Investment showdown -- beyond the Roth, SDP, & TSP

[waveshaper]

38 minutes ago, ROCK 10 said:

Thanks for the Vanguard CD info, I think I’ll wait another 3-4 mos.  Take a look at their Federal Money Market rates - just over 4.5% last week VFMXX.  Daily dividend, pays out every month.  Been with them for many years, no complaints!

FYI: I have a non-callable Brokered Vanguard CD at 5% and it's a little different method of payola then a regular bank CD.

- A regular bank CD valued at $100,000 with a 5% APY has a 4.88 dividend rate with a APY total of 5% profit.     

 --Example: 5% APY totals $5,000 in profit/your bank CD value after 1 year = $105,000

- A Brokered Vanguard $100,000 CD at 5% works in a different way. 

-- Example: At the end of 1 year the Vanguard 5% CD also pays out $5,000 in profit (monthly dividends) just like the %5 bank CD. The Difference is the Brokered Vanguard CD $5,000 in annual profits is "ALL" deposited (monthly dividends) into whatever "OTHER" account you select. 

-- FYI: All my Vanguard %5 CD monthly profits are also deposited into VMFXX and todays VMFXX rate (27 Feb 23) is currently set at 4.52%, up a little from the Jan 23 rates.

 

[ROCK 10]

Thanks, wave & company - all great info.  I’ll be calling VG this week to start an entry point - will advise.  V/r,

[Lord Ratner]

23 hours ago, herkbier said:

I’ve been buying short terms bonds on treasury direct. Any reason to choose a CD over the treasury bills?

Not usually. I do the same. Easy peasy 

[TheNewGazmo]

What fund is best for the TSP? I don't contribute to mine anymore, but between my civ and mil accounts, I've got a bit over $100k that sits in there. I never wanted to go through the hassle of rolling into another account. I kind of forgot about it, and having just looked at it, both my civ and mil accounts are 100% L 2040. Both have had a 3.78% rate of return this year. The S fund seems to have done quite well in comparison. I was very stupid when it came to investments early in life so 100% of my mil is traditional 401k and about 47% of my civ is Roth (after I realized how stupid I was not taking advantage of the Roth).

EDIT: I will kind of answer my own question. Looks like 60% C, 20% S and 20% I works for long term investment, so we'll see how that works out.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

That’ll about track the broader market.

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

EDIT: I will kind of answer my own question. Looks like 60% C, 20% S and 20% I works for long term investment, so we'll see how that works out.

If your goal is to own broadly diversified stocks in your TSP, then yea, that’ll probably work. Are you going to rebalance to maintain those proportions? What do your other investments look like? Do you really have informed opinions on the right mix of stocks you could or should or would like to own (large cap / small cap / international) as represented by these three funds?

Without knowing all the answers to the above, I would recommend pursuing one of the following strategies:

1. Simplicity: lifecycle fund closest to your estimated retirement date (actual retirement, eg age 65), then never think about it again. TSP will smartly adjust your allocation between the funds and slowly dial in more lower-risk assets into the mix as you age.

2. Optimization: consider your whole portfolio, rebalance, take advantage of TSP’s unique qualities (eg the G fund). Determine your portfolio-wide desired asset allocation (X% stocks, X% bonds, X% cash-equivalent) and adjust your TSP in concert with your other accounts. Rebalance every 6-9 months to maintain your desired allocation and adjust your desired allocation appropriately with age and changes in your risk tolerance.

I currently do #2 because I enjoy investing and life optimization / scheming in general. Many people do not enjoy that at all however! #1 is a totally defensible choice IMHO…TSP is very low cost and an L fund chosen well will do about 69% of the work for you, automatically, for free.

My perhaps different take on asset allocation: most folks who will receive a mil pension can afford to invest their other retirement savings much more aggressively, because you are backstopped by a life-long, inflation adjusted annuity backed by the most stable payer in the world. If you consult with a CFP, have them run an asset allocation for you with your expected pension and I bet they will let you know you can do much more swinging for the fences (allocating more toward stocks and possible alternatives) rather than the “normal” stock/bond allocations that adjust with age that are recommended for typical people who won’t ever enjoy a pension at all.

Example: I’m late 30s and at about 90% stocks, 10% other, but I plan on staying in that zone likely into my late 50s or beyond, because my plan is an active duty O5 pension that would provide a tremendous cushion if stocks take a massive dump right as I’m “retiring.” Lots of upside, and my downside risk is covered because with my pension I’ll never be hungry or homeless or really lacking anything necessary.

