“Property taxes took an unusually high turn upward last year, pushing effective rates up, while huge gaps in average tax bills between different parts of the country remained in place,” ATTOM chief executive Rob Barber said in the report. “The tax increases were likely connected, at least in part, to inflationary pressures on the cost … [Read more…]
After I wrote a simple primer on Roth conversions a couple weeks ago, several readers reached out asking for more details. A few specific snippets of those questions include:
I see many articles like this about lowering your tax bracket when doing Roth conversions. But, what about the amount of money that can be made by not doing Roth conversions and letting the taxable [sic: qualified, or not taxable] money grow in an account like an IRA or 401K? Is that math too hard to explain?
Sure your RMDs will be higher and you will be taxed more, but how much more money will you make by letting that tax deferred money grow? You could assume a rate of return at 6% for the illustration.
Kelly M., Question 1
A wise man once said “never pay a tax before you have to.” Back around 2015 I had the owner of an income tax service try to convince me to convert all my traditional IRA money to Roth. He said tax rates were going to go up and he was converting all of his own personal traditional IRAs. Fast forward to 2017 and Congress actually ended up lowering tax rates. I wonder what he thought about his conversions after that.
Anonymous, Question 2
Even with my spouse still working, I don’t think we’ll hit the IRMAA limits while I do Roth conversions before I take Medicare. But, could Roth conversions now help me avoid the IRMAA thresholds when I’m taking RMDs in the future? Or, is it worth doing Roth conversions to avoid the IRMAA thresholds? I’d be interested in an article like that.
Anonymous, Question 3
To summarize those three questions:
Does the math of Roth conversions really work?
But since we don’t know future tax rates, how can we confidently convert assets today?
What about IRMAA (the income-related monthly adjustment amount), which is an additional Medicare surcharge on high-earners?
Let’s address these questions one at a time.
Does the Math of Roth Conversions Really Work?
Roth conversions involve many moving pieces, as you’ll see in this simple Roth conversion spreadsheet.
Reminder: you can make a copy of the spreadsheet via File >> Make a Copy
There are terrific financial planning software packages that take care of this math. I wanted to present 95% of the good stuff in a free format that you all can look at. Hence, Google Sheets.
Nuanced Tax Interactions
Especially important is the interaction between normal income (via Traditional account withdrawals), capital gains, and Social Security. These taxes interplay in nuanced ways. A simple example:
Let’s say a Single retiree’s annual income is:
$5000 in interest income
$5000 in long-term capital gains
$30,000 in Social Security benefits.
If you plug that into a 1040 tax return, you’ll find that:
None of that Social Security income is taxable.
All of the interest and capital gains are enveloped by the Standard deduction
Resulting in zero taxable income and a $0.00 Federal tax bill.
But if we copied Scenario A and added in $30,000 in Traditional IRA distributions, what happens? I think we all expect that the $30,000 distribution itself must have a taxable component, but you might not know that:
The IRA distribution affects Social Security taxability. Now, $22,350 of the Social Security income becomes taxable. That’s right. Simply by distributing IRA assets, you’ve now increased how much Social Security you pay taxes on.
The Standard deduction still helps, but there’s now a remainder of $48,500 in Federal taxable income.
Resulting in a $5584 Federal tax bill.
It’s not the end of the world. Taxes happen. They pay for our public shared interests.
But part of tax planning is understanding ahead of time what your future tax bills will look like. It’s important to understand how taxes interact. And this is just a simple example!
Measuring Roth Conversion Benefits
Going back to this spreadsheet, you’ll three tabs full of retirement withdrawal math. The Assumptions tab contains important information on our hypothetical retiree’s starting point (e.g. $2.9M in investable assets), their annual spending ($100K), their future assumed growth (5% per year, after adjusting for inflation), and other important numbers.
Note – this math takes place in “the convenient world” where inflation is removed from the math.
Then three tabs are presented with different Roth conversion scenarios, described below:
“Baseline Calculations“
This tab shows a retiree not focused on any conversions
They want to leave to their children both Roth assets (if possible) and taxable assets (on a stepped-up cost basis).
Therefore, they attempt to fund as much of their retirement using Traditional assets as possible
“No Trad Withdrawals”
This tab shows a “worst case” scenario, to help bookend the analysis. This retiree is not pulling any funds from their Traditional accounts (unless necessary). Thus, we’d expect them to have large RMDs and large RMD-related tax bills.
