Posted: 10/21/2025 6:55:54 PM EDT
|
I'm retired and need to start using my investments for living expenses. Seems like a no-brainer that I should start pulling from my Roth account and leave all the others alone. Am I missing something? |
Fantrax ARFCOM PICKERS Champion 2022, 2023, 2024
|
Spend Roth LAST. It grows tax free and has the greatest potential as inheritance. I plan to start with spending down my taxable account, which will demonstrate the lowest possible tax situation while I also do Roth conversions Next will be my pretax accounts that are left to spend those down to reduce RMD‘s Roth is dead last. This gives it the most time to grow tax-free and if I don’t need it, my beneficiaries benefit the most because they have 10 years to continue to let it grow. |
|
It depends. Would need to know your situation to give real advice. Usually you want to look at what is the most advantageous from a tax situation, estate planning and if you have things like have health care covered or need to do Roth conversions. In general, though, spending from Roth first is not common. |
|
Depends entirely on your tax situation and your estate plans. Assuming you are talking withdrawals for living expenses (instead of lump sum greater than one year of living expenses) then roth should probably be last. Roth is also the best way to leave money behind when you die because it’s tax free for your heirs as well. |
|
Originally Posted By SideCarGT: Talked to some experts at Fidelity. Their research shows you are better off to take proportionately from all of your accounts, so if you have 30% tax deferred, 40% taxable and 30% tax free in your portfolio, you take that percentage of each. And what exactly were the details behind that concept? |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: Depends entirely on your tax situation and your estate plans. Assuming you are talking withdrawals for living expenses (instead of lump sum greater than one year of living expenses) then roth should probably be last. Roth is also the best way to leave money behind when you die because it's tax free for your heirs as well. Fill up those low tax brackets with traditional ira/401k withdrawals. Save the Roth for your kids unless you need to spend extra and want to avoid a higher bracket. |
|
Originally Posted By SideCarGT: Talked to some experts at Fidelity. Their research shows you are better off to take proportionately from all of your accounts, so if you have 30% tax deferred, 40% taxable and 30% tax free in your portfolio, you take that percentage of each. If you want good advice you will need to explain your financial position in detail. You will also need to cover your long term goals, planned major expenses and how important it is to leave money for your kids. |
|
What FALARAK said and to which I will add, the Roth should be saved and used to meet shortfalls and to control second and third order income tax effects. An example would be the (taxable) income based premium placed upon your Medicare premium. Marginal tax brackets are (currently; thank you [again] President Trump) so wide that chances are you can’t control your marginal rate but if by chance you need taxable income that crosses into a bracket, you could use Roth distributions to stay within the lower bracket. Also as mentioned by FALARAK, Roths (especially Roth 401(k)s) are great vehicles for inheritance. Under current tax law, an inherited IRA (taxable or otherwise) must be emptied within 10 years of the beneficiary’s death (as opposed to the old lifetime method). By insidious design, this typically pulls the inherited IRA withdrawals into the recipient’s peak earning (and highest marginal tax brackets) years. While a Roth still has to be emptied within 10 years (since liberals hate generational wealth building), it won’t be taxed nor increase the recipient’s taxable income. Additionally, depending on your situation (retired/relatively low income and pre-RMD), rather than using your Roth first, it may make sense to perform annual Roth conversions whereby you take excess taxable distributions and convert them (by paying the tax on them) to Roth. The intent is to lower (in a control manner) as much as possible your RMDs once they kick in. |
I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
No rules today, sport…just orders.
It’s not about how many people you kill, it’s about how many you save.
