Ah, yes, I see what you mean. I think you are correct.
If MDM sees this, I'm sure he/she will be glad for the system test assist.
Based on this post, in conjunction with your earlier chain-of-spouses post, I would l like to state for the record that your imagination has greater range than minedodecahedron wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:18 pmI would suggest you are lacking in imagination. Simply imagine a taxpayer couple with very successful investments (e.g., a family business) throwing off large amount of taxable income such that the TPs project being in the top tax bracket for the rest of their lives (and their children's lives.)McQ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 pm Next, the reductio. I have no story to tell here; simply the math of the worst imaginable case under the current tax structure. That would be to convert at the top rate of 37%, to avert RMDs that would only have been taxed at … zero. This is a pure reductio. I cannot imagine a real world case that would produce this course of events;
Then imagine that, unfortunately, down the road, an embezzler employee defrauds the family business or the child designated to take over the business turns out to be incompetent, or some environmental disaster destroys the business or some unscrupulous person or charity preys upon the taxpayers with a scam that destroys their portfolio and shrinks their AGI well below original projections.
In my own small town (population 20,000), I have read of several extremely wealthy senior citizens who eventually developed dementia and were taken advantage of by embezzling attorneys who served as fiduciary trustees of large trusts designed to provide for their old age in great luxury and comfort. I am sure this happens elsewhere.
Thank you marcopolo—I really appreciate your efforts. I was hoping my spreadsheet could be reproduced from the image without too much effort, but now you have provided the proof. I am also gratified you did not find any hidden calculation errors. I live in terror of those.marcopolo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:33 amProf. McQuarrie,McQ wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:50 pm You guessed wrong about future tax rates--how bad will it be?
This post examines unfortunately timed Roth conversions, or perhaps, poorly analyzed conversions where future tax rates turned out not to be as expected (or feared). This post is limited to realistic pratfalls. Next post looks at terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Roth conversions that never, ever should have been done (spoiler alert: they still pay off—eventually).
.... Charts deleted for brevity
Thanks you for starting this interesting discussion.
I took the liberty of reproducing your spreadsheet. Your descriptions were quite clear and easy to follow, thanks for the detailed explanations!
I first confirmed that i was getting the same exact results as what you posted for several input scenarios.
I also ran a couple of sanity checks, like setting both tax rates equal, and setting cap gains tax rate (tax drag) to zero.
In this case, as expected, we see that the convert and non-convert cases are identical as expected.
I then took the further liberty of adding two additional changes.
1) Added a parameter that specifies the yield of the taxable account. This separates the unrealized capital gains (not taxed each year) from the annual dividend and cap gains distributions (taxed annually at specified cap gains rate).
2) Added a couple of columns to keep track of the embedded capital gains, and then at each ending year, applied the capital gains rate to the previous 10 years of accumulated unrealized gains. Since we are considering the case where the dollars under consideration are not spent, this models the case where the beneficiaries get step up basis at death of the investor, and then wait the maximum 10 years prior to liquidating the accounts, and incur capital gains taxes of the gains during those 10 years after step up.
I believe this is is a much more realistic scenario than taxing all gains in the taxable account each year.
This changes the "break even" time frame quite dramatically.
For example, at tax rates of 32% at conversion,and 24% at evaluation, your approach shows the Roth Conversion pulling ahead at age 95.
If instead, we use a 2% yield (each year has 10% gain, consisting of 2% taxable distribution, and 8% unrealized gains), what we see is that the break even age becomes 105, that is meaning the investor died at age 95, and the heirs let the accounts grow another 10 years before withdrawing.
The tax drag will eventually make up any difference in tax rates, but i think under more realistic scenarios, the time to do that can be quite significant.
Cas- I appreciate that slack you cut me. FWIW, my modus operandi in this and similar multi-post threads is to:cas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:24 pm
(To give appropriate credit, McQ said earlier he plans to add these features to his spreadsheet, given some more time. But he is also busy providing these thorough posts to us, which I'm sure is taking lots of time that he could otherwise be using enhancing his spreadsheet.)
As you predicted: thanks to Boglehead's member marcopolo for that one
I guess I am among those who do expect a greater effect. So, let's assume you are doing a conversion at a 22% marginal fed tax rate and a 7% state tax rate, which assumes you live in one of the 38 states that do tax IRA distributions. So, the government owns 29% of your IRA. By paying your taxes with other, fully taxable funds, you are in effect contributing that 29% of your IRA in otherwise fully taxable funds to the Roth where it will be tax-free forever. That 29% of the whole pre-conversion IRA amounts to 40% of the post-conversion Roth if the taxes come out of the IRA itself. How could it be that increasing your Roth by 40% for free does not have a large effect?McQ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:19 pmThe first series of posts assumes funds will be paid from the conversion. A second series considers paying funds from outside.cbeck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:12 pm I miss the part about the source of funds to pay the taxes. Does this analysis assume that taxes are paid from the IRA or from other, after-tax funds? If from after-tax funds, then that amounts to a conversion of taxable funds to Roth, which is a guaranteed winner, no?