“Reasonable Conversions”
This tab shows a “reasonable” Roth conversion timeline, electing to convert $1.7 million throughout their retirement, while funding their lifestyle using a mix of Traditional, Roth, and taxable assets along the way.
By no means is this “optimized.” But it’s reasonable, and better than the first two scenarios, as we’ll see below.
Pros, Cons, and Results
The three scenarios end up similar in multiple ways.
Our retiree never has an issue funding their annual lifestyle. This is of utmost importance.
Our retiree reaches age 90 (“death”) with roughly $5M in each scenario.
But there are important differences (as we’d suspect).
The Baseline scenario ends with $5.00M. Of that, 27% is Traditional, 35% is Roth, and 34% is Taxable. They’ve paid an effective Federal tax rate of 20.7% throughout retirement.
The No Traditional Withdrawal scenario ends with $5.20M. Of that, 63% is Tradtional, 0% is Roth, 37% is Taxable. They’ve paid an effective Federal tax rate of 18.8% throughout retirement.
The Reasonable Conversions scenario ends with $5.17M. 18% is Traditional, 68% is Roth, and 14% is Taxable. They’ve paid an effective Federal tax rate of 13.9% throughout retirement.
The Same, But Different
These three scenarios share many similarities. All three result in successful retirements. But there are important differences.
Our Roth converter paid far fewer taxes and, ultimately, left a majority of their tax dollars to their heirs via Roth vehicles, and thus tax-free.
The No Trad Withdrawal retiree paid 28% effective tax rates in their final years (only going further up in the future) and left 63% of their assets in Traditional accounts with a large asterisk on them.***
***TAXES DUE IN THE FUTURE*** …unless you’re leaving the Traditional IRA assets to, for example, a non-profit charity. But if you’re leaving the Traditional IRA to your kids, they’ll owe taxes when they withdraw the funds.
Long story short: Roth conversions work to your benefit when executed intelligently.
Should You Worry About Leaving Behind Traditional Assets?!
I don’t want to freak you out. Your heirs will appreciate you leaving behind a 401(k) or Traditional IRA for them.
But it’s worth understanding that they’ll owe taxes on that money (usually). Let’s dive into an example with simple math: a $1 million Traditional IRA left to one person (e.g. your child).
That person will most likely set up an Inherited Traditional IRAand (via new-ish rules in the SECURE Act) will have to empty that account by the end of the 10th year after your death. The withdrawals can be raised and lowered during those 10 years. Much like with Roth conversions, it makes sense to take larger withdrawals during otherwise low-income years and vice versa.
But if the beneficiary is in the middle of their career, a series of 10 equal withdrawals makes sense. Some rough math suggests ~$135,000 per year is a reasonable withdrawal amount (based on account growth over the 10 years).
That withdrawal is taxed as income for the beneficiary. If they’re already earning $100,000 per year of normal income, then taxes will consume ~$41,000 of their annual $135,000 withdrawal. State taxes might take another bite.
Again – I don’t want anyone to cry over the prospect of inheriting $94,000 annually for 10 years. Where can I sign up?! But it’s also worth understanding that 30% of this inheritance is going to Federal taxes.
“Never Pay a Tax Before You Have To”
What about Question #2 from the beginning of the article? A reader wrote in and suggested one should “never pay a tax before you have to.”
While pithy, it’s false.
If you can reasonably front-load low tax rates to prevent later high tax rates, the math supports you. What we’ve covered so far today is clear evidence of that.
Now, in the reader’s defense: I’d rather delay taxes if thedollar amounts are exactly the same. That’s one argument behind the tax-loss harvesting craze: I’d rather pay $100 in taxes in the future than $100 in taxes today.
But Roth conversions work differently. Done well, Roth conversions allow you to pay a 22% tax on $50,000 today to prevent a 37% tax on $100,000 in the future. It’s apples-and-oranges compared to the tax-loss example.
And perhaps the bigger lesson: there are few universal rules in personal finance. The pithy rule that works in one scenario (“never pay a tax before you have to”) might fail miserably in another scenario. Let the math guide you.
What About IRMAA?
Irma used to only be a name you’d give to the great-grandmother character in your 11th-grade B-minus fiction story.
No longer! Today, IRMAA has been given new life (which, I bet, was covered by Medicare!)
IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) is a Medicare premium surcharge imposed on higher-income beneficiaries in addition to their standard Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. The amount of IRMAA is determined based on an individual’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) and can result in higher healthcare costs for those with higher incomes.
In plain English: high-earners pay more for Medicare.
Question #3 today asked if Roth conversions can be used to avoid IRMAA premiums. The answer is: yes.
But first, how painful are these IRMAA surcharges in the first place?!
Important note: you’ll see below that the 2023 IRMAA brackets are based on 2021 modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). That same 2-year delay holds for future years. Your 2024 Roth conversions (or lack thereof) will be important in determining IRMAA in 2026
If a married couple’s MAGI in 2021 was $225,000, they’d end up paying $231 per month (or, more accurately, $462 per month for the couple) as opposed to $330 for the couple if they earned less than $194,000. That’s a difference of $132 per month or $1584 for the year.
I’m of two minds here. Because:
Yes, I believe in frugality. A penny saved is a penny earned. Why pay $1584 extra if you don’t have to?
But if you’re earning $200,000in retirement, do you also need to stress over a $1500 annual line item?
Personally, I’ll be stoked if my retirement MAGI is $200,000. It’ll be a sign that my financial life turned out unbelievably well. I won’t mind the IRMAA.
The people most likely to suffer IRMAA are also best positioned to deal with it.
Will IRMAA Get You?
The 2-year delay in IRMAA math means you might get IRMAA’d early on in retirement.
Imagine retiring at the end of 2023. The peak of your career! You and your spouse earned a combined $300,000 and now you’re settling down to mind your knitting. Like all U.S. citizens, you sign up for Medicare just before you turn 65.
Come 2025, Uncle Sam and Aunt IRMAA are going to look back at your 2023 income and surcharge you.
But the good news, most likely, is that your 2024 income is quite low in comparison and IRMAA will drop off in 2026.
Can Roth Conversions Help?
Remember: RMDs are forced and count as income, and that has the potential of “forcing” IRMAA on retirees as they age.
So to answer our terrific reader question: yes, Roth conversions can help here. You can use Roth conversions to shift the realization of income from high years to low years, preventing or mitigating IRMAA in the process.
But once more, make sure the juice is worth the squeeze.
If a 75-year-old has a $200,000 RMD that kills them on IRMAA, ask yourself: where does a $200,000 RMD come from? Answer: it’s coming from an IRA of over $5 million. Should someone with $5 million be losing sleep over IRMAA? I don’t think so.
That’s A Lot of Numbers…
A long and math-heavy article. I hope this helped you out! We covered:
Roth conversions can be objectively helpful, decreasing taxes in retirement and shifting large portions of portfolios from Traditional accounts (with potential taxes for heirs) into Roth accounts (no taxes for heirs)
Taxes in retirement are nuanced and interconnected. In today’s example, realizing extra income (via IRA distributions) also triggered extra Social Security taxes.
It’s not bad to leave behind Traditional assets to heirs. They’re getting a wonderful gift from you. But there will be taxes, which should be planned for.
There are many scenarios where it makes sense to pay taxes before you “have” to.
IRMAA is a negative reality for many retirees, but the people most likely to suffer IRMAA are also best positioned to deal with it.
Roth conversions can be used to mitigate IRMAA over the long run.
As always, thanks for reading!
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this article, join 8000+ subscribers who read my 2-minute weekly email, where I send you links to the smartest financial content I find online every week.
-Jesse
Want to learn more about The Best Interest’s back story? Read here.
Looking for a great personal finance book, podcast, or other recommendation? Check out my favorites.
Was this post worth sharing? Click the buttons below to share!
Most income taxes in the United States are paid by the people with the most income. That is in keeping with the generally progressive nature of the individual federal income tax, the primary source of government revenues, which applies higher tax rates to higher incomes. However, some taxes fall more heavily on people with less income, while the most affluent of all can sometimes pay little or no income tax. A financial advisor can help you plan to manage your taxes.
The Biggest Taxpayers
The biggest source of tax revenue in the United States is the federal individual income tax and the biggest source of individual income tax revenues consists of the nation’s highest earners. In 2023, according to an estimate of the Tax Policy Center, 67% of all federal income tax collected will come from the top 20% of earnings, who were bringing home more than $189,200 annually. The situation where a small minority of high earners pay most of the individual income taxes has remained steady for many years.
