s********t 发帖数: 1429 | 1 之前换工作的时候401K转出来到traditional IRA了 但是我还想转5000 after tax的到
roth
这样怎么证明哪部分钱是pre 还是post tax的呢?
谢谢啊 |
q**y 发帖数: 135 | 2 似乎是按比例吧。现在一般建议换工作401k都convert成ROTH IRA。
【在 s********t 的大作中提到】 : 之前换工作的时候401K转出来到traditional IRA了 但是我还想转5000 after tax的到 : roth : 这样怎么证明哪部分钱是pre 还是post tax的呢? : 谢谢啊
|
n******n 发帖数: 12088 | 3 什么一般建议?别误导了。转不转看当前税率。
楼主赶紧把rollover ira转到新雇主401k里去。
【在 q**y 的大作中提到】 : 似乎是按比例吧。现在一般建议换工作401k都convert成ROTH IRA。
|
s********t 发帖数: 1429 | |
q**y 发帖数: 135 | 5 好吧,如果你收入离退休不远就不要再ROTH了。如果有20年才退休,还是ROTH好,所有
的capital gain tax free。
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】 : 什么一般建议?别误导了。转不转看当前税率。 : 楼主赶紧把rollover ira转到新雇主401k里去。
|
t*******e 发帖数: 298 | 6 转成traditional ira不好?最近换工作,正准备rollover 401k。
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】 : 什么一般建议?别误导了。转不转看当前税率。 : 楼主赶紧把rollover ira转到新雇主401k里去。
|
w***n 发帖数: 1519 | 7 如果你今后有可能要backdoor roth 的话就不要转traditional ira
新雇主提供401k的话就转到新的401k就是了,就算不提供或是不让转进,也不是非得转
ira。你原来的401k很可能有一些普通账户买不到的好基金。
至于roth,你如果现在州税很高,以后老了要搬到别的州的话,傻了才转roth
【在 t*******e 的大作中提到】 : 转成traditional ira不好?最近换工作,正准备rollover 401k。
|
t*******e 发帖数: 298 | 8 肯定不会转roth,现在还在上班,要交不少税。基金好坏咋看?morning star上面看几
星?以前就是401k账号里随便比了比历史收益选的。现在可以转成ira,我想有那么多选
择,肯定有比401k里面的要好的基金吧。
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】 : 如果你今后有可能要backdoor roth 的话就不要转traditional ira : 新雇主提供401k的话就转到新的401k就是了,就算不提供或是不让转进,也不是非得转 : ira。你原来的401k很可能有一些普通账户买不到的好基金。 : 至于roth,你如果现在州税很高,以后老了要搬到别的州的话,傻了才转roth
|
n******n 发帖数: 12088 | 9 扯。如果你现在加州,税率40%,转Roth绝对错误。
【在 q**y 的大作中提到】 : 好吧,如果你收入离退休不远就不要再ROTH了。如果有20年才退休,还是ROTH好,所有 : 的capital gain tax free。
|
n******n 发帖数: 12088 | 10 留到老雇主的401k里。
【在 s********t 的大作中提到】 : 谢谢啊 新雇主还没401
|
|
|
f*******n 发帖数: 12623 | 11 你分析错了。如果税率是一样的,现在交税和过50年交税的结果是一样的。
【在 q**y 的大作中提到】 : 好吧,如果你收入离退休不远就不要再ROTH了。如果有20年才退休,还是ROTH好,所有 : 的capital gain tax free。
|
d********n 发帖数: 1856 | 12 Bingo.
I am doing backdoor roth. Rollovered some 401k to traditional IRA. so
painful.
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】 : 如果你今后有可能要backdoor roth 的话就不要转traditional ira : 新雇主提供401k的话就转到新的401k就是了,就算不提供或是不让转进,也不是非得转 : ira。你原来的401k很可能有一些普通账户买不到的好基金。 : 至于roth,你如果现在州税很高,以后老了要搬到别的州的话,傻了才转roth
|
w***n 发帖数: 1519 | 13 It's more about extra paperwork and hassle, not necessarily means tax
disadvantage. No matter what IRAs you are having, you only pay tax once for
every penny in them: You either already paid (in roth), or are now paying (
conversion), or will pay later (future distribution). All that matters is
the tax rate comparison, where there are a lot of unknowns. Tax
diversification is probably wise when you are unsure.
【在 d********n 的大作中提到】 : Bingo. : I am doing backdoor roth. Rollovered some 401k to traditional IRA. so : painful.
|
d********n 发帖数: 1856 | 14 not completely true.
say you have after tax money, contribute to non-deductible ira, but you have
rolled-over ira already, roll over non-deductible ira to roth ira, you
would have to pay tax again on the roll over based on the prorated formula.
So you pay tax TWICE.
for
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】 : It's more about extra paperwork and hassle, not necessarily means tax : disadvantage. No matter what IRAs you are having, you only pay tax once for : every penny in them: You either already paid (in roth), or are now paying ( : conversion), or will pay later (future distribution). All that matters is : the tax rate comparison, where there are a lot of unknowns. Tax : diversification is probably wise when you are unsure.
|
w***n 发帖数: 1519 | 15 I was never in this situation before. Theoretically, I thought eventually
when you pay tax for the roll over ira later, you don't have to pay tax for
100% of the money. It should be somehow prorated too, no?
Suppose you have a rollover IRA of $45k and you are now doing backdoor for $
5k. You need to pay tax for 90% of $5k, that is, $4.5k. After you retired,
when you distribute money from rollover IRA, you pay tax for whatever money
left minus $4.5k. It would be very much unfair if it's not the case. Anyway,
good to know there might be a catch.
have
formula.
【在 d********n 的大作中提到】 : not completely true. : say you have after tax money, contribute to non-deductible ira, but you have : rolled-over ira already, roll over non-deductible ira to roth ira, you : would have to pay tax again on the roll over based on the prorated formula. : So you pay tax TWICE. : : for
|
f*******n 发帖数: 12623 | 16 But in this case, you are NOT converting "non-deductible ira to roth ira".
Instead, you are converting SOME non-deductible ira, and SOME deductible ira
(because the IRS's rules force you to) -- you will still be left with some
non-deductible ira and some deductible ira. So of course you need to pay tax
on converting the deductible part (but not the non-deductible part).
have
formula.
【在 d********n 的大作中提到】 : not completely true. : say you have after tax money, contribute to non-deductible ira, but you have : rolled-over ira already, roll over non-deductible ira to roth ira, you : would have to pay tax again on the roll over based on the prorated formula. : So you pay tax TWICE. : : for
|
d********n 发帖数: 1856 | 17 sad but true
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Backdoor_Roth_IRA
for
$
money
Anyway,
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】 : I was never in this situation before. Theoretically, I thought eventually : when you pay tax for the roll over ira later, you don't have to pay tax for : 100% of the money. It should be somehow prorated too, no? : Suppose you have a rollover IRA of $45k and you are now doing backdoor for $ : 5k. You need to pay tax for 90% of $5k, that is, $4.5k. After you retired, : when you distribute money from rollover IRA, you pay tax for whatever money : left minus $4.5k. It would be very much unfair if it's not the case. Anyway, : good to know there might be a catch. : : have
|