As FiveK indicated in his/her reply, that will make a difference, but (my words now) rather less than many people expect.
If I pay a 22% tax rate now on a Roth conversion in Washington state (no state tax on conversion), have lumpy expenses in a few years, move to Arizona. I could avoid paying Arizona taxes, avoid paying higher marginal tax rates (25%) plus higher IRMAA levels for me and my wife. It wouldn't take a long time to break even. I look at it as winning now because the utility of Roth amounts and tax-deferred traditional amounts are different due to the tax laws.McQ wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:34 pmI will take up the lumpy expense case in a week or two. Although your point is a staple of Roth discussions ("if I have a Roth, then I can fix the roof / replace the car / help with a down payment, without tapping my TDA and bumping up a bracket"), I'm not sure that will pencil out as expected. To be continued.2pedals wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:19 pm ^^ +2
I just don't know what's going to happen. It doesn't feel too good using discretionary lumpy expenses and at the same time jumping into higher tax brackets and IRMAA payments. With adequate Roth it enables one to balance things out better when lumpy expenses are desired. RMDs are not friendly to single tax brackets for surviving spouse and 10 year distribution limits for single heirs.
Geographic (tax) Arbitrage — yes, cool with this idea - gr8 likelihood of success!2pedals wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:43 pm ..
If I pay a 22% tax rate now on a Roth conversion in Washington state (no state tax on conversion), have lumpy expenses in a few years, move to Arizona. I could avoid paying Arizona taxes, avoid paying higher marginal tax rates (25%) plus higher IRMAA levels for me and my wife. It wouldn't take a long time to break even. I look at it as winning now because the utility of Roth amounts and traditional amounts are different due to the tax laws.
Yes, converting at a lower rate to avoid paying a higher rate later is favorable no later than when the higher rate starts.
That is the point of this thread: it can be favorable to have done the Roth conversion, even for the quoted situation.
Toggle cell B6 in the MDM spreadsheet (after setting other inputs to match your situation the best you can) to see what the effect might be for you.
Yes, for spousal heirs who can and do choose to treat the inherited IRA as their own, that is how to view it. Not sure if either the MDM or McQ tools handle all variations of this theme.The answer to that also partly depends on how long "forever" is. In my own case I expect my Roth to be feeding my wife forty years from now. For others it could be even longer. The ultimate value of my Roth depends on the longevity of the Roth, not my own longevity.
It dawned on me yesterday that that there is a whole class of conversions, where the "left undisturbed" scenario will NOT recover. (Under current and, I think, all tax law since 2010 when Roth conversion became legal for people with AGI over $100,000.) (And, yes, I'm staying within the realm of the "RMD effect" Roth conversion scenarios being discussed in this thread and not searching over the whole universe of possible Roth conversion scenarios.)McQ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:51 pm
And I will pay particular attention to the case in your later post [from marcopolo], where the Roth never recovered. It’s easy to show that outcome when the Roth gets tapped early, as so many posters anticipate doing; but I hadn’t found that in any of the “left undisturbed” scenarios I have looked at.
“Always” is indeed a tough taskmaster … to be continued.
It requires far less than that amount of imagination. It happened to thousands of families in 1929.McQ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:42 pmBased on this post, in conjunction with your earlier chain-of-spouses post, I would l like to state for the record that your imagination has greater range than minedodecahedron wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:18 pmI would suggest you are lacking in imagination. Simply imagine a taxpayer couple with very successful investments (e.g., a family business) throwing off large amount of taxable income such that the TPs project being in the top tax bracket for the rest of their lives (and their children's lives.)McQ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 pm Next, the reductio. I have no story to tell here; simply the math of the worst imaginable case under the current tax structure. That would be to convert at the top rate of 37%, to avert RMDs that would only have been taxed at … zero. This is a pure reductio. I cannot imagine a real world case that would produce this course of events;
Then imagine that, unfortunately, down the road, an embezzler employee defrauds the family business or the child designated to take over the business turns out to be incompetent, or some environmental disaster destroys the business or some unscrupulous person or charity preys upon the taxpayers with a scam that destroys their portfolio and shrinks their AGI well below original projections.
In my own small town (population 20,000), I have read of several extremely wealthy senior citizens who eventually developed dementia and were taken advantage of by embezzling attorneys who served as fiduciary trustees of large trusts designed to provide for their old age in great luxury and comfort. I am sure this happens elsewhere.
I hope you will continue to exercise it here and on other threads: it adds value for me.
Cool, I’ll play (I am not above dealing the “tease” card myself, as below).cas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:48 amIt dawned on me yesterday that that there is a whole class of conversions, where the "left undisturbed" scenario will NOT recover. (Under current and, I think, all tax law since 2010 when Roth conversion became legal for people with AGI over $100,000.) (And, yes, I'm staying within the realm of the "RMD effect" Roth conversion scenarios being discussed in this thread and not searching over the whole universe of possible Roth conversion scenarios.)McQ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:51 pm
And I will pay particular attention to the case in your later post [from marcopolo], where the Roth never recovered. It’s easy to show that outcome when the Roth gets tapped early, as so many posters anticipate doing; but I hadn’t found that in any of the “left undisturbed” scenarios I have looked at.
