Jump to content

Financial Experts say...


Mox

Recommended Posts

On 5/19/2018 at 11:50 AM, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Man, once I hit 80-85 all bets are off.

Bourbon for breakfast, prolly start smoking cigs, stealing my great grandkids reefer.....

I’m going to live it up once I’m a geriatric.

still be bitching on FF and wishing we never got rid of Sachi more likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Why not a Roth?

Because if it's not a health-related expense, you do pay taxes on it once (after all the growth, like a tIRA). If it's a health-related expense, you never pay taxes on it. 

The thing is, there is no time limit of when the expense occurs so long as you save the receipt, didn't pay with a tax advantaged account at the time, and have the account opened. So if you have 2 kids, which probably runs north of $10k these days, you can save the receipts, let your account grow, then 20 years later withdraw the $10k all tax free. Given the reality of healthcare in this country, you're likely (especially in older age) to incur more than the $3.5k/year/person in healthcare expenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2018 at 1:41 PM, Bullet Club said:

You should have 2x your annual salary saved up by the age of 35. This is a tweet marketplace sent out the other day that is getting absolutely massacred online. My question for you is, what do you think of this statement?

Is it attainable or completely unrealistic in your minds?

Completely unrealistic right now unless you're considering 401K as part of it. If you do, then having a 5% contribution with a company match of the same 5% would be 60k contributed to the 401k by then if you're making 40k/year. Assuming by 35, you're making closer to 55k, it's still pretty unrealistic with rising housing costs and everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, scar988 said:

Completely unrealistic right now unless you're considering 401K as part of it. If you do, then having a 5% contribution with a company match of the same 5% would be 60k contributed to the 401k by then if you're making 40k/year. Assuming by 35, you're making closer to 55k, it's still pretty unrealistic with rising housing costs and everything else.

I think investments and retirement planning all count. I don't have a 401k and I'm over halfway there at 26, so obviously I have a different opinion on it than most. That's why I wanted to get different perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it completely unrealistic, no, I don't think so. Is it extremely likely, not at all. Counting 401k is pretty obvious in my opinion. It's part of your savings, if you're getting 10% into the 401k and putting money into savings every month, I think you could get close. To keep the 40k a year, with the example above, you're at about 60k contributed, plus if you're putting 100 a month into savings from 22 on, that would get you to 75k+. That gets you close to 2x of 40k. Now assuming you're making 55k, if you're 401k is doing decently, you're going to get pretty close to the double salary number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Doesnt that account have to be used solely on medical stuff? You will be penalized if you spend it on something else

That is my understanding is that it is for medical expenses only and you would be taxed accordingly if used otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

That is my understanding is that it is for medical expenses only and you would be taxed accordingly if used otherwise. 

Until age 65, so in practice it is the same as an IRA except you can use it towards medical expenses too. Everyone should max their HSA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

No if you use it on medical expenses its never taxed regardless of age. If you're 65, you can roll it into a tIRA.

I understand the bolded, even if I didn't indicate that in my first post. 

Sounds like after the age of 65 you would only pay income tax if you needed to withdraw the money for a non-medical expense. Given you're hopefully retired you would be in a lower-income bracket if you needed to withdraw. 

"Example. Bill, age 66, wants to take money out of his HSA to pay for general retirement expenses (not qualified medical expenses). Bill will not have to pay the 20% penalty for non-eligible HSA withdrawals because he is over the age 65, but he will be subject to income taxes on the distribution. If instead Bill uses his HSA for a qualified medical expense he can use the funds taxfree and penalty-free."

Source: https://www.smu.edu/-/media/Site/BusinessFinance/HR/pdf/Benefits/HSA--Medicare.ashx?la=en

What would be the reason to roll into the tIRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...