|
Originally Posted By SideCarGT: Talked to some experts at Fidelity. Their research shows you are better off to take proportionately from all of your accounts, so if you have 30% tax deferred, 40% taxable and 30% tax free in your portfolio, you take that percentage of each. There is no research that I have ever seen that shows this. What you describe is called pro-rata. All my retirement software allows for customizing withdrawals using several different schemes. Pro-rata has been the worst in every scenario I’ve ever modeled. It neglects tax advantages such as 0 capital gains, social security tax torpedo, and IRMAA. It cannot account for any inheritance strategy. Depending on your situation it can easily lead you to running out of money especially if faced with sequence of return risk. |
|
Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: There is no research that I have ever seen that shows this. Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: There is no research that I have ever seen that shows this. Nobody is going to blanket recommend one over the other because the answer, as always, is that it depends on your situation. Fidelity's own website says: There are several approaches you can take to determine which account you should withdraw the money from. The traditional approach is to withdraw first from taxable accounts, then tax-deferred accounts, and finally Roth accounts where withdrawals are tax free. The goal is to allow tax-deferred and Roth assets the opportunity to grow over more time. For most people with multiple retirement savings accounts with differing tax-treatments, a better approach might be proportional withdrawals. Once a target amount is determined, an investor would withdraw from every account based on that account’s percentage of overall savings. The effect is a more stable tax bill over retirement and potentially lower lifetime taxes and higher lifetime after-tax income. |
|
Originally Posted By SideCarGT: Talked to some experts at Fidelity. Their research shows you are better off to take proportionately from all of your accounts, so if you have 30% tax deferred, 40% taxable and 30% tax free in your portfolio, you take that percentage of each. This sounds like a safe, non-answer that reduces any liability on the behalf of the person offering it. |
| Avoiding higher brackets and IRMA is a strategy to avoid lifetime tax numbers. While ROTH is the best vehicle for inheritance, it is not always feasible to ignore money in a ROTH, especially if you were doing more then a regular ROTH IRA amount. With newer ROTH401/403 accounts, younger folks have opted into the tax free haven of the ROTH offering with higher amounts of their earnings then previous generations. |
WTF is up with this bullshit anti-bayo lug crap. Was there a group of irrate japanese guys bonzai charging disabled school children and puppies that I wasn't aware of?
|
One of the few times I think I have seen one recommend taking Roth instead of pretax IRA early is to keep income artificially low for that time period before what? age 62? to not get the medicare percentage cut lower due to income reasons. One would have to be in the right situation to play that game for the IRMAA look back time. |
The only hyphenated names I like are cartridge names......30-06, 30-40, 38-55 etc.
|
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: One of the few times I think I have seen one recommend taking Roth instead of pretax IRA early is to keep income artificially low for that time period before what? age 62? to not get the medicare percentage cut lower due to income reasons. One would have to be in the right situation to play that game for the IRMAA look back time. IRMAA isn't one-and-done when you turn 65, it applies forever. 70 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. 90 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. Avoiding IRMAA for one year by doing roth withdrawals instead of pretax may screw you later once you hit RMDs by forcing you into IRMAA for the rest of your life. Also, IRMAA starts at $74 extra per month if you make more than roughly $260k. This qualifies as tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. If I have more than $260k retirement income I really don't care about paying $74 extra per month for medicare. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: pretax may screw you later once you hit RMDs by forcing you into IRMAA for the rest of your life. Also, IRMAA starts at $74 extra per month if you make more than roughly $260k. This qualifies as tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. If I have more than $260k retirement income I really don't care about paying $74 extra per month for medicare. Winner winner. Everything I've been reading, planning, sketching keeps coming back to "the value of your pre-tax future RMD" account balances being the hard core governing question/value. This is the #1 driver of which account to pull from then the equation of: age, expenses goal (monthly income), cash flow and inheritables. EDIT: The focus is NOT IRMAA, it's the impacts on the tax brackets of ordinary incomes of RMD's after letting that money grow. |
|
Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: Everything I've been reading, planning, sketching keeps coming back to "the value of your pre-tax future RMD" account balances being the hard core governing question/value. If you're being forced to withdraw money it's not a huge deal - just invest it in a taxable account and then you only owe long term capital gains on further profits. If leaving money behind to your kids is a priority then it's better to give them money spread out over more time - just use your RMDs to make roth contributions for your heirs. This can be far more powerful since it will give them more time for compounding to work for them. If you're worried about having to pay $74 extra per month due to making over 1/4 million dollars in retirement then I'd venture to say that you're worrying about things that are so minor as to not matter. ie. You've got well over $20k monthly income and are worried about a $74 bill? That's just silly. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: IRMAA isn't one-and-done when you turn 65, it applies forever. 70 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. 90 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. Avoiding IRMAA for one year by doing roth withdrawals instead of pretax may screw you later once you hit RMDs by forcing you into IRMAA for the rest of your life. Also, IRMAA starts at $74 extra per month if you make more than roughly $260k. This qualifies as tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. If I have more than $260k retirement income I really don't care about paying $74 extra per month for medicare. Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: One of the few times I think I have seen one recommend taking Roth instead of pretax IRA early is to keep income artificially low for that time period before what? age 62? to not get the medicare percentage cut lower due to income reasons. One would have to be in the right situation to play that game for the IRMAA look back time. IRMAA isn't one-and-done when you turn 65, it applies forever. 70 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. 90 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. Avoiding IRMAA for one year by doing roth withdrawals instead of pretax may screw you later once you hit RMDs by forcing you into IRMAA for the rest of your life. Also, IRMAA starts at $74 extra per month if you make more than roughly $260k. This qualifies as tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. If I have more than $260k retirement income I really don't care about paying $74 extra per month for medicare. With regards to RMDs. I thought if one does a Roth conversion from a traditional IRA, you pay the tax and after that the Roth is not subject to RMDs? In other words, I thought the Roth was your money (not tax infected) to keep investing or withdrawal without taxes |
|
Originally Posted By Burnsome-: With regards to RMDs. I thought if one does a Roth conversion from a traditional IRA, you pay the tax and after that the Roth is not subject to RMDs? In other words, I thought the Roth was your money (not tax infected) to keep investing or withdrawal without taxes |
|
You’ve already paid taxes on the Roth. Doesn’t that make it “free” money? Honestly, I don’t know, but it seems like you’d spend that last, unless there’s some reason why you’d hold off on pre-tax money you pay CG on when you take a distribution… I’d talk to a competent tax accountant, personally. |
Not fly enough to be halal....
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: It sure seems to me that people jump straight to IRMAA and RMDs without considering everything else that happens during and after retirement up until those two things start to matter. If you're being forced to withdraw money it's not a huge deal - just invest it in a taxable account and then you only owe long term capital gains on further profits. If leaving money behind to your kids is a priority then it's better to give them money spread out over more time - just use your RMDs to make roth contributions for your heirs. This can be far more powerful since it will give them more time for compounding to work for them. If you're worried about having to pay $74 extra per month due to making over 1/4 million dollars in retirement then I'd venture to say that you're worrying about things that are so minor as to not matter. ie. You've got well over $20k monthly income and are worried about a $74 bill? That's just silly. Lots to unpack here. First IRMAA is per person. If you are married double it and times 12 for you year and then Times it by how many years you are paying. That is often tens of thousands of dollars. Second you are forgetting how your social security is taxed. Add that cost on top of IRMAA. Next is what happens when a spouse dies. They are now filling single but usually income hasn’t dropped that much. They are gonna pay much more in taxes. Also RMD amounts INCREASE over time. The governments goal is to try and empty those accounts or significantly reduce them. Finally, unless they are a spouse, or minor with w2 income you can’t contribute to someone’s Roth. You can gift $16,000 per person per year without any tax penalty. If married, you have give $32,000. Tax planning is considering multiple variables. The goal is to keep as much as possible. That means using pre-tax for lower tax brackets, capital gains for 0% or maybe 15%, and layering in Roth and social security and other income to maximize your spending and reduce the bite of taxes. Treat taxes like inflation. |
|