“Always” is indeed a tough taskmaster … to be continued.
And that class of "failed" conversions can be explained conceptually, in a few sentences, using general concepts on how taxable vs Roth accounts work.
You (McQ) are very, very close to having the lightbulb go on yourself, I think, so I'll be a bit coy and not say what it is just now.
Hint: Your most recent 2 case studies are just on the tippy edge of being examples. marcopolo's examples are also on the tippy edge. Just tweak one assumption, and they'll be there.
(There is also the risk that once this class of conversion scenarios is revealed, you'll just say "Oh. That is so obvious, it is cheating. I'll just put it in my caveats at the beginning of the paper that it is obvious and that that the rest of the paper won't consider that situation.)
I assume "iff" is the academic shorthand for "If and only if", i.e. "if and only if one of you lives long enough."
From playing around with several scenarios, it looks to me like the tax drag is the main driver, and it is dominated by the assumption that ALL gains in the taxable account (housing RMDs) are taxed each year at 15% LTCG rate. As someone pointed out above, this was true even for the cases where the withdrawal rate was set to 12%, and even 0%. So, in this iteration of the model, there is no such thing as a 0% LTCG.Lee_WSP wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:26 pm Before I comment, can I get clarification on something?
Is the driver of Roth conversions eventually pulling ahead the tax drag from either or both RMD's and dividends from a taxable account?
If so, you can come up with a scenario where someone converts nearly all of a TDA into Roth and RMD's + dividends never touch the LTCG rate of 0%, thus allowing nearly unlimited tax free growth up until the taxable account becomes large enough to start spitting off dividends that are larger than the LTCG 0% bracket.
This can continue onto the next generation if the beneficiary is disabled and draws no income. Or is retired or otherwise draws no income.
That second scenario can theoretically go on forever without much of a stretch in imagination where the decedent is 90-100 and the beneficiary is 65-80.
Either case, both the 0% LTCG bracket ad infinitum and the drastic over convert scenario are the two pole ends that are talked about a lot, but not in actual fact.
If not, exactly what drives the Roth catchup?
No. The opposite point.McQ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:08 pmcas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:48 amIt dawned on me yesterday that that there is a whole class of conversions, where the "left undisturbed" scenario will NOT recover.McQ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:51 pm
And I will pay particular attention to the case in your later post [from marcopolo], where the Roth never recovered. It’s easy to show that outcome when the Roth gets tapped early, as so many posters anticipate doing; but I hadn’t found that in any of the “left undisturbed” scenarios I have looked at.
My guess at your realization: Roth conversions always pay out, iff one of you lives long enough.
(Hint #2.5. Under the current tax code, in order to have a 0% nominal tax rate on RMDs (ordinary income), but a 15% tax rate on qualified dividends and long term cap gains (QD/LTCG), you would need a huge taxable account "off camera" kicking off huge amounts of QD/LTCG year after year.cas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Your hypothetical invokes some scenario where RMDs end up taxed at 0%. (OK. Fair enough. One plausible example that is frequently discussed in bogleheads threads is a scenario where high long term care medical expenses lead to a high medical deduction.)
But then you are leaving the taxation of realized capital gains and dividends at 15%.
Is that intentional?
It might not take much "off camera" dollars.cas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:56 pmNo. The opposite point.McQ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:08 pmcas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:48 amIt dawned on me yesterday that that there is a whole class of conversions, where the "left undisturbed" scenario will NOT recover.McQ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:51 pm
And I will pay particular attention to the case in your later post [from marcopolo], where the Roth never recovered. It’s easy to show that outcome when the Roth gets tapped early, as so many posters anticipate doing; but I hadn’t found that in any of the “left undisturbed” scenarios I have looked at.
My guess at your realization: Roth conversions always pay out, iff one of you lives long enough.
I'm pointing to a whole class of plausible Roth conversions scenarios that would NEVER pay out ... a refutation of your "Roth ALWAYS pays out."
Hint #2: the question I asked up above:
(Hint #2.5. Under the current tax code, in order to have a 0% nominal tax rate on RMDs (ordinary income), but a 15% tax rate on qualified dividends and long term cap gains (QD/LTCG), you would need a huge taxable account "off camera" kicking off huge amounts of QD/LTCG year after year.cas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:23 pm
Your hypothetical invokes some scenario where RMDs end up taxed at 0%. (OK. Fair enough. One plausible example that is frequently discussed in bogleheads threads is a scenario where high long term care medical expenses lead to a high medical deduction.)
But then you are leaving the taxation of realized capital gains and dividends at 15%.
Is that intentional?
e.g. Here's a tax visualization tool showing such a starting scenario. (With the limitation that using standard deduction is hard coded in to the tool. You could have much more ordinary income in the 0% bracket if you had a huge itemized deduction, e.g. big medical long term care expenses.)
