Originally started a 401k doing pre-tax with Company A for a while.
Changed jobs and moved that money to a IRA rollover.

Figured with the new job I would do the post tax route, but am thinking of switching it back to pre-tax.

Here is my thinking.
The company contribution matches 50% up to 8% which is better than most companies.
That extra percent helps and would help more if applied toward more money via pre-tax.
The pre-tax would definitely lower the household income reported, but it won't be enough to put us in a different tax bracket.
Over time the extra money along with all the other stuff will hopefully make up for the taxes needed to be paid.

I am not expecting to in a high tax bracket when I retire although that would be nice as it means I have a shit load of money available to take out.

How much does one have to make in a year between social security, maybe a side job and withdrawing from 401k to be in a high tax bracket?

What is the obvious reason for one to saying doing post tax in a no brainier. I am thinking for the majority of folks the pre-tax route is the most fitting.  

Like most things the best answer is get both. You can contribute $5500/year to a Roth IRA which is post tax, while also contributing to your 401k pre-tax.

No one can give you the correct answer with the information given.

There is a lot of variables that include assumptions for the future.  The heart of it revolves around tax rates now and in the future.  If you are paying a higher marginal tax now than you anticipate to be paying in retirement then you should contribute to a traditional (pre-tax) plan for the tax deduction.  If you anticipate a much higher tax rate in your future for retirement then a Roth (post tax) would make more sense.  Your exact income and how much of it you need for now vs. how much you can afford to put away for later will be a big factor in how much flexibility you have.

For most people it makes sense to contribute to a Traditional plan in their working years, as that will be your years of highest income and you desire to lower the tax burden on those years.  During retirement you can control the withdrawal rate/ timing to control taxes.  As suggested by another poster it may play in your favor to hedge your bets by "owning both" with a Roth IRA.

There are some good online calculators to help you calculate which way is better for your position.

Either way you will have to make some guesses regarding your future tax bracket.

All this assumes current tax laws and those will most likely change.

The Dems are running out of other peoples money and will probably go for your 401k soon.

It's difficult to make sense of what you are trying to say.

That being said, I would say that doing enough in a pre-tax plan to get the match and nothing more unless you are also able to max a ROTH every year and still have money left over. When you are retired you can make withdrawals from BOTH the pre-tax 401k/IRA and the ROTH. You can run the numbers so that you are only taking enough from the pre-tax funds to pay a low tax rate and supplement the rest from those funds you can withdraw tax-free.

For instance, if you need $60,000 per year in retirement you could:

Social security payments = $15,000
Pre-tax retirement account withdrawals (withdrawals are taxable) = $20,000
Post tax/Roth withdrawals (tax free withdrawals) = $25,000

Retirement income = $60,000
Taxable income = $20,000 - 40,000 (this would likely keep you in the lowermost tax brackets)

That way you get what you need while still keeping your taxable income low. In the meantime, while you are working towards retirement, use the money that you save in taxes to fund a ROTH. If you are married, I would fund BOTH Roth accounts at the maximum before I would increase my 401k %.

unless your 401k will payout 250,000 a year nothing you do will make a difference on taxes, just invest.

Another thing to keep in mind is tax-credits and their cutoffs. IIRC, $110,000 for married filing jointly is the point at which the child tax credit begins phasing out at $100 reduction for every $1000 in income. If you have multiple kids that can really start adding up... in this case other than the income tax differences and company matching issues there is even MORE incentive to do a pre-tax 401k type contribution if you income is around that cutoff level.

For example, due to some added income I made last year we were on-track to push above the $110,000 cutoff. The last 6 paychecks of the year I contributed 90% of my pay to my 401k to push my MAGI back down to take advantage of the full tax credit. I still missed it by a little (I think I lost $100) but I didn't want to put more of my check to 401k and risk not having enough to cover the deductions made for my health benefits etc.

I do both...

10% of pre-tax income goes to my companies 401k plan.  Company match is 100% of 6%, so thats 16% a year.

Roughly 15% of my post tax goes to different mutual funds and cash savings.  I had thought about the Roth IRA route for these funds, but the limitations on those accounts are still too much for me.  I'd rather have that money working for me yet still available to me in case I have a financial emergency.

You'll be stupid not to do the company match. That's a 50% return right off the bat.

My company matches 100% up to 6% and you are vested immediately. Some companies hold the money for while then add it to your account.

I get the whole Roth let the money grow tax free thing, but not maxing out 401K first is turning down free money that still grows for you even though you pay taxes on it later.

My investment retirement plan is to have enough to live on interest without withdrawing any principle.

FIFY.

Blaming only one party has the effect of letting the other party off the hook.  And one need only look at budgets for the last 40 years to understand that, when it comes to debt, both major parties have dirty hands.  Filthy, in fact.  

The "blame game" is itself part of the problem.

you should have both, withdrawals from a post account will be taxed as capital gains generally, while withdrawals from your 401K will be taxed as ordinary income.  tax on cap gains is less

I suggest putting enough into the 401k to max out the company match, then max out your Roth IRA.

If you can afford it, go back to the 401k and max it out ($18k a year I think).

Some companies offer a Roth 401k, which could change the strategy a bit depending on what investments are offered in the 401k.  I prefer diversity and low cost mutual funds (TER).

You can have your IRA pretty much anywhere.  I prefer Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab.

I do all of my bond funds in my 401k for tax efficiency.  Bonds are not for return, they are for safety.  If the S&P 500 drops 40% like it has in the past and will again in the future, your equities take a huge hit.  Bonds do not - they are boring and steady and may barely keep up with inflation.

Bogleheads.org is a great resource for learning and asking questions.

I'm a little sharper than the average bear and have an MBA fro a top 10 school, but I know I'm not smart enough to beat Wall St so I go with mostly Vanguard mutual funds.  YMMV, but works for me.  Pretty much what Warren Buffet recommends for normal schmucks like us.

I'm doing everything I can... Roth IRA maxed, company 401k maxed, and HSA account maxed (and untouched).

Now I'm just finding out that I need to be more careful in my Roth... I'm starting to dabble in ETFs in addition to mutual funds to try to reduce my taxable burden every year.

Contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free, the only thing that has limitations is the earnings.


wrong.  withdrawals from a Roth (post tax) account are never taxed.  that's the entire benefit of contributing post tax dollars.

this makes no sense.  transactions within an IRA have no tax consequences.

Oops, your right. Brain fart... I'm trying to move more to EFTs in my non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep the mutual fund activity within the 401k's and IRAs. My bad.

Congrats - you're doing better than most of the population.  For taxable investing, I suggest index mutual funds or their ETF equivalents - low cost, diversified, and tax efficient (check the turn over ratio on funds - index funds from Vanguard, Fidelity, etc will have a lower turnover ratio and thus less tax risk).  Actively managed funds will have a higher turnover ratio - the fund manager is churning and burning to beat the market.  You can actually owe taxes on funds/ETFs you buy and hold. A nice problem to have, but avoidable in my opinion.

Yeah I found that out... I'm using a lot of index funds throughout my investments, and am adding ETFs to my taxable accounts. But there's a few great performers... like FBIOX, for example... that I want to use to grow my taxable stuff too. I don't want to put ALL my higher performing investments in my retirement accounts, because I'd really, really REALLY like to retire early if at all possible.  

One of your considerations is when do you plan on retiring?  If you''re planning on a pre 59.5 yo retirement date then pondering a majority post tax investment strategy might make sense. For example I've been posturing for the last few years to retire prior to 59.5 and have determined that I'l need  around $85k- $100k per year in retirement. Of that about $40k is already coming in from a pension plan and about $25k from a rental so the delta is about $20K- $35k per year.

My goal was to have those monies available in post tax accounts so as to get me to 59.5 where I can then draw, penality free, my 401k.

For me it's sort of a no brainer....I have my own consulting business and while I can leverage a pre tax self funded 401K I don't receive any company matching funds. There is a tax advantage to the 401 but based on my priorities I'd
rather have post taxt monies available. The other consideration for me is that business can be feast or famine so I need to always be prepared to go for a period without business income. Hasn't ever happened but the potential is there.

Anecdotally I will also say that I have tried to retire about 2 years ago. I'm financially postured to do so but wasn't psychologically ready. Simply put I was bored out of my mind so I went back to work part time which has been perfect (knock on wood).   Additionally the  post tax bridge money amounts that I spoke of have have become less important as I'm only now about 2.5 years out from 59.5. They're still there but part may turn into a 911SC sometime in the near future

The part in red is a non-issue.  It shouldn't be part of the investment decision.

1) I don't trust the government.
2) I hope I take in at least what I do right now.

= I contribute Roth.

By the time I retire, the idiots in Washington are going to need a whole lot more money to keep this sinking ship afloat.
If the scenario is the alternative and I'm wrong, it was the risk/reward of protecting myself from a increasingly overreaching government.
I think it will get worse than better -- but I'm just being conservative, you might say...