Edited March 2, 2023 by nsplayr

[FourFans]

@TheNewGazmo

What these two dudes above said.  If you want some solid, no-nonsense advise that's written in a form even a pilot can read quickly, read "The Simple Path to Wealth" by J.L. Collins.  He discusses all this stuff in there.

[TheNewGazmo]

If your goal is to own broadly diversified stocks in your TSP, then yea, that’ll probably work. Are you going to rebalance to maintain those proportions? What do your other investments look like? Do you really have informed opinions on the right mix of stocks you could or should or would like to own (large cap / small cap / international) as represented by these three funds?
Without knowing all the answers to the above, I would recommend pursuing one of the following strategies:
1. Simplicity: lifecycle fund closest to your estimated retirement date (actual retirement, eg age 65), then never think about it again. TSP will smartly adjust your allocation between the funds and slowly dial in more lower-risk assets into the mix as you age.
2. Optimization: consider your whole portfolio, rebalance, take advantage of TSP’s unique qualities (eg the G fund). Determine your portfolio-wide desired asset allocation (X% stocks, X% bonds, X% cash-equivalent) and adjust your TSP in concert with your other accounts. Rebalance every 6-9 months to maintain your desired allocation and adjust your desired allocation appropriately with age and changes in your risk tolerance.
I currently do #2 because I enjoy investing and life optimization / scheming in general. Many people do not enjoy that at all however! #1 is a totally defensible choice IMHO…TSP is very low cost and an L fund chosen well will do about 69% of the work for you, automatically, for free.
My perhaps different take on asset allocation: most folks who will receive a mil pension can afford to invest their other retirement savings much more aggressively, because you are backstopped by a life-long, inflation adjusted annuity backed by the most stable payer in the world. If you consult with a CFP, have them run an asset allocation for you with your expected pension and I bet they will let you know you can do much more swinging for the fences (allocating more toward stocks and possible alternatives) rather than the “normal” stock/bond allocations that adjust with age that are recommended for typical people who won’t ever enjoy a pension at all.
Example: I’m late 30s and at about 90% stocks, 10% other, but I plan on staying in that zone likely into my late 50s or beyond, because my plan is an active duty O5 pension that would provide a tremendous cushion if stocks take a massive dump right as I’m “retiring.” Lots of upside, and my downside risk is covered because with my pension I’ll never be hungry or homeless or really lacking anything necessary.

I rebalanced the entire account yesterday with those proportions I mentioned above, and no, I don't have a CFP. Trying to learn this junk on my own.

I also have an investment account at AAL, which will obviously be the breadwinner. I've only been here for just about 5 years, with 19 to go, and I am on target to hit near $60k contributions to that this year alone. My investment summary for that one is attached.

I will get at least an O-5 retirement at 58-59 years old at somewhere around 5,500 points. I may have the opportunity to promote again in an IMA position and I will probably start leaning in that direction since that extra $1k per month in annuity is probably worth $500k plus in the bank.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

I also have an investment account at AAL, which will obviously be the breadwinner. I've only been here for just about 5 years, with 19 to go, and I am on target to hit near $60k contributions to that this year alone. My investment summary for that one is attached.

Look into brokerage link. We have an incredible 401k, and it allows you to contribute beyond the ~21k individual limit. In five years I've been able to max it out 4 times, and then with brokerage link you can invest it into *anything.*

Edited March 2, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[TheNewGazmo]

Look into brokerage link. We have an incredible 401k, and it allows you to contribute beyond the ~21k individual limit. In five years I've been able to max it out 4 times, and then with brokerage link you can invest it into *anything.*

Just did this. Wow. That opened up a whole new world. Gonna be a steep learning curve with this.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Just did this. Wow. That opened up a whole new world. Gonna be a steep learning curve with this.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
 

A lot of people in the investment in financial world are coming to the conclusion that very few people were actually good at investing over the past 15 years. People who made a lot of money were actually benefiting from a world where the fed pumped unfathomable amounts of money into the system, so all boats benefited from the rising tide.

My point is that we are no longer in that world, at least not for the short to medium future, so playing around in stocks is going to be a lot more like it was pre-2008, that is to say, exceptionally risky.

If you are going to take the time to become a researcher, which is possible but very time demanding, then have at it. But if not, I can't recommend enough that you find someone whose job it is to analyze the market and the companies that make it up. 