Did you really mean to invoke a new multi-million dollar account "off-camera"?
If not, then should the tax rate on the QD/LTCG in your scenario really be 15%?
If it isn't 15%, what happens to your scenario results?)
Is the scenario below getting close?cas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:48 am It dawned on me yesterday that that there is a whole class of conversions, where the "left undisturbed" scenario will NOT recover. (Under current and, I think, all tax law since 2010 when Roth conversion became legal for people with AGI over $100,000.) (And, yes, I'm staying within the realm of the "RMD effect" Roth conversion scenarios being discussed in this thread and not searching over the whole universe of possible Roth conversion scenarios.)
Code: Select all
+────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+
| Original owner | | | Non-spouse heir | | | | | |
+────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+
| RMD Start age | 72 | | Death age | 85 | | | | |
| Roth conv. age | 71 | | Basis step | 1 | | | | |
| Roth conv. amount | $100,000 | | RMD delay | 0 | | | | |
| 1st yr tax rate | 22% | | RMD span | 10 | | | | |
| Pay tax w/ cash | 1 | | EOY RMD? | 1 | | | | |
| Basis fract. | 100% | | | | | | | |
| EOY conversion? | 1 | | | | | | | |
| EOY RMD? | 1 | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Roth Gain |
| | Original | Heir | | | | | Just before owner's death | -$22,205 |
| Annual tax rate | 15.00% | 15% | | | | | Just after inheritance | -$22,205 |
| Stocks | 100% | 100% | | | | | After 10 years | -$47,939 |
| Bonds | 0% | 0% | | | | | After 10 years (if unspent) | -$47,939 |
| Turnover | 10% | 10% | | | | | Owner's age at which conversion wins | >125 |
| Cap gain | 6% | 6% | | | | | Years after inheritance for Roth to win | Never |
| Dividend | 2% | 2% | | | | | | |
| Interest | 5% | 5% | | | | | | |
| Tax-ad gain | 8% | 8% | | | | | | |
| CG tax | 0.0% | 0% | | | | | | |
| Div. tax | 0.0% | 0% | | | | | | |
+────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+
As soon as you reduce the turnover to something reasonable, the tax drag becomes quite small, and there are a myriad of scenarios in which the conversion will never payoff.FiveK wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:23 pmIs the scenario below getting close?cas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:48 am It dawned on me yesterday that that there is a whole class of conversions, where the "left undisturbed" scenario will NOT recover. (Under current and, I think, all tax law since 2010 when Roth conversion became legal for people with AGI over $100,000.) (And, yes, I'm staying within the realm of the "RMD effect" Roth conversion scenarios being discussed in this thread and not searching over the whole universe of possible Roth conversion scenarios.)
Code: Select all
+────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+ | Original owner | | | Non-spouse heir | | | | | | +────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+ | RMD Start age | 72 | | Death age | 85 | | | | | | Roth conv. age | 71 | | Basis step | 1 | | | | | | Roth conv. amount | $100,000 | | RMD delay | 0 | | | | | | 1st yr tax rate | 22% | | RMD span | 10 | | | | | | Pay tax w/ cash | 1 | | EOY RMD? | 1 | | | | | | Basis fract. | 100% | | | | | | | | | EOY conversion? | 1 | | | | | | | | | EOY RMD? | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Roth Gain | | | Original | Heir | | | | | Just before owner's death | -$22,205 | | Annual tax rate | 15.00% | 15% | | | | | Just after inheritance | -$22,205 | | Stocks | 100% | 100% | | | | | After 10 years | -$47,939 | | Bonds | 0% | 0% | | | | | After 10 years (if unspent) | -$47,939 | | Turnover | 10% | 10% | | | | | Owner's age at which conversion wins | >125 | | Cap gain | 6% | 6% | | | | | Years after inheritance for Roth to win | Never | | Dividend | 2% | 2% | | | | | | | | Interest | 5% | 5% | | | | | | | | Tax-ad gain | 8% | 8% | | | | | | | | CG tax | 0.0% | 0% | | | | | | | | Div. tax | 0.0% | 0% | | | | | | | +────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+
Yep.FiveK wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:23 pm Is the scenario below getting close?
Code: Select all
+────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+ | Original owner | | | Non-spouse heir | | | | | | +────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+ | RMD Start age | 72 | | Death age | 85 | | | | | | Roth conv. age | 71 | | Basis step | 1 | | | | | | Roth conv. amount | $100,000 | | RMD delay | 0 | | | | | | 1st yr tax rate | 22% | | RMD span | 10 | | | | | | Pay tax w/ cash | 1 | | EOY RMD? | 1 | | | | | | Basis fract. | 100% | | | | | | | | | EOY conversion? | 1 | | | | | | | | | EOY RMD? | 1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Roth Gain | | | Original | Heir | | | | | Just before owner's death | -$22,205 | | Annual tax rate | 15.00% | 15% | | | | | Just after inheritance | -$22,205 | | Stocks | 100% | 100% | | | | | After 10 years | -$47,939 | | Bonds | 0% | 0% | | | | | After 10 years (if unspent) | -$47,939 | | Turnover | 10% | 10% | | | | | Owner's age at which conversion wins | >125 | | Cap gain | 6% | 6% | | | | | Years after inheritance for Roth to win | Never | | Dividend | 2% | 2% | | | | | | | | Interest | 5% | 5% | | | | | | | | Tax-ad gain | 8% | 8% | | | | | | | | CG tax | 0.0% | 0% | | | | | | | | Div. tax | 0.0% | 0% | | | | | | | +────────────────────+───────────+───────+──────────────────+─────+───+───+──────────────────────────────────────────+────────────+
True, but that isn't the key assumption that leads to a whole class of scenarios where the Roth NEVER succeeds.
