Sunday November 8, 2009 2:16 AM ET
SmartMoney
Published April 1, 2009  |  A A A
SmartMoney Magazine by Peter Keating (Author Archive)

New Math for IRA Savings

Usually, the last thing anyone giving financial advice needs to do is to tell Americans to dodge taxes. Tax our tea unfairly and we’ll start a revolution. Give us a holiday from sales tax and we’ll buy all kinds of clothes and appliances we don’t need. Launch single-state muni-bond funds whose yields are exempt from income taxes in jurisdictions that don’t even have income taxes and we’ll plow our money into them.

Yet there’s a way to completely avoid paying taxes on retirement savings, and it’s perplexingly unpopular. With a Roth IRA, your retirement investments grow tax free. If you get a statement showing you have $200,000 in a Roth IRA, that amount—and not some lesser figure you have to guesstimate after trying to adjust for taxes—is what you’ve got, and you can spend it whenever and however you please. But just 19 percent of working Americans have Roth IRAs, even though 90 percent are eligible for them, according to Fidelity. And Roth IRAs hold only 4 percent of all IRA assets, according to the most recent Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances.

This tax season happens to be a particularly good time to get your household’s savings into a Roth IRA. But before looking at why, let’s review how this type of account works and the possible stumbling blocks to using it effectively.

With traditional IRAs, you get a quick tax benefit: You can deduct the contributions you make in any year from your taxable income. Your investments are then sheltered from taxes as long as they remain in your IRA. But when you take a distribution from an IRA, it is subject to regular income taxes. Roth IRAs flip the timing of the tax break. Contributions are not deductible—but then they grow tax-free and will never be taxed again.

(A quick word about eligibility. Anyone who is not covered by a retirement plan at work or their own self-employed plan can deduct any IRA contributions up to $5,000, or $6,000 if you’re age 50 or older. If you are covered by another retirement plan, then contributions are only deductible if your modified adjusted gross income is less than $85,000 for married couples, though the amount you’re able to deduct starts getting reduced when your income hits $53,000. If your spouse is covered by a plan but you are not, your contributions are deductible if your joint income is less than $159,000. Anyone, however, can make a nondeductible contribution to an IRA.)

If all the other rules governing traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs were identical, there would be no reason to favor a Roth. Algebra says it shouldn’t matter whether taxes are applied to contributions or a compounded total. But there are three big reasons why a Roth can be better.

First, since creating Roth IRAs in 1997, Congress has never distinguished between the limits on making contributions to them and on making deductible contributions to traditional IRAs. In 2009, for instance, you can put a total of $5,000 into IRAs of both kinds ($6,000 if you’re 50 or older). And that equivalence means Roth IRAs give you more bang for your buck. To take a simple example, let’s say you put $5,000 into a Roth IRA this year and leave it untouched for 30 years. If it grows at 6 percent a year, you would end up with $28,717, tax free. To get that much from a traditional IRA in 30 years at 6 percent, you would have to invest $6,944 initially, let it grow and then pay income tax on the total (assuming you’re in the 28 percent federal bracket). But you can’t—you can invest only up to $5,000.

Now, with a traditional IRA, you do get an up-front deduction. In this case, that would be worth $1,400. But even if you invest your deduction in a taxable account for 30 years, the total will still fall short of the Roth IRA’s. It may seem paradoxical that after-tax dollars make for a better tax shield, but the combination of equal contribution limits and tax-free withdrawals gives the Roth an edge.

The second advantage to a Roth is easier to understand: no mandatory distributions. In contrast, you face stiff penalties if you don’t start drawing down a traditional IRA by age 70½.

Third, since you can accumulate large sums in Roth IRAs without having to worry about taking distributions, they make excellent vehicles for estate planning. You can pass a Roth IRA to your heirs and they will never have to pay taxes on the amounts they withdraw. They will have to make mandatory distributions according to IRS timetables but can stretch out drawdowns over their lifetimes, which makes Roth IRAs a particularly good asset to leave to grandchildren.

SmartMoney.com would like to invite you to visit our Variable Annuities Custom Resource Center.
Click here to find out more about this financial product and how it may apply to you.

1
2
Next
Find More Articles About: Personal Finance, Real Estate, Retirement
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
Bookmark and Share RSS
  To license SmartMoney content and tools, click here
User Comments
Posted by: sobrien128
Jim Blankenship is correct. His is a much better analysis than the author of the article did.

S. OBrien, CPA
Posted by: Mirandaortiz
This is a good introduction to Roth IRA, but I'd also recommend looking at
http://www.rothirarules.net/roth-ira-eligibility.htm . They have some in-depth analysis of Roth IRA investments, basic do's and don'ts and so on.
Posted by: jowen2
Married filing separately can do conversion to Roth beginning 2010.
BlankenshipFP

2 Comments
While I share Mr. Keating's enthusiasm over the Roth IRA and the benefits of investing therein, there is a slight oversight in his "math" as reported:

It was mentioned that in order to achieve the same benefit with a traditional IRA as a $5,000 contribution in a Roth IRA, the taxpayer would need to invest a total of $6,944, assuming a 28% tax bracket. What isn't pointed out is that, given the 28% tax bracket, in order to make the $5,000 contribution to a Roth IRA, the individual must earn $6,944 in order to have a net $5,000 available for his Roth IRA contribution.

Effectively, if tax rates remain the same and the differential is always invested, the Roth IRA and the traditional IRA are roughly equivalent. But tax rates are bound to be on the rise - making the Roth IRA more attractive. Adding in the "no RMD" factor is just icing on the cake.

Jim Blankenship, CFP®, EA
Advertisements