No. of Recommendations: 0
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?
Print the post  


The Retirement Investing Board
This is the board for all discussions related to Investing for and during retirement. To keep the board relevant and Foolish to everyone, please avoid making any posts pertaining to political partisanship. Fool on and Retire on!
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.