This "off camera" account would need to kick off a minimum of $80K(ish) every year, starting at age 72 in the scenario. So, true, that is "only" a $800K account at 10% annual return and 100% annual turnover. (As opposed to a multi-million dollar account.)
The primary answer: conversions don't always pay out.
It occurs to me I need to qualify that "NEVER" statement.
Short answer:
Is there a thread discussing the case of middle class Californians (mfj), or other states with similar taxes. I have done some sensitivity analysis with RPM and would like to compare to other discussions. I found the case of the affluent Californians but we are not quite at that level.cas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:15 pmShort answer:
The "on camera" accounts are the accounts that we can see in the screenshots of the spreadsheet in McQ's posts. (The "camera" is looking at the spreadsheet, and McQ's posts show the picture it takes.)
Long answer:
The scenario is that some 71 year old person has 100K worth of assets in a tIRA that he predicts will never be needed for his needs in his lifetime. The fate of these assets (no Roth conversion vs Roth conversion) is tracked before our eyes through the years in the spreadsheet rows. Since we can see the numbers change through the years, I called these the "on camera" accounts/assets.
Yes; but I had assumed it was an abbreviation in widespread use
Actually, Cas, I think the on-camera, off-camera distinction is quite helpful here. I liked your explanation of it upthread; it shows the level of insight I’ve come to expect.cas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:52 pm All of this "on camera" and "off camera" distinction is a complete distraction to the real discussion, which is on the "RMD effect." So I apologize for that.
But ... McQ seemed to be heading towards pinning the whole trajectory of his upcoming discussion on the fact that his spreadsheet could NOT find a counter-example to his "Why Roth conversions always pay off—if you can hold on long enough" thread title.
But he was supporting this "I can't find a counter-example, even though I've tried really, really hard" assertion with scenarios (which he stipulated were using current tax law) that are not impossible for quite affluent people, but were really kind of odd. For example ... a scenario where ordinary income is taxed in the 0% nominal bracket, but qualified dividend/long term capital gain income is taxed at 15%.
Meanwhile, he was missing an almost identical income scenario that is talked about all the time on bogleheads: ordinary income taxed at 0% (or at least at 12% or below) and QD/LTCG income taxed at 0%.
And that common scenario (combined with doing the spreadsheet's Roth conversion at a higher rate) DOES provide an example where his spreadsheet shows that a Roth conversion NEVER pays off, no matter how old Methuselah gets.
Why you would NOT contribute only to a Roth 401(k) throughout your career
+1 There are additional cases in which 401K could beat Roth:Watty wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:47 amI did not follow the details but you need to be careful about using the word "always" since one exception is enough to disprove your primis.Why Roth conversions always pay off—if you can hold on long enough
For example a single person might do a Roth conversion when they are in the higher single tax brackets, but they could then get married and then be in the lower joint tax brackets.
Another is that someone might have a year when they have exceptionally high income and are in a higher than normal tax bracket, like when they sell a business. Doing a Roth conversion that year would likely not pay off either.
For either person the Roth conversion would not pay off so your argument would be shown to not be correct.
You obviously put a lot of thought and work into this you might want to rephrase that "always" claim since it sounds too extreme and bit like clickbait.
Code: Select all
Income range -----> combined tax rate
$108,750 - $176,000 22%
$176,001 - $204,850 30% (22% + [IRMAA dollars / 0.5 IRMAA bracket span], or 30% in all, at the 22% ceiling)
$204,851 - $222,000 32%, declining toward 28% as IRMAA ceiling is approached
$222,001 - $330,000 28% at the top of IRMAA bracket #2 and bracket #3, higher if brackets are not tapped all the way.
Code: Select all
22% -----> 25%
30% -----> 33%
32/28% --> 36%/32%
28% -----> 32%
Code: Select all
Years out IRMAA #1 22% ceiling
10 $236,500 $270,000
15 $274,250 $313,000
20 $318,000 $362,750
Thanks Prof. McQMcQ wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:00 pm Part II
At this point in the thread a second series of posts begins. The first series had the key word “always.” The second series picks up on the sub-subtitle to the thread: “but not by very much and seldom very soon.” And the theme of today’s post might be glossed as, “yes, it is theoretically possible to receive a speedy and lucrative outcome from a Roth conversion, but it may not be likely in your case, if you convert in the middle brackets.”