Originally Posted By Burnsome-: With regards to RMDs. I thought if one does a Roth conversion from a traditional IRA, you pay the tax and after that the Roth is not subject to RMDs? In other words, I thought the Roth was your money (not tax infected) to keep investing or withdrawal without taxes Correct. But there are rules. Each conversion has a 5 year rule before you can access the converted $$ if you are under 59 1/2. You can’t touch any gains without penalty if you are under 59 1/2. After 59 1/2 the 5 year conversion and gain penalty goes away. You still have the standard 5 year Roth requirement though. |
|
Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: Lots to unpack here. First IRMAA is per person. If you are married double it and times 12 for you year and then Times it by how many years you are paying. That is often tens of thousands of dollars. Second you are forgetting how your social security is taxed. Add that cost on top of IRMAA. Next is what happens when a spouse dies. They are now filling single but usually income hasn't dropped that much. They are gonna pay much more in taxes. Also RMD amounts INCREASE over time. The governments goal is to try and empty those accounts or significantly reduce them. Finally, unless they are a spouse, or minor with w2 income you can't contribute to someone's Roth. You can gift $16,000 per person per year without any tax penalty. If married, you have give $32,000. Tax planning is considering multiple variables. The goal is to keep as much as possible. That means using pre-tax for lower tax brackets, capital gains for 0% or maybe 15%, and layering in Roth and social security and other income to maximize your spending and reduce the bite of taxes. Treat taxes like inflation. |
|
Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: Finally, unless they are a spouse, or minor with w2 income you can’t contribute to someone’s Roth. Everything else is correct, but gives no answer for a general case beyond “it depends”. |
|
You do you, but if it was me: Assuming I could get by in a normal year in the 12% tax bracket, I'd pull Roth whenever I needed money that would get taxed at 22% if I pulled it out of a non-Roth account. Like for example, you decide to pay cash for a new car or fund a grandchild's tuition and have to pull more than your normal retirement income to do it. |
I think the hardest thing for good LE working for good agencies to really absorb is that there are whole departments full of exactly the complete fuckheads we rail against here. - vectorsc
|
OST I'm considering "blowing the dam" i.e. converting ALL my traditional IRA over to a Roth. Already have a Roth that's 5 years old which it will be rolled over into and I'm 67. Yeah it will suck to pay a SHIT TON of taxes for the conversion but the pains should subside after I get past the 12 months of paying more for Medicare? After that, my annual income will go down significantly which results in lower federal taxes and then its MY money, not TAX INFECTED and I can do pretty much what I want to with it. Dont even need the $ due to multiple income streams, but it seems to be the path I'm looking at. Meeting with a tax professional soon to discuss the options. It's all rolling the dice I guess because we dont know how long we're gonna live to see if the gamble pays off....I guess....other than knowing nothing about what I'm doing I know nothing about what I'm doing |
|
Originally Posted By Burnsome-: OST I'm considering "blowing the dam" i.e. converting ALL my traditional IRA over to a Roth. Already have a Roth that's 5 years old which it will be rolled over into and I'm 67. Yeah it will suck to pay a SHIT TON of taxes for the conversion but the pains should subside after I get past the 12 months of paying more for Medicare? After that, my annual income will go down significantly which results in lower federal taxes and then its MY money, not TAX INFECTED and I can do pretty much what I want to with it. Dont even need the $ due to multiple income streams, but it seems to be the path I'm looking at. Meeting with a tax professional soon to discuss the options. It's all rolling the dice I guess because we dont know how long we're gonna live to see if the gamble pays off....I guess....other than knowing nothing about what I'm doing I know nothing about what I'm doing Converting some is one thing, converting all is probably a bad idea. I would be more onboard with major conversions if shiller PE was sub 20. |
|
Originally Posted By Burnsome-: OST I'm considering "blowing the dam" i.e. converting ALL my traditional IRA over to a Roth. Already have a Roth that's 5 years old which it will be rolled over into and I'm 67. Yeah it will suck to pay a SHIT TON of taxes for the conversion but the pains should subside after I get past the 12 months of paying more for Medicare? After that, my annual income will go down significantly which results in lower federal taxes and then its MY money, not TAX INFECTED and I can do pretty much what I want to with it. Dont even need the $ due to multiple income streams, but it seems to be the path I'm looking at. Meeting with a tax professional soon to discuss the options. It's all rolling the dice I guess because we dont know how long we're gonna live to see if the gamble pays off....I guess....other than knowing nothing about what I'm doing I know nothing about what I'm doing Doesn't make sense with a graduated tax structure. Not only will you pay a ton now, you will miss an entire retirement of filling free/low income brackets. |
WTF is up with this bullshit anti-bayo lug crap. Was there a group of irrate japanese guys bonzai charging disabled school children and puppies that I wasn't aware of?
