JoeTaxpayer

I must admit, this only recently came to my attention. The fair tax (not to be confused with the “flat tax”) is a system that does away with income taxes completely, instead it taxes consumption at a 30% rate. Lower income households are “pre-bated” their projected sales taxes, so in effect, they would pay no tax at all.

Many questions occur to me as I ponder such a system. I’ve saved mostly in a pre-tax 401(k). Seems this system with let me access that money at retirement with no further taxes due until it’s spent, same as others would pay with money they’ve already paid taxes on. And therein lies the rub. How are these two sources of funds (one’s savings already taxed vs money in pretax accounts) differentiated? I feel sorry for the retiree who spent the last few years converting all his retirement money from a pre-tax IRA to a Roth IRA, now to only find a 30% sales tax waiting at the other end.

On the other hand, there’s a certain appeal to knowing that those in the underground economy, who are paying no taxes at all, will be drawn in to the system if only when they go to their local grocery store. I’m not sold either way, a lot more discussion is needed on this topic.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: 401(k), fair tax, income, income tax, IRA, money, Retirement, roth ira, saving, Savings, Taxes

Some time ago, in an article titled Social Insecurity, I wrote about what I call Phantom Tax Rates. To understand this, one first must understand what one’s Marginal Tax Rate is. A single person, after taking his exemption, and deductions, will pay 10% of the amount up to $16,050, then 15% from $16,050 to $65,100, then 25% from $65,100 up to $131,450. Let’s stop there. The Phantom Tax Rate comes into play when there is either a phase out of deductions or phase in of other income. In the case of Social Security, when half of your Social Security benefits plus other income exceed $25,000 ($32,000 if married filing joint) your benefits start to become taxable, until 85% of your benefits are fully taxed. This create a graph that looks as follows;

While we would expect a 15% rate from $16,050 right to $65,100, instead we find that for each $1000 of income (or IRA withdrawals for the person for whom this chart applied) that the incremental tax is as high as $462.50.

In another situation, the adoption credit is phased out for AGIs between $174,730 and $214,730, and in the case I’ve been alerted to, the taxpayer loses $11,600 on the next $40,000 of income due to this phaseout. This loss, plus his marginal rate of 25% total 54.13%. My advice to him was to defer income if possible to 2009, which he will. By deferring that $40,000 worth of income he will pay $26,600 less tax this year, and just $10,000 when he receives this income in 2009.

When it comes to taxes, nothing is simple. When planning, it’s best to get a copy of TurboTax and run a few ‘what-if’ scenarios to best understand the impact of any financial changes you may incur.
Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: adoption credit, income, IRA, irs, marginal tax rate, phantom tax rate, social insecurity, Social Security, tax rates, Taxes

Regular readers know how I feel about variable annuities, but have little issue with the immediate annuity. Now, one issue that would hit us if you wished to put an immediate annuity inside an IRA is the calculation of RMDs and taking RMDs that may exceed the cash available within the IRA.

IRS Regulation section 1.401 (a) (9)-6 offers a solution.

If an immediate annuity is qualified and based on a payout scheme that is not intended to exceed your life expectancy the annual payout satisfies the RMD requirement even if it is less than would otherwise
be required. Perhaps a bit of an obscure issue, but one you may run into at retirement.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: annuity, immediate annuity, IRA, irs, irs regulation, Retirement, RMD, variable annuities

I recently read a post “Why I love Roth IRAs” in which the author ignores much of the math going in and coming out. Now, I love Roths myself, but only when used to take most advantage of the tax rates involved. Let me explain. From my feature article earlier this year titled “Can you save too much, pre-tax?” we see that a couple with $447,500 in their 401(k) or Traditional, Pre-Tax IRA, can take withdrawals and remain in the 0% bracket. This is due to the combination of standard deductions and exemptions. The next $401,250 will support withdrawals at the 10% rate.
If you have a defined benefit pension (a traditional pension) the numbers certainly will shift, and you need to take this income into account. Pensions are getting more scarce and those who frequently changed jobs are likely to have never vested into any one plan.
So, now I’ll ask, what percent of retirees are likely to have saved this sum, a total $848,750 from the numbers above? I cite an article from AARP titled 2004-05 Boomers which offers a forecast. One chart in this report offers that for those born in 1956-65, their mean (this means average, important distinction from median, middle) wealth is forecast to be $839K. But reading on, we find that after subtracting non-retirement wealth and present value of Social Security benefits, we are looking at a retirement account balance of just $140K. It turns out the 4th quintile (this is the second 20% from the top) is forecast to have $906K, this scales to about $151K in retirement accounts. Even the top quintile (top 20%) will average $2028K total wealth, with maybe $350K-$400K in retirement accounts. So it’s only the upper portion of that group (in addition to those with fat traditional pensions) that need to consider the Roth while working. For the rest of us, we will likely be in the 10% or if fortunate, the 15% bracket upon retiring.
I’ll close with this thought - each family has their own set of numbers. This is why if you write in to a web site or magazine and ask “Is Roth good for me?”, it’s impossible to answer without knowing many details. We know more the closer you are to retirement, but only have a series of clues the further away you are. Another blog “The Finance Buff” offers a view similar to mine. I remain surprised at how many wave the Roth flag without some level of analysis. For those who have access to a Roth 401(k) and Roth IRA, it would be a shame to load those up and find that they missed out on the tax savings that pretax savings could have provided.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: 401(k), Finance, income, IRA, Retirement, retirement account, roth ira, saving, Savings, Social Security, tax, tax rates, traditional pension, wealth

I recently fielded this multi-part question;

First, is conversion from a traditional IRA to Roth IRA still OK when over 70 and taking RMDs (required minimum distributions)?