All the caveats laid out in the initial post continue to apply, of course: if you can convert at 0%, 10%, 12% today, to save tax of 37% or 39.6% later—go for it! Huge benefit from converting in that situation. However, such halcyon circumstances will not be the focus of this post or the next few.
The stipulation here:
-you might convert at 22% today to save 25% later, post-TCJA; or,
-that you convert at 22% today, in hopes to save 28% later (because the post-TCJA tax brackets turn what would have been a 24% rate, in the next bracket up, back into the pre-TCJA rate of 28%); or,
-you convert at 22% today to save both 28% and IRMAA charges later; or,
-just maybe, the RMDs to be reduced would have fallen into the upper part of the social security tax torpedo, carrying a marginal rate of almost 41% (46% post-TCJA).
These are all plausible “best cases” for a relatively early and relatively lucrative payoff from a Roth conversion made in the middle brackets. But I’ll also consider a constant 22% rate as a benchmark. I showed in the first series that a conversion under constant rates pays off eventually; here in the second series the focus will be on how to calibrate that payoff, to compare how much better off one would be under one of the “best plausible cases” just introduced.
At first glance, these conditions should still apply to a large number of BH; I’ve certainly heard, on a variety of threads, that whether or not to convert at 22% is a real issue up for debate. But you need to ask yourself: is your 22% conversion really going to avert RMDs at 28% or more? Or are you cruising to be Bob and Barb, from two posts back, converting at 22% today to save … 12% on your RMDs later?
Now you see the stakes.
Straight talk about future tax brackets
How could you tell whether you were hurtling down the track to pay only 12% on your RMDs, or instead, are at a real risk of paying 28% or more? The one would discourage a Roth conversion in the 22% bracket, the other might strongly encourage one.
Green eyeshade time: the AGI ceiling for the 22% bracket today is $200,450 if 65 or over (IRS stated bracket plus standard deductions). The bottom / top of the first IRMAA bracket is $176,000 / $222,000 AGI. Note how the 22%/24% threshold divides the first IRMAA bracket almost exactly in half.
And last: the floor of the 22% bracket in AGI terms is $108,750 (I’ll ignore the inconvenient detail that the 22% bracket is less than $100,000 wide. Bear with me as I continue to enter $100,000 as the conversion amount.)
How to figure marginal rates with IRMAA
The full IRMAA charge kicks in on the first dollar of excess income; hence, the dollar of income that takes you from $176,000 to $176,001 has a marginal rate in the thousands of percent. Savvy taxpayers who stray into IRMAA territory know to voluntarily accelerate income up to the top of the IRMAA bracket into which they strayed. For the first three IRMAA brackets, the quotient [IRMAA dollars / IRMAA bracket span] will equal 4%, plus or minus (see SSRN paper appendix). So that’s one way to estimate the “combined” marginal rate: income tax rate + 4% IRMAA rate.
But there’s a problem with the first IRMAA bracket; as noted above, it straddles the 22% / 24% income tax threshold. The combined income tax plus IRMAA marginal rate changes at $200,451. Here is a table to organize the numbers, assuming taxpayers over 65 filing as married joint here in 2021.
These 2021 rates are TCJA rates; if the planner projects the expiration of TCJA, then the corresponding values areCode: Select all
Income range -----> combined tax rate $108,750 - $176,000 22% $176,001 - $204,850 30% (22% + [IRMAA dollars / 0.5 IRMAA bracket span], or 30% in all, at the 22% ceiling) $204,851 - $222,000 32%, declining toward 28% as IRMAA ceiling is approached $222,001 - $330,000 28% at the top of IRMAA bracket #2 and bracket #3, higher if brackets are not tapped all the way.
To sum up, there is indeed a range of income likely to be taxed, post-TCJA, at combined rates around 32%. To convert at 22% to save 32% certainly sounds attractive. But are you, for lack of a better word, eligible for this favorable outcome? Put another way, is it legitimate for you, with your very particular income and assets, to fear tax rates on your projected RMDs at rates on the order of 32%? Or have you been the victim of fearmongering, of the sort commonly seen in financial journalism, promotional missives from financial advisors, and (sometimes) social media?Code: Select all
22% -----> 25% 30% -----> 33% 32/28% --> 36%/32% 28% -----> 32%
Are you eligible / should you be afraid?
All the threshold values just given are for 2021. Tax brackets and IRMAA brackets adjust for inflation each year; as in the spreadsheet, I will assume an inflation rate of 3%.
Next, let’s assume that you, the prospective Roth converter, are in your early 60s, or maybe, mid-50s. Your RMDs are not going to begin for 10, 15, or 20 years yet. Whether you will be eligible for that very favorable Roth conversion outcome, where you convert today at 22% to avert subsequent RMDs taxed at scary high rates like 32%, is a function of what those tax brackets will be 10, 15, and 20 years in the future.
