Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
anyone is free to counter anything any of the top researchers say with their own data , facts or expert opinion .
because one says i say so doesn’t get much credibility here…
if one wants to do their own research they can find lots of expert opinion to support an opposing view . i wish they would …
i am always open to switching hats if it’s a valid argument.
the problem is when their source is nothing but click bait articles or what they think .
there is lots of support as far as introducing annuities in to your own investing out there from top experts.
i used to be totally anti annuity , but research by pfau , milevski and kitces show they can be quite useful …but not as an all or nothing choice.
qlacs are still meh in my opinion along with any kind of deferred annuities.. but spias i can see as part of the bond budget in a diversified plan.
even bernstein whom isn’t one of my top choices , likes the idea of an SPIA handling the liabilities one has and investing the rest .
he calls it a liability matching portfolio.
on the other hand ed slot is way way to much annuities for my taste , and i find a lot of what he preaches for the wealthy, not typical retirees that still need to grow their money thru retirement
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-12-2024 at 01:03 PM..
So, what are your intentions, goals, dreams for your IRA and other assets for your retirement years, assuming you do want to retire?
Are you concerned with the amount of taxes you will be paying on your retirement asset decummulations? If you can save 4.95% on your taxes on taking retirement funds, would you do it?
YAMV
I don’t have dreams of my retirement accounts or assets. My dreams are about things i (or we) want to do, places we want to travel to, other interests to pursue. We will retire when we are ready but we don’t hold back on our interests before retiring either. Just returned from a 28-day trip with our camper into Nevada, Arizona, NM, SW Texas (Big Bend NP). We’re able to do it as we have internet coverage throughout with Starlink. We have more than enough to retire on but my wife plans to work until 2026. I will retire around then as well but no hard date in mind. One difference is that I like my work, have external clients and little overhead and get paid very well for my efforts. I can start turning away work tomorrow or continue. Currently, I plan to continue.
We are reasonably smart about the taxes but don’t run our lives to save on taxes, IRMAA, etc. Yes, saving state taxes would be good but there is no free lunch. If a state doesn’t have income taxes, it’s got to make up revenue somewhere. We did look at WA, almost bought a place but found that the developer was cutting one corner too many and had to back out. Still recovering from that but are under no illusion that it will save us so much in taxes. WA has enacted a punishing CG tax and the real estate and other taxes are high. Might still do it but were recently turned off.
The key to remember is that taxes should not serve as a reason to forgo far greater income.
Re WA 7% on excess of LTCG of $262,000. Retirement Income from is Not LTCG.
absolutely on taxes.
However, if you could mitigate-moderate-ameliorate the taxes, would you explore those possibilities?
While taxes were not the driving factor in the decision - when we made the offer for a waterfront property and when we rescinded it - tax implication have to viewed at a whole, not just on the retirement part of the portfolio. And yes - the WA LTCG tax is relevant to us. I was appalled at the shoddy reasoning the WA supreme court came up with to justify it. We might not trigger it all the time but even our past CG and DIV have exceeded the threshold.
Of course we take interest in minimizing our tax liability. But, we aren't interested in anything dodgy and our line of work, unlike real estate for example, does not offer legal options that meaningfully mitigate it. So, we will just pay what we owe on both tax and irmaa fronts.
the plus for the conversion if tax rates will be the same in rmds is the price of admission to the roth is the same as in to the taxable account via the rmd .
the roth and its gains will never be taxed where as the taxable account that holds the rmd will if its going to be reinvested.
the plus for the conversion if tax rates will be the same in rmds is the price of admission to the roth is the same as in to the taxable account via the rmd .
the roth and its gains will never be taxed where as the taxable account that holds the rmd will if its going to be reinvested.
if its going to be spent then no big deal
Understood. Like I said, we are currently in 37% marginal tax bracket and have almost 5% on top of that as state taxes. So, we aren't doing any conversions now. And, this tax scenario will likely continue through 2026 when the rate go back up. We will definitely look at conversions, particularly as we have some interest in ending up in CA for the later part of retirement. Whether we can make a sufficient dent of the retirement portfolio even converting, say, 100K (most generous room I can imagine in the 24% bracket) for 7-8 years is not obvious. So, we will do what is feasible and not not worry about what is not.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,143 posts, read 7,637,039 times
Reputation: 9937
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavm
While taxes were not the driving factor in the decision - when we made the offer for a waterfront property and when we rescinded it - tax implication have to viewed at a whole, not just on the retirement part of the portfolio. And yes - the WA LTCG tax is relevant to us. I was appalled at the shoddy reasoning the WA supreme court came up with to justify it. We might not trigger it all the time but even our past CG and DIV have exceeded the threshold.
Of course we take interest in minimizing our tax liability. But, we aren't interested in anything dodgy and our line of work, unlike real estate for example, does not offer legal options that meaningfully mitigate it. So, we will just pay what we owe on both tax and irmaa fronts.
nothing dodgy. everything transparent.
I would be guessing that your wealth level and your qualified accounts are high enough to where it is virtually impossible to reduce your effective tax rate-ie your wealth is reasonably static regardless of relative small market changes and your decummulations.
What I am suggesting is the year you retire and subsequent years, take big qualified account distributions to run down qualified accounts to where later RMDs will be more manageable. Take personal loans if necessary to maintain living standards-loan cost is less than taxes on income.
Agree. But to be clear, I find nothing wrong with pointing out that someone may be mistaken in their thinking, or perhaps their analysis is incomplete. But how one conveys that message is as important as the message itself. Being an ******* is a sure guarantee that nobody is going to listen to you no matter how correct you are. Some people never learn that lesson though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
