I don’t agree with the the thought process that the government is going to claw back at the Roth but if this were the logic used than it would be an acceptable reason to go with the Traditional. Similarly if someone were to argue that they thought taxes would actually be lower (i don’t agree with this ) than that too would be an acceptable reason.
My beef is that when they say they are savings person money by going with the Traditional, that is where I have to raise the Bullshit flag. Based on the scenarios they not only are NOT saving their clients money they are costing them money and even after putting it on spread sheet for one they still didn’t get it.
My take is that you have button ushers who can input the data but have no real understanding of the actual products.[/quote]
Fair enough…Actually, I don’t think we’re in disagreement here, because I think we both thinking from the perspective that both our tax rates and actual tax bills due post retirement are most likely going to be higher later versus now.
My point was I’m doing the half/half split because while ideally I’d like to believe that all gains from a Roth IRA will be tax free in the future, I can’t count on this government to keep it’s word.
So that’s why I’m doing sort of the middle approach to see which one shakes out, part tax deferral, part roth. I guess the is also the possibility of being screwed both ways, kinda like the getting hit by a car and then run over by a bus…But oh well… I also save/invest a good portion of after tax dollars in other things too.
Side issue for me also, there was also the small “hurt” of funding a roth401k fully for the first 3-4 of months… I’d get a bi-weekly net paycheck of like $10 after all the deductions from it and every other deferral plan I had!…The first 3-4 months of each year is always much tighter for me the then remaining of the year, just because all the deductions happen for me up front, and some of our other deferral plans don’t release assets/dollars until the middle of the year.