Ok? It’s fantastic!! I will first tell you that I believe that Roth’s value while working is slightly exaggerated. Your scenario above is ideal. I have an 80+ yr old client who is in the 15% bracket. Each year we convert just enough to ‘top off’ that bracket so the next hundred dollars would have been taxed at 25%.

Second, does the “conversion” count as part of RMD?

No, the conversion must take place after you calculate the RMD. Our RMD is based on 12/31/07 year end balance. We can do the Roth conversion any time during the year, but that RMD is fixed.

Third, is it possible to transfer stock directly from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA — using current valuation on day of transfer as the basis for amount of conversion?

Yes - you can convert stock, the broker will report that value based on the day of conversion. There is no wash sale selling in one IRA and buying in another, anyway.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: IRA, irs, required minimum distribution, roth conversion, roth ira, tax, traditional ira

Regular readers know where I stand on Variable Annuities, and I though thought I’d share this quote from a Suze Orman interview on CNN Money which caught my eye;

“I hate them with a passion - a passion! - especially in a retirement account like an IRA. Variable annuities have all these extra fees and tax issues and penalties, but - oh, that’s okay! - because they give you a tax deferral. But a retirement account is already tax-deferred without all those fees. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I think variable annuities exist for one reason only: to make money for the financial advisers who sell them.”

I’ve had some disagreements with some of her advice, but lately I’m finding more of her quotes that are right on target.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: CNN, cnn money, IRA, money, Retirement, retirement account, Suze Orman, tax deferral, variable annuities

Most blogs you may read are starting to offer an RSS feed, a way of reading the blog through a reader. I use Feedburner and in the left sidebar offer links so you may access my blog through Google or Yahoo’s RSS feature. Few non-bloggers use this feature, and May 1st has been declared RSS Awareness Day.

So, if you are enjoying my blog, or any other blogs you read on a regular basis, consider become a “reader” through an RSS feed.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: Finance, IRA, money, Retirement, roth ira, RSS Awareness Day, RSS reader, tax rates, Taxes

Now that you’ve Taken a Breath, and are ready to roll over an IRA you inherited, there are a few important things you must know. Enough that I’ve written my May feature article, “Inheriting or Bequeathing an IRA” which you can read a day early. I believe the article highlights the importance of properly setting up one’s IRA with named beneficiaries on the account as well as the proper method for those inheriting so as to minimize the tax hit. For a deeper discussion, I recommend the book, “Parlay Your IRA into a Family Fortune” by Ed Slott

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: beneficiary IRA, death, dying, Finance, inheritance, IRA, money, required minimum distribution, Retirement

I recently became aware of a situation that was pretty upsetting, even though it happened to someone I don’t know and never met. A friend of a friend passed away and left her brother a sum of money in a trust. The brother, disabled, and not working, panicked, and took the money out. Now, when I first heard this, I thought that since it was in a trust, he may have some capital gains due, but that should be minimal. What happened was that the trust held the deceased woman’s IRA, so every last cent was taxed as ordinary income. Even though he had no other income, his tax bill was well over $40,000. A peek at Fairmark tells me that in 2008, one can have $8950 income not be taxed at all (this figure is the sum of the single exemption and standard deduction). The next $8025 is taxed at 10%. So this poor soul could have withdrawn $16,975, rising a few hundred each year, and paid about $800 in tax. The interest alone on the $40,000 would pay his taxes each year. It’s unfortunate that he started asking for advice well after the withdrawal was made, as he could have rolled this money into a beneficiary IRA within 60 days of the withdrawal.

The lesson here, when a loved one passes away, take a breath, don’t panic. Mourn, and take some time. Ask questions and understand where the money, stock, real estate is, before making any decisions you are likely to regret. I hope you can learn from this person’s mistake.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: beneficiary, Finance, inheritance, Investing, IRA, trust

There’s a recurring question regarding whether one should rollover a 401(k) from a previous employer to an IRA account (or to the new employer’s 401(k)) or leave it in the original account. One new variable that comes into play is the ability to convert one’s IRA to a Roth IRA, regardless of income, in 2010. How are the two related? When one converts from a regular IRA to a Roth, taxes (at your marginal rate) are due on a prorated basis on the pretax money within the IRA. For example, if you have a $100,000 balance, $20,000 of which is post tax deposits, 80% of any money converted is subject to tax. Now, this presents an interesting opportunity. Most 401(k) accounts will permit IRA money to be rolled back into the 401(k) regardless of the source. So in this example, you might consider rolling the $80,000 in pre tax money into the 401(k) before doing the conversion on the $20,000 post tax money. This two step will avoid any and all tax on that conversion. If you have a 401(k) account, you might consider leaving it for now, and converting it to an IRA only after that Roth conversion is made in 2010.

Joe

written by JOE \\ tags: Finance, Investing, IRA, Retirement, roth ira, saving