That doesn't have to be a full-blown investment service that does everything for you, in fact, there are a ton of newsletters and services that give very detailed information on companies and their research. But if you are going to take someone's advice on investing in a stock(s), you need to make sure you have access to their advice consistently, because buy and hold as an investment strategy might be at the end of its life, at least until the next money printing cycle.

Personally, I use hedge fund telemetry. The guy used to run a hedge fund, now he just runs this service, but he sends out three notes a day with detailed information, and it's very easy to follow along with your own portfolio. Though he does a lot of short selling as well, you can decide how much of that to participate in. I also use uranium insider because a big part of my investment strategy is based on my prediction that nuclear is going to come back in a big way.

Ultimately, I think the best way is to find an investment advisor who shares your thesis about what the broader economy is going to do. Because at the end of the day, some people are going to be right and a lot of others are going to be wrong, and those people are going to lose money. You can't outsource the ultimate decision of what type of portfolio posture you want to maintain. I believe that bad times are ahead, and so the service I subscribed to is one that shares that sentiment.

Happy hunting

[TheNewGazmo]

What's the consensus of the Roth 401k? I always read that the more you make, the less the Roth makes sense. Most of us, especially those of us without Active Duty tax-bennies and/or airline flying, easily end up in the 24-37% tax brackets. Even new FO's are going to find themselves in the 32% tax bracket in no time.

Of course, I am no CPA; just a former tanker pilot so take my public math with a grain of salt, but if you take the tax advantage now, you can save 32% on your $22,500 contributions per year. That is $7,200. Of course, that is income that is taxed, so that ends up being $4,896 that you can put somewhere else - Trad IRA, HSA, 529k, etc.

$22,500 per year for 25 years at 8% interest (without dividends) is $1.75M. A 4% distribution of that is $70,000. Given most of us will be collecting a pension and taking distributions from a retirement account of some sort, we will at least be in the 24% tax bracket upon retirement (why do you think this bracket is the widest of them all?). Who knows what tax brackets will be in 15-20 years either.

The big question is tax up front or tax later? Since I am planning on multiple sources of retirement income (pension and possibly Roth and Traditional retirement accounts), I would prefer to have a Roth account that can grow tax-free for long after I am pushing up daisies so my greedy little children can reap the bennies of my fiscal responsibility. thoughts?

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

[Day Man]

No retirement or pension, so I try to max out both (employer-sponsored (with some matching) traditional 401K and private Roth IRA through Vanguard). I realize not everyone can do that (we're DINKs), so it's strictly retirement planning with no inheritance considerations. I plan to draw both when the time comes assuming I make it to that age, which should be a lower tax bracket than current. Let's hope social security is still a thing then too.

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

What's the consensus of the Roth 401k? I always read that the more you make, the less the Roth makes sense. Most of us, especially those of us without Active Duty tax-bennies and/or airline flying, easily end up in the 24-37% tax brackets. Even new FO's are going to find themselves in the 32% tax bracket in no time.

Of course, I am no CPA; just a former tanker pilot so take my public math with a grain of salt, but if you take the tax advantage now, you can save 32% on your $22,500 contributions per year. That is $7,200. Of course, that is income that is taxed, so that ends up being $4,896 that you can put somewhere else - Trad IRA, HSA, 529k, etc.

$22,500 per year for 25 years at 8% interest (without dividends) is $1.75M. A 4% distribution of that is $70,000. Given most of us will be collecting a pension and taking distributions from a retirement account of some sort, we will at least be in the 24% tax bracket upon retirement (why do you think this bracket is the widest of them all?). Who knows what tax brackets will be in 15-20 years either.

The big question is tax up front or tax later? Since I am planning on multiple sources of retirement income (pension and possibly Roth and Traditional retirement accounts), I would prefer to have a Roth account that can grow tax-free for long after I am pushing up daisies so my greedy little children can reap the bennies of my fiscal responsibility. thoughts?

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
 

In the long run math for high-income dudes, Roth makes more sense if your goal is to minimize total taxes paid over your lifetime.  Traditional is the way to go for minimizing taxes paid right now. 

Specific to high-earning airline pilots: expect that your income in retirement will be quite high owing to the massive amount of money being put into retirement accounts right now.  Most airline bubbas should have no problem hitting the IRS retirement limits (66,500 right now?) every year after year 2 or 3, at least those in the heavy hitting airlines.  ACMIs/regionals not so much.  Over the course of 20 years, that's 2-3M in that account alone.  I personally want the growth on that to never be touched.