To keep it simple, let’s focus on $176,000, the 1st IRMAA threshold, and $204,850, the 24% (or maybe 28% after 2025) bracket floor. Here are the inflation-adjusted values, rounded to the nearest $250.
For discussion purposes, I’ll take the middle time frame of 15 years and the 22%/24% boundary. For you to have a lock on the juicy Roth conversion outcomes discussed above, you would need an AGI, in 2036, RMDs included, of $313,000.Code: Select all
Years out IRMAA #1 22% ceiling 10 $236,500 $270,000 15 $274,250 $313,000 20 $318,000 $362,750
This, from a pair of taxpayers who had been earning somewhere around $110,000 near the peak of their working life …? Really?
Okay, okay—you are actually a retired individual, formerly earning many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, now with complete control of how much income you take each year, able to (temporarily) depress your income before conversion to $108,750—or even zero. Please forgive me for not focusing on your special case, since you are already able to obtain very lucrative Roth conversion outcomes, simply by depressing your pre-conversion income to zero.
Returning to the main case, the taxpayer couple whose ongoing, recurring income is low enough to have a substantial amount remaining in the 22% bracket, available for conversion: how might they get to an RMD-included income of $313,000, fifteen years out?
-at the low end of the 22% bracket, we cannot give them the maximum social security benefit; their income of $108,750, split equally, puts each at 38% of the maximum income subject to social security tax. Fine; we’ll give them 50% of the max payment at full retirement age in 2021, and project that forward at the inflation rate. I make their collective 2036 SS payment to be about $49,500 (=$3113 monthly max today, x 12 x 2, inflated at 3% for 15 years = $98,939, x 50%).
-the rest of the $313,000 , or $263,500, comes from RMDs, I suppose. That indicates a TDA balance at age 72 of just over $7.2 million dollars. Tell me, how did a couple with peak wages of $108,750, after decades of working and saving, manage to accumulate $7.2 million by their early 70s?
Oh, that’s right—it did not all come from RMDs. They had pension income twice their social security income, an extra $100,000 in 2036. Which means they only have to project $4.5 million in their TDAs to aspire to those juicy Roth conversion outcomes.
How did they get to $4.5 million? Of course Emerging market small cap value funds, combined with frontier market disruptive innovators and deft movement in and out of 3X leveraged funds.
Please forgive the gentle sarcasm: there actually will be some investors whose wages were modest but whose investing acumen was large, such that they will have $4 to 5 million in their TDAs by age 72, despite never earning much more than $100K as a couple. And I’m happy to accept that more of them will be found here at BH.org than anywhere else on the web. My point: if your personal financial projections do not show such a multi-million dollar TDA balance, then it is unlikely that your conversion today at 22% is going to receive the juicy Roth conversion outcomes to be shown subsequently.
And if you can’t project even $1 million dollars in TDA balance at age 72, in the absence of a conversion; and you don’t have a sweet pension deal, of the kind private sector employees don’t get anymore; then you are at risk of doing a Bob-and-Barb: converting at 22% to save tax at 12%. And that isn’t very pretty.
I go on like this because I find fearmongering in support of Roth conversions to be rampant. Please don’t convert at 22% if you haven’t run the numbers, as described here, to confirm your future projected tax situation. You can compute an inflation index for the desired number of years to project tax and IRMAA brackets; can project your social security based on your wage history; and you can project your TDA balance using an assumed investment return; plus, you can vary at least the latter to do sensitivity testing.
Before converting at 22% today, prove to your satisfaction that you will indeed have age 72 income, including RMDs, greater than the inflation-indexed value of $108,750 today.
A later post will show the spreadsheet for juicy outcomes versus a more humdrum scenario (convert at 22% to avoid tax on RMDs at 22%). To do that it helps to have a metric, which is the subject of the next post.
Finally, in this second series, I will be looking at younger ages, evaluating outcomes at the perhaps more believable ages of 85 and 90, rather than an age of 100+, as in the first series.
A Roth conversion that has not paid off significantly by age 90 will probably be disappointing in the eyes of many.
I am in that group, concerned about both the Single Tax Bracket impacts AND IRMAA up-charges.2pedals wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:46 pm ^ Great comments above
I would like to add some bogleheads who are married in the early retirement plan to pass all or most assets including a significant pension to the surviving spouse and are trying to get conversions done while they are still able to use married tax tables. This can mitigate the risk of some higher possible tax rates for several years if one spouse is deceased early in retirement. On top of that, they may have single heirs and high-income brackets.
Sorry for Mom’s loss.RetiredAL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:24 pmI am in that group, concerned about both the Single Tax Bracket impacts AND IRMAA up-charges.2pedals wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:46 pm ^ Great comments above
I would like to add some bogleheads who are married in the early retirement plan to pass all or most assets including a significant pension to the surviving spouse and are trying to get conversions done while they are still able to use married tax tables. This can mitigate the risk of some higher possible tax rates for several years if one spouse is deceased early in retirement. On top of that, they may have single heirs and high-income brackets.
When my Mom passed in Feb 2013, the income loss was relatively minor, but the next year Dad got a largely increased tax bill as he was thrust much higher, percent of his income-wise, into the 24% tax bracket. And the year after that, by IRMAA.
This has driven me to model how DW or I, as the last person standing, will be taxed in the aggregate. Unfortunately, there is no simple cut-n-dried solution to the question of convert or not, or convert how much.
I take comfort in understanding that even if I pick a poorer conversion path for converting part of my differed I plan on converting, the result is likely to be no worse than not having converted.
This is only true if the portfolio continues to grow.RetiredAL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:24 pmI am in that group, concerned about both the Single Tax Bracket impacts AND IRMAA up-charges.2pedals wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:46 pm ^ Great comments above
I would like to add some bogleheads who are married in the early retirement plan to pass all or most assets including a significant pension to the surviving spouse and are trying to get conversions done while they are still able to use married tax tables. This can mitigate the risk of some higher possible tax rates for several years if one spouse is deceased early in retirement. On top of that, they may have single heirs and high-income brackets.
When my Mom passed in Feb 2013, the income loss was relatively minor, but the next year Dad got a largely increased tax bill as he was thrust much higher, percent of his income-wise, into the 24% tax bracket. And the year after that, by IRMAA.
This has driven me to model how DW or I, as the last person standing, will be taxed in the aggregate. Unfortunately, there is no simple cut-n-dried solution to the question of convert or not, or convert how much.
I take comfort in understanding that even if I pick a poorer conversion path for converting part of my differed I plan on converting, the result is likely to be no worse than not having converted.
Note that the conversions being discussed in this thread would be unaffected because that article discusses a proposal that "...prohibits after-tax IRA contributions from being converted to Roth regardless of income level...." We can return to our regular thread discussion already in progress.Big Dog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:02 pm better get those conversions in process, as they may not be around much longer.
Note, not trying to discuss pending legislation, but just alerting members to current activity which they should follow on their own.... Hopefully this PSA doesn't violate ToS.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congr ... 1632861718
Dad will be 97 in Nov. He is now very frail and in Assisted Living.sc9182 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:44 pmSorry for Mom’s loss.RetiredAL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:24 pmI am in that group, concerned about both the Single Tax Bracket impacts AND IRMAA up-charges.2pedals wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:46 pm ^ Great comments above
I would like to add some bogleheads who are married in the early retirement plan to pass all or most assets including a significant pension to the surviving spouse and are trying to get conversions done while they are still able to use married tax tables. This can mitigate the risk of some higher possible tax rates for several years if one spouse is deceased early in retirement. On top of that, they may have single heirs and high-income brackets.
When my Mom passed in Feb 2013, the income loss was relatively minor, but the next year Dad got a largely increased tax bill as he was thrust much higher, percent of his income-wise, into the 24% tax bracket. And the year after that, by IRMAA.
This has driven me to model how DW or I, as the last person standing, will be taxed in the aggregate. Unfortunately, there is no simple cut-n-dried solution to the question of convert or not, or convert how much.
I take comfort in understanding that even if I pick a poorer conversion path for converting part of my differed I plan on converting, the result is likely to be no worse than not having converted.
Has your Pops received any life-insurance? Or did he get any Step-Up basis on Brokerge/LTCG assets ? Has his expenses and/or medical costs have decreased somewhat or they also remain steady (Vs. Pre-2013). Over the last few years — HSAs (triple/Quadruple tax advantaged) come to fruition, most likely your Pops generation didn’t have access to (Also doubt Pre-2012 IRS clarity — how much 100k+ Roth conversion opportunity your Pops under MFJ had .. just saying)
Yes, you want to reduce taxes paid, but at the end of the day have to look at Net-Monies in hand (and/or Net Average monies/person)
Yes. Planning is important - but fear not. Many a planning opportunities exist while MFJ, and/or when Widow(oed) — such as Geographic Tax arbitrage, possible insurance, possible higher SS of the two, and/or possible beneficial tax-filing status changes down the line. Or worse yet, if large nursing-home etc medical expenses come due - then Trad IRA monies may come in lot handy than Roths (even overcoming IRMAA 1st or 2nd tier tax impact) !!
I'm in this boat. Trying to figure out what my RMD will be, and what tax rates might be. Since I do not know either of those with any certainly, for now I'm not converting at 22% this year. I might change my mind next year, or a few years from now . . .
Wrongfunds -- It depends on if the state is "community property" or not.wrongfunds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:38 am How does step-up work on a joint/wros/tod type of accounts or home titled in both the names? I thought step up only comes in to picture when both owners pass away.
Is Massachusetts "community property"? Also does it matter if we are talking about married couple?RetiredAL wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 9:26 amWrongfunds -- It depends on if the state is "community property" or not.wrongfunds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 8:38 am How does step-up work on a joint/wros/tod type of accounts or home titled in both the names? I thought step up only comes in to picture when both owners pass away.
Calif is a community property state, so there is full step-up on the passing of one. (simple explanation)
No direct experience, but as I understand it, in a non-community property state, a "joint titled asset" is stepped up 50% on the passing of one.