"Andy" <ineverevercheckthismailbox[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141432429.410640.47880[at]u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Neither, that's the advantage of putting money into a Roth, you don't pay
taxes on gains. You may be thinking of a traditional IRA or 401(k) where
distributions of gains (and tax-deferred contributions) are taxed as
ordinary income.

- quote -

In this scenario you save 15% in taxes with the Roth. That's not chump
change. Again, you may be thinking of a traditional IRA or 401(k) where
this scenario should be considered.

-Will

In article <1141432429.410640.47880[at]u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> ,
"Andy" <ineverevercheckthismailbox[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Not at all. Period. (until the law changes :-)) That's the point.

- quote -

Andy wrote:
- quote -


Withdraws from a Roth IRA are not taxed *at all*. (at least until
Congress realizes how much money is sitting out there untaxed and
reneges the tax laws)

A taxable brokerage account can be more tax efficient than a traditional
IRA for the reasons that you mentioned.

Bob

Will Trice wrote:
- quote -

How are withdrawels from a Roth IRA that is invested in equities taxed,
as capital gains or as ordinary income? Isn't it possible that if you
plan to invest in growth oriented equities the overall tax differences
between being in Roth IRA or an ordinary taxable brokerage account
would not be that great, given that long term capital gains are taxed
at 15% and you don't owe any tax on capital gains until you sell?

Andy

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote
- quote -

Or, if the guy has a Traditional IRA, then it may very well
make sense to convert it to a Roth. Overall point being that
Roth IRAs can be a financially rational choice at any age,
depending on mostly tax bracket considerations. (I know some
60-something folks converting their Traditional IRAs and
also contributing to Roths, for all the reasons listed so
far.)

bo peep wrote:
- quote -


I don't believe there are any minimum withdrawl requirements for a Roth.
If he has enough money to invest now to fund retirement in 10 years,
it make sense to me to put some of it in a Roth account -- he can let
that money sit there growing for the first 5 or 10 years of retirement;
he can draw down the other accounts first, or pass the Roth account to
his heirs tax-free if he dies early.

A Roth doesn't work as the /sole/ retirement vehicle at his age.

Bob

"bo peep" <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141417106.036232.70300[at]p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

This isn't true. You don't pay more tax to put money into a Roth, you just
don't get a tax deduction. Roth contributions are after-tax contributions.
But the OP's father was given advice to have a normal brokerage account -
funded after tax. No difference (at the time of investment). The advantage
of the Roth is that the OP's father will not pay tax on investment gains as
he would with the brokerage account (even if his tax rate is zero at
retirement). The OP's father is getting bad advice.

If the decision was between a 401(k) (or deductible IRA) vs. a Roth, then
you need to look at the OP's father's marginal tax rate now vs. what it will
be in retirement. Here a Roth may not be the best decision, but a Roth will
still beat a taxable brokerage account.

-Will

doobitup[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -


Maybe they were recommending a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth IRA?
That could make sense because the Trad-IRA produces an immediate tax
deduction. You said it wasn't that though.

But taxable account vs. never-taxed account? I can't imagine why anyone
would recommend that. Ask them why, and listen closely to the answer as
you head for the door...

-Tad

<<What am I missing?>
With only 10 years to accumulate his retirement funds, those funds will
be relatively small. A small amount of retirement funds drawn out over
a period of several years will probably mean that he will be in a very
low tax bracket during retirement. This partially or entirely erases
the tax shelter benefit of the Roth. He would be paying high taxes now
to enable low taxes later, the exact opposite of what is desirable.

John Cowart

<doobitup[at]yahoo.com> wrote
snip. Interested readers, please look back.
- quote -

Nothing. A Roth can indeed make rational financial sense at
any age. It mostly depends on what one anticipates one's tax
bracket will be.

Hello. I have a question that has stumped me. My Dad is 58 years old
and wants to work for 10 more years. He has done very little to plan
for his retirement but has finally started the process of looking for
an advisor. I suggested to him that he bring up Roth IRAs at some
point in the discussion and most have advised against a Roth at his
age. I could understand if they were suggesting investing in a 401k or
other tax deferred account, but they seem to be suggesting puting money
in taxable brokerage accounts instead of a Roth.

This doesn't make sense to me. These advisors say Roths are for young
people, but even if he only has 10 years to contribute, why pay taxes
on his earnings if he doesn't have to?

If one had the money to invest and didn't need it for the 5 year
minimum holding period required of someone his age, I don't see why you
would invest in a taxable account instead of a Roth. What am I missing?