The other major variable is recognizing that taxes will likely go up as we're at a traditional low right now in view of our country's tax history.  Especially if you consider that the current administration has dug us a massive hole, and our government historically tries and tax it's way out of those...even though financial facts and precedent have proven that such a course of action never works...luckily for politicians, facts and precedents bear little weight on their decision making and policy production.

As for leaving a big chunk for your kiddos, I believe there was legislation recently passed that makes Roth accounts not live forever, but that they must be paid out within 10 years of your death, or something like that.  Worth looking into if that was your plan.  In any case, a well-structured trust should be in store for each high-income earner regardless.

Edited March 12, 2023 by FourFans130

[TheNewGazmo]

In the long run math for high-income dudes, Roth makes more sense if your goal is to minimize total taxes paid over your lifetime.  Traditional is the way to go for minimizing taxes paid right now. 
Specific to high-earning airline pilots: expect that your income in retirement will be quite high owing to the massive amount of money being put into retirement accounts right now.  Most airline bubbas should have no problem hitting the IRS retirement limits (66,500 right now?) every year after year 2 or 3, at least those in the heavy hitting airlines.  ACMIs/regionals not so much.  Over the course of 20 years, that's 2-3M in that account alone.  I personally want the growth on that to never be touched.
The other major variable is recognizing that taxes will likely go up as we're at a traditional low right now in view of our country's tax history.  Especially if you consider that the current administration has dug us a massive hole, and our government historically tries and tax it's way out of those...even though financial facts and precedent have proven that such a course of action never works...luckily for politicians, facts and precedents bear little weight on their decision making and policy production.
As for leaving a big chunk for your kiddos, I believe there was legislation recently passed that makes Roth accounts not live forever, but that they must be paid out within 10 years of your death, or something like that.  Worth looking into if that was your plan.  In any case, a well-structured trust should be in store for each high-income earner regardless.

That's about in line with my thinking, which is why I max Roth 401k contributions regardless of my income. I will have taxed 401k earnings as well against employer contributions. Yes, 2023 max 401k limits are $66,000 total and $73,500 over 50 years old. As a 5th year narrow-body FO, I am on the way to hitting about $52k total contributions, and I don't really kill myself either. Most CA's are easily hitting that $66k if they are under 50 yo.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

My fear is that the Roth promise will not be honored.

Millionaires will not find much sympathy when we finally have to address the national debt.

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

My fear is that the Roth promise will not be honored.

Millionaires will not find much sympathy when we finally have to address the national debt.

That is a sincere question mark in the whole thing.  I seriously share your doubts.  I guess I'm leaning on my faith in America as a whole.  I'd like to think that integrity and liberty are too deeply ingrained into our national character for this kind of thing to really happen.  Perhaps I'm a fool, but I feel that if we get this far, we've been come USSR 2.0 and it'll be too late for us anyways.  The first people sent to the gulag were the rich.

[waveshaper]

11 hours ago, Day Man said:

No retirement or pension, so I try to max out both (employer-sponsored (with some matching) traditional 401K and private Roth IRA through Vanguard). I realize not everyone can do that (we're DINKs), so it's strictly retirement planning with no inheritance considerations. I plan to draw both when the time comes assuming I make it to that age, which should be a lower tax bracket than current. Let's hope social security is still a thing then too.

With the current banking crisis heating up there's the potential things could get really stupid over the next couple days/weeks. If folks have cash stashed in banks, brokerage firms, U.S. Treasuries/Bonds (Treasury Bills, Treasury Notes, Treasury Bonds, or Treasury Inflation - Protection Securities - TIPS), Other Bonds (Municipal, Corporate, etc) - now would be a good time to double check what type/amount $$$ of insurance coverage you have. Vanguard doesn't have any FDIC protection/coverage but they do have 'Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC)' insurance. Me and my wife also have cash being held in separate Vanguard ROTH IRA accounts. These two ROTH IRA accounts are currently in the Vanguard Federal Money Market Holding Fund (VMFXX) and each account has 500K SIPC insurance protection (Total coverage = 1 million). I also have brokered CDs with Vanguard but the commercial bank they cut the deal with provides the FDIC 250K insurance coverage for the CDs. Here's some info on Vanguard SIPC and secondary insurance:

' under SIPC rules, IRAs have their own insurance that is separate from taxable accounts. And Roth IRAs are separate from Traditional IRAs.

If you have 2 IRAs at Vanguard (one Roth and one Traditional) and 2 taxable individual accounts, you would have a total of $1.5 million of insurance. The retirement accounts would have a total of $1 million of protection ($500,000 for the Roth, and another $500,000 for the Traditional), and the taxable accounts would have another $500,000 (but not $500,000 for each).