|
[b] You can gift $16,000 per person per year without any tax penalty. If married, you have give $32,000. This is misleading. There is no tax penalty for giving ANY amount. There is a $19000 gift tax REPORTING threshold so any gifts above that are not taxed, but they are required to be reported and will be deducted from the estate lifetime gift tax exclusion. For 2025, the federal estate and gift tax exclusion is $13.99 million per individual. |
|
Originally Posted By Burnsome-:I'm considering "blowing the dam" i.e. converting ALL my traditional IRA over to a Roth. It's all rolling the dice I guess because we dont know how long we're gonna live to see if the gamble pays off.... If you’re in the 12% bracket then stepping up to even just 22 is a major jump. You need to evaluate your situation objectively. The math is simple and straightforward and it won’t lie to you. One thing to look at: you can pause your SS retirement benefit if you are 67-70 years old. You could do that and reduce your income to make Roth conversions more attractive. While paused your benefit grows at the 8% per year rate until you restart it at or before 70. This is true, but I’ve found that I just don’t care too much about RMDs. If you’ve got so much money that you don’t want to withdraw it you’re just paying taxes on it, it’s not the end of the world. If your RMDs move you from the 12 bracket to 32 it just means you’ve got way more money than you need which is a good thing! |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: Depends entirely on your tax situation and your estate plans. Assuming you are talking withdrawals for living expenses (instead of lump sum greater than one year of living expenses) then roth should probably be last. Roth is also the best way to leave money behind when you die because it’s tax free for your heirs as well. This is exactly why we ended up with a financial planner that was recommended by Fidelity. They can help us unwind our various savings in a tax efficient manner. Tax advise and tax preparation is part of the "reasonable" fee they charge. I was comfortable managing things up and into retirement but the unwinding process is a bit more complicated and benefits from advice from experts that deal with it on a daily basis. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: IRMAA isn't one-and-done when you turn 65, it applies forever. 70 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. 90 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. Avoiding IRMAA for one year by doing roth withdrawals instead of pretax may screw you later once you hit RMDs by forcing you into IRMAA for the rest of your life. Also, IRMAA starts at $74 extra per month if you make more than roughly $260k. This qualifies as tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. If I have more than $260k retirement income I really don't care about paying $74 extra per month for medicare. Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: One of the few times I think I have seen one recommend taking Roth instead of pretax IRA early is to keep income artificially low for that time period before what? age 62? to not get the medicare percentage cut lower due to income reasons. One would have to be in the right situation to play that game for the IRMAA look back time. IRMAA isn't one-and-done when you turn 65, it applies forever. 70 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. 90 and exceeded the IRMAA limit 2 years ago - you have to pay IRMAA. Avoiding IRMAA for one year by doing roth withdrawals instead of pretax may screw you later once you hit RMDs by forcing you into IRMAA for the rest of your life. Also, IRMAA starts at $74 extra per month if you make more than roughly $260k. This qualifies as tripping over dollars to pick up pennies. If I have more than $260k retirement income I really don't care about paying $74 extra per month for medicare. Thank you, I was too dumb to figure that out as I did not find out the Irmaa being all years down the road and not just as you started. Too many youboob videos that touch on something but don’t explain it all in detail. |
The only hyphenated names I like are cartridge names......30-06, 30-40, 38-55 etc.
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: It sure seems to me that people jump straight to IRMAA and RMDs without considering everything else that happens during and after retirement up until those two things start to matter. If you're being forced to withdraw money it's not a huge deal - just invest it in a taxable account and then you only owe long term capital gains on further profits. If leaving money behind to your kids is a priority then it's better to give them money spread out over more time - just use your RMDs to make roth contributions for your heirs. This can be far more powerful since it will give them more time for compounding to work for them. If you're worried about having to pay $74 extra per month due to making over 1/4 million dollars in retirement then I'd venture to say that you're worrying about things that are so minor as to not matter. ie. You've got well over $20k monthly income and are worried about a $74 bill? That's just silly. Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By SkiandShoot: Everything I've been reading, planning, sketching keeps coming back to "the value of your pre-tax future RMD" account balances being the hard core governing question/value. If you're being forced to withdraw money it's not a huge deal - just invest it in a taxable account and then you only owe long term capital gains on further profits. If leaving money behind to your kids is a priority then it's better to give them money spread out over more time - just use your RMDs to make roth contributions for your heirs. This can be far more powerful since it will give them more time for compounding to work for them. If you're worried about having to pay $74 extra per month due to making over 1/4 million dollars in retirement then I'd venture to say that you're worrying about things that are so minor as to not matter. ie. You've got well over $20k monthly income and are worried about a $74 bill? That's just silly. $74? that’s it? ok, lol. I am not there yet, I have a few years to go. |
The only hyphenated names I like are cartridge names......30-06, 30-40, 38-55 etc.