Beyond that, figuring out who pays the most total taxes in the United States is complicated by the fact that there are many types of taxes. Federal individual income taxes levied on earnings from working and investing is just one variety, albeit the most important.
Payroll taxes supporting Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are the second-largest source of federal tax revenues. Employers deduct these Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes from workers’ paychecks.
Other taxes include corporate income taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes and customs duties. Excise taxes are assessed on gasoline, alcohol, gambling and some other products and services. These taxes land more or less heavily on different taxpayers. For example, lower-income workers pay a larger percentage of their incomes in payroll taxes than higher-income workers thanks to the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.
The capital gains tax is a special tax imposed on certain types of investment income that is in lieu of and generally lower than the individual income tax rates. Capital gains taxes are mostly paid by people who have more assets, while people with few assets may pay little or no capital gains tax. Similarly, property taxes, which are the major source of revenue for state and local governments, are only levied on the owners of property such as real estate.
Factors Influencing Who Pays the Most Taxes
A number of factors determine how much someone pays in federal income tax. The interplay between these factors and taxpayers’ efforts to save on taxes while conforming to the tax law, is largely responsible for the complexity of tax planning and preparing tax returns. Here are some of the major considerations.
Taxable income: As your income rises, you move into a higher tax bracket, which means more of your income goes to taxes.
Filing status: Tax rates vary depending on whether you are filing as a single individual, a married couple filing jointly, a married couple filings separately or as a head of household.
Adjustments to income. Retirement plan contributions, student loan interest payments and some other outlays can reduce your taxable income and your taxes.
Exemptions: Taxpayers can further reduce income by claiming exemptions, including dependency exemptions for their children.
Deductions: Yet another way to reduce taxable income is by claiming deductions. In addition to the standard deduction, you may be able to claim deductions for medical expenses, charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and other costs.
Tax credits: Credits for education and energy conservation, among other categories, can not only reduce your taxes but result in the government sending you a check.
Managing your tax liability consists largely of working with these factors. For example, if you have an unusual amount of income in one year, you may be able to use averaging to spread the income among different taxable years, keeping you from moving into a higher tax bracket.
Using the capital gains tax to reduce income taxes is also important. If you have assets that have appreciated in value, you could be subject to a large capital gains tax bill when you sell them. On the other hand, if you never sell them, you may be able to pass them on to your heirs without ever paying any income tax on your increased wealth. Very affluent taxpayers can pay their bills while avoiding income and other taxes by a number of other means, including pledging their assets as collateral for loans, the proceeds of which are not taxable.
The Bottom Line
The people with the highest incomes generally pay the highest taxes in the United States, thanks to the generally progressive individual income tax system used by the federal government. There are some exceptions to this type of policy, as very wealthy individuals can find ways to reduce their taxes – sometimes paying none at all – by making the most of so-called loopholes in the tax code. However, as a rule, the top 20% of earners pay more income taxes than the rest of the tax-paying population put together.
Tax Tips
Managing and reducing the amount of taxes you pay can benefit from the assistance of a financial advisor. Finding a financial advisor doesn’t need to be hard. SmartAsset’s free tool matches you with up to three vetted financial advisors who serve your area, and you can have a free introductory call with your advisor matches to decide which one you feel is right for you. If you’re ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.
SmartAsset’s Federal Income Tax Calculator can help you break down your tax obligations including the total tax as well as the type of tax and your marginal and effective tax rates.
Mark Henricks
Mark Henricks has reported on personal finance, investing, retirement, entrepreneurship and other topics for more than 30 years. His freelance byline has appeared on CNBC.com and in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance and other leading publications. Mark has written books including, “Not Just A Living: The Complete Guide to Creating a Business That Gives You A Life.” His favorite reporting is the kind that helps ordinary people increase their personal wealth and life satisfaction. A graduate of the University of Texas journalism program, he lives in Austin, Texas. In his spare time he enjoys reading, volunteering, performing in an acoustic music duo, whitewater kayaking, wilderness backpacking and competing in triathlons.
Yesterday I hosted a guest article about the mortagage-interest tax deduction. As part of his argument that this tax break should not be used to justify buying a house, CJ from Wise Money Matters looked at the savings by tax brackets. What CJ did not consider (and what escaped my notice, and even that of my accountant) was the concept of marginal tax rates.