But if one of the taxable accounts is a joint account, it would have its own $500,000 limit, which would produce $1 million in total insurance for the taxable accounts.'

Vanguard does have an auxiliary insurance policy through Lloyd’s of London and London Company Insurers. It adds a second layer of protection to a brokerage account if, and only if, SIPC protection is exhausted.

The secondary insurance policy is good for up to $49.5 million per account. There is an aggregate maximum of $250 million. That means the insurance policy will shell out a quarter of a billion dollars at most across all accounts that have maxed out SIPC coverage.
 

Is Vanguard SIPC and FDIC Insured? (ira-reviews.com)

[FDNYOldGuy]

21 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

I always read that the more you make, the less the Roth makes sense.

I also agree with this and usually try to convince new hires on FD to put money in Roth while they’re new/until they get to higher pay-grades. 
 

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

My fear is that the Roth promise will not be honored.

Millionaires will not find much sympathy when we finally have to address the national debt.

This is certainly one of my concerns, too. That said, if it gets to this level, we likely have much bigger financial/economic problems, this might be akin to throwing deck chairs off the Titanic.

Bottom line, I’m a huge fan of Roth. 96.69% chance tax rates are higher in the future than they are now; which, in the scheme of things, are certainly on the low end of the spectrum. The unknown is how high taxes may be; the known is that you know exactly what they are if you pay now and use Roth.

I’m a big fan of the demographics game, which leads me to believe taxes will have to go up because there just won’t be enough meat bags in the future to pay for us old meat bags’ entitlements/infrastructure/Mil/etc. at current tax %s, so they’re gonna have to go up. 

18 hours ago, FourFans said:

As for leaving a big chunk for your kiddos, I believe there was legislation recently passed that makes Roth accounts not live forever, but that they must be paid out within 10 years of your death, or something like that.

This is a bingo. All retirement accounts (401/IRAs/etc.) must be liquidated within 10 years of being passed down. At least with the Roth, your heirs can do so tax-free, so it still is a great option, but they just can’t keep it growing forever. 

[nsplayr]

On 3/11/2023 at 4:39 PM, TheNewGazmo said:

What's the consensus of the Roth 401k? I always read that the more you make, the less the Roth makes sense. Most of us, especially those of us without Active Duty tax-bennies and/or airline flying, easily end up in the 24-37% tax brackets. Even new FO's are going to find themselves in the 32% tax bracket in no time.

Of course, I am no CPA; just a former tanker pilot so take my public math with a grain of salt, but if you take the tax advantage now, you can save 32% on your $22,500 contributions per year. That is $7,200. Of course, that is income that is taxed, so that ends up being $4,896 that you can put somewhere else - Trad IRA, HSA, 529k, etc.

$22,500 per year for 25 years at 8% interest (without dividends) is $1.75M. A 4% distribution of that is $70,000. Given most of us will be collecting a pension and taking distributions from a retirement account of some sort, we will at least be in the 24% tax bracket upon retirement (why do you think this bracket is the widest of them all?). Who knows what tax brackets will be in 15-20 years either.

The big question is tax up front or tax later? Since I am planning on multiple sources of retirement income (pension and possibly Roth and Traditional retirement accounts), I would prefer to have a Roth account that can grow tax-free for long after I am pushing up daisies so my greedy little children can reap the bennies of my fiscal responsibility. thoughts?

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
 

Just to clear up a couple of things:

1. Having your last dollar in the 32% federal income tax bracket does not mean that every single one of your dollars is taxed at 32%. This is a good breakdown.

2. If indeed you're married and subject to the 32% federal income tax bracket, mazel tov, you're making a boat load of money. For married joint you'd pay $69,295, and then 32% of anything over $340,100. Even for an airline dude, making over $340,100 is fantastic pay.

Notice that if you managed to make exactly $340,101, your federal income tax bill would be $69,295.32...i.e. ~20% of your income...the 32% only affects that very last dollar in this case.

If you're single, then the limit is a lot lower, but the same principle applies.

3. If you're a a high-earning salaried employee like an airline pilot, it's pretty likely you'll be paying less on your retirement distributions than your current income, so traditional IRA/401K may be a better bet for your. YMMV. Lots of opinions on which is appropriate for every situation, and the decision somewhat depends on what you believe about future tax rates, which are not knowable with certainty. Some people even recommend tax treatment diversification i.e. some in traditional, some in Roth accounts, so you're not making the optimal choice but you're also not 100% making the suboptimal choice either.