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: it totally depends on your situation. If you’re in the 22% bracket it’s not crazy to fill it up and maybe even the 24% bracket. But stepping up to the 32% bracket is a big jump. If you’re in the 12% bracket then stepping up to even just 22 is a major jump. You need to evaluate your situation objectively. The math is simple and straightforward and it won’t lie to you. One thing to look at: you can pause your SS retirement benefit if you are 67-70 years old. You could do that and reduce your income to make Roth conversions more attractive. While paused your benefit grows at the 8% per year rate until you restart it at or before 70. This is true, but I’ve found that I just don’t care too much about RMDs. If you’ve got so much money that you don’t want to withdraw it you’re just paying taxes on it, it’s not the end of the world. If your RMDs move you from the 12 bracket to 32 it just means you’ve got way more money than you need which is a good thing! Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By Burnsome-:I'm considering "blowing the dam" i.e. converting ALL my traditional IRA over to a Roth. It's all rolling the dice I guess because we dont know how long we're gonna live to see if the gamble pays off.... If you’re in the 12% bracket then stepping up to even just 22 is a major jump. You need to evaluate your situation objectively. The math is simple and straightforward and it won’t lie to you. One thing to look at: you can pause your SS retirement benefit if you are 67-70 years old. You could do that and reduce your income to make Roth conversions more attractive. While paused your benefit grows at the 8% per year rate until you restart it at or before 70. This is true, but I’ve found that I just don’t care too much about RMDs. If you’ve got so much money that you don’t want to withdraw it you’re just paying taxes on it, it’s not the end of the world. If your RMDs move you from the 12 bracket to 32 it just means you’ve got way more money than you need which is a good thing! That’s where I am at. I filled the 22% bracket this year with a Roth conversion. My Roth is only 10% of accounts though. It wasn’t offered in my plan until my last few years and I was too preoccupied/lazy to open an independent one. I debated going to fill the 24% bracket. I wish I did now. I managed to time my conversion during the first big dip from the tariff scare. That certainly helped converting more shares at a “discount”. In hindsight I wish I filled the whole 24% bracket. No way would I do conversions at 32%. I mentally couldn’t tolerate it. |
The only hyphenated names I like are cartridge names......30-06, 30-40, 38-55 etc.
|
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: $74? that’s it? ok, lol. I am not there yet, I have a few years to go. Assuming you're married, for 2025 the first IRMAA bracket is $212k-$266k annual "modified" AGI and your IRMAA adds $74 (per person) to your monthly medicare premium. So if you make $212-266k income in retirement you have to pay $888 in IRMAA (per person, so $1776 for all of 2025 if married). Assuming married, at $266k your income tax bill would be around $42k. And people fuss and moan over an extra $1776 in IRMAA. It is literally tripping over dollars to pickup pennies. Always minimize your taxes to the maximum amount possible, but the level of teeth gnashing and wasted breath spent on IRMAA while ignoring other (more significant) tax issues is just silly. If we have 1/4 million annual income when we're on medicare (ie. over 65) I'm not going to worry myself over $1776 in IRMAA. |
|
Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: That’s where I am at. I filled the 22% bracket this year with a Roth conversion. My Roth is only 10% of accounts though. But if you're reliably in the 22% bracket (pensions? SS?) then annual conversions to fill the 22% bracket is not a terrible idea since you're unlikely to ever be below the 22% bracket. Have you started SS? If so, I would seriously consider pausing your SS to do conversions at a lower tax rate. You'll get lower tax rate on conversions and as a side benefit your SS benefit will be larger when you restart it. The situation is simple - you will pay taxes on untaxed money so you choose when to pay to get the lowest possible tax rate. |