Although I was mortified to have let such a blatant error pass through editing, I decided to turn this mistake into a positive experience. I spent some time reading about marginal tax rates, and today I’m going to share what I learned.
Marginal Tax Rates
Let’s start by looking at the 2009 U.S. federal income tax brackets for ordinary income. (These are the rates we’ll use when filing our tax returns in 2010.) For the sake of simplicity, we’ll only examine the rates for single filers and for those who are married filing jointly. The same principle applies to all filers.
You can also view the 2010 federal income tax brackets and a discussion on 2011 federal income tax rates.Based on this table, if Gillian is single and has taxable income of $100,000 in 2009, her marginal tax rate will be 28%. This does not mean that all of her income is taxed at 28%. She will not owe $28,000 in taxes. Only the top portion of her income is taxed at the highest level.
Gillian’s income is actually taxed progressively, at each bracket up to her marginal rate. Does that sound like gibberish? It’s actually not so bad. Using the example above:
The first $8,350 of Gillian’s $100,000 income would be taxed at 10%, for a total of $835 in taxes due.
The next $25,600 of her income would be taxed at 15%, for a total of $3,840.
The next $48,300 of her income would be taxed at 25%, for a total of $12,075.
The final $17,750 of her income would be taxed at 28%, for a total of $4,970.
Because Gillian earns $100,000 of taxable income, she is said to be in the 28% tax bracket. That’s the percentage she’s taxed on the last dollar she earns. But most of her dollars are taxed at a lower rate. In fact, as a single filer earning $100,000 in taxable income, she’ll owe $21,720 in taxes for 2009, which means her effective tax rate will be 21.72% — not 28%.
An Easy Mistake to Make
CJ’s article yesterday originally contained a mistaken analysis of the mortgage interest tax deduction. He was applying marginal rates as if they were effective rates. I did not catch it, and neither did my accountant. I’m well aware of marginal rates (and so, obviously, is my accountant), which demonstrates just how confusing this can be — if you don’t pay attention.
Even large media outlets make mistakes with marginal rates. President Obama’s tax proposal would increase taxes on families earning more than $250,000 per year. ABC News ran a story profiling upper-income taxpayers who are looking for ways to sidestep this tax hike. One of them, a 63-year-old attorney from Louisiana, is quoted in the article:
“We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00,” she said.
“We have to find a way out there we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama’s tax plan,” she added. “Why kill yourself working if you’re going to give it all way to people who aren’t working so hard?”
Before ABC News revised the article (just as I revised the error out of yesterday’s story at Get Rich Slowly), its main thrust was grounded firmly on a misunderstanding of marginal and effective tax rates. But this attorney is working from a false premise. If she makes $250,000 per year, she’s only going to pay a few cents more in taxes than if she earns $249,999 per year.
My point here isn’t that the attorney is dumb or that the reporter is dumb or that CJ is dumb or that my accountant is dumb or that I am dumb. My point is that marginal tax rates can be confusing, even for those who know better. When you speak about tax rates and tax brackets, always take a moment to be clear whether you’re speaking about marginal tax rates or effective tax rates.
Then you can avoid posting blog articles (or news stories) that contain embarrassing errors!
Happy New Year! We have a deal. A so-called âfiscal cliffâ deal, that is. The backstory on the fiscal cliff: Remember the debt ceiling debate in summer 2011? It sure seemed like a big deal at the time, and investing pundits debated whether it would destroy your portfolio and possibly the United States itself. Spoiler:
The post The Fiscal Cliff: “The No-Big-Deal” Deal appeared first on MintLife Blog.
Contributing to a flexible spending account (FSA) could save you several hundred dollars in taxes. FSAs do this by exempting contributions from federal and state income taxes, as well as payroll taxes. FSAs do have some limitations, including a cap ⦠Continue reading â
The post How FSAs Save You Money on Taxes appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.
I messed up! Despite trying to make this article as fact-based as possible, I botched it. I’ve made corrections but if you read the comments, early responses may be confusing in light of my changes.
For the most part, the world of personal finance is calm and collected. There’s not a lot of bickering. Writers (and readers) agree on most concepts and most solutions. And when we do disagree, it’s generally because we’re coming from different places.
Take getting out of debt, for instance. This is one of those topics where people do disagree — but they disagree politely.