4. My own thoughts are that Roth is superior if you have access to it (more complex if making a boat-load of money in income) unless you're going to take what money you save in taxes now and invest even more, in order to make up for the fact that you'll owe taxes (you hope at a lower rate) at a later date. Few people actually do this, although if you're a huge saver you might be savvy and disciplined enough to follow through every year. Roth is kind of a forced discipline, because you take your medicine (taxes) now, and when you withdraw decades in the future when you're fat/dumb/retired, you're in the clear.

If you're even having these conversations though you're 100% on the right track to being wealthy and having the option to pass on a chunk of that wealth to your children or charitable causes of your choosing.

Final piece of advice is to read this book (Die With Zero by Bill Perkins).

BL: don't die with too much money wishing you had done more awesome stuff! Same goes with giving, either to your children or charity. Would your kids be better off with some of that money at age 30 rather than all of it at age 70+? Could your chosen charities use that money today instead of 50+ years from now? The book gave me a lot to think about.

The problem of dying with too much isn't common, but it's probably is far too likely for the folks posting here (high-earners, disciplined, etc.).

Edited March 13, 2023 by nsplayr

[HossHarris]

26 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 Even for an airline dude, making over $340,100 is fantastic pay.

That’s 5-6 year narrowbody captain pay at delta just flying an average line … with no contract ninja-in. 
 

you can be a narrowbody captain the same year you’re hired currently. 
 

It’s not fantastic nor out of the ordinary. That’s everyday, walkin around Money. 
 

(expectation management)

[nsplayr]

23 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

It’s not fantastic nor out of the ordinary. That’s everyday, walkin around Money.

I just meant in life, compared to all earners. Top 5% and up for potentially 20+ years, quite fantastic. Not meant to mean uncommon for legacy carrier airline pilots (or doctors or lawyers etc.)

Edited March 13, 2023 by nsplayr

[TheNewGazmo]

19 hours ago, HossHarris said:

That’s 5-6 year narrowbody captain pay at delta just flying an average line … with no contract ninja-in. 
 

you can be a narrowbody captain the same year you’re hired currently. 
 

It’s not fantastic nor out of the ordinary. That’s everyday, walkin around Money. 
 

(expectation management)

Sorry, I misspoke about FO's making that kind of money.   Maybe at Purple, but not quite anywhere else. I quickly glanced at the "single" tax tables, which would put you into the 32% tax bracket at $182,100 - 231,250 in 2023.  I wish I was single making that type of money, but that's besides the point.  Married is $364,200 - 462,500.

I max my Roth 401k.  Most of the time, I teeter/totter on the Roth IRA limits depending on whether or not my wife is in the mood to be employed at any given time (Hehehe...).  Lots of different scenarios can steer people people in different directions.  I am not counting on Social Security being what it is today in 20 years.  I hope noone else is here either.  I fully expect the Fed's to cut the "5%" off of it at some point.  This may effect how much you pull out of retirement.  Instead of 3-4%, you may need 5-6%.  You may choose to live on dividend income, which would be great to live on if they were tax free, built up in a Roth account.  

Of course, most of us airline people have the lucrative privilege to be faced with 1st world, 5% problems.  Most of us are putting more money away in a retirement account than over 50% of the people in this country make in a year.

Edited March 13, 2023 by TheNewGazmo

[ViperMan]

One additional benefit of having a Roth IRA even if you are a "high" earner is that it becomes a vehicle you can use to take extreme risk if you choose to. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purchase bonds in your Roth IRA. It could make a whole lot of sense to invest in something with unlimited upside...

[TheNewGazmo]

One additional benefit of having a Roth IRA even if you are a "high" earner is that it becomes a vehicle you can use to take extreme risk if you choose to. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to purchase bonds in your Roth IRA. It could make a whole lot of sense to invest in something with unlimited upside...

The downside is that the income limits to a Roth IRA are $153,000 MAGI if you are single and $228,000 MAGI if you are married, so that will only go so far, especially if your spouse works, but it is better than nothing. That would be $255,700 before your standard deduction. That is why having the Roth 401k is such a great deal. No income limits.

The tricky part is figuring out which investments are best suited for each of your accounts. That's what I am trying to figure out right now - how to build an index fund/ETF portfolio that takes advantage of both my taxed and non-taxed retirement accounts. There are a trazillion different funds to play with.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk