will add immeasurably to my happiness.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's hard to get simpler than the 4% SWR strategy

I know, right? You'd think?

And yet hundreds, if not 1000's of posts discussing, debating, clarifying -- deja vu all over again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
To quote an esteemed poster from the past:

This thread has run it's course.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
do you mainly derive your regular income from dividends? or do you elect to harvest some capital gains? how and when do you decide do capital gains?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"...- when you leave your employer in or after the year you turn 55 for that employer's savings plans like 401(k)s or 403(b)s"

I have 401K from a past employer that I have not rolled over to IRA. They have allowed me to stay in the plan.

Can I take from that 401K when I am 55yol (next year)?

tj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Can I take from that 401K when I am 55yol (next year)?

Staying in a 401(k) plan does not mean that you are still working for the employer.

You can always take money out of prior employer's 401(k)s. The problem is, since you've already stopped working for that employer and you won't be 55 until next year, you didn't leave the employer in or after the year you turned 55. Since that's the case, you will be subject to a 10% penalty on your withdrawals, unless you use SEPP, which will require specific withdrawals until you are 59 1/2, or have withdrawn for at least 5 years, whichever is later.

Presuming you don't want to use either of those options, you could roll your old 401(k) into your current employer's plan, and withdraw from the current employer's plan when you leave that employer in or after next year - the year you will turn 55.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top