Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?












19















My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401(k)s and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401(k)s give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401(k)s doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401(k)s as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 days ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 days ago






  • 12





    I see a potential problem with relying almost exclusively on rental income in retirement. Suppose the housing market in your area tanks, as it did in Detroit?

    – jamesqf
    yesterday






  • 2





    Read How to retire early without penalty? to understand why the 401(k) are IRA are not locked until age X.

    – JoeTaxpayer
    yesterday
















19















My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401(k)s and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401(k)s give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401(k)s doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401(k)s as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 days ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 days ago






  • 12





    I see a potential problem with relying almost exclusively on rental income in retirement. Suppose the housing market in your area tanks, as it did in Detroit?

    – jamesqf
    yesterday






  • 2





    Read How to retire early without penalty? to understand why the 401(k) are IRA are not locked until age X.

    – JoeTaxpayer
    yesterday














19












19








19


7






My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401(k)s and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401(k)s give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401(k)s doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401(k)s as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.










share|improve this question
















My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401(k)s and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401(k)s give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401(k)s doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401(k)s as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.







united-states investing 401k retirement






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









JoeTaxpayer

146k23236472




146k23236472










asked 2 days ago









painter48179painter48179

1,5063916




1,5063916








  • 4





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 days ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 days ago






  • 12





    I see a potential problem with relying almost exclusively on rental income in retirement. Suppose the housing market in your area tanks, as it did in Detroit?

    – jamesqf
    yesterday






  • 2





    Read How to retire early without penalty? to understand why the 401(k) are IRA are not locked until age X.

    – JoeTaxpayer
    yesterday














  • 4





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 days ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 days ago






  • 3





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 days ago






  • 12





    I see a potential problem with relying almost exclusively on rental income in retirement. Suppose the housing market in your area tanks, as it did in Detroit?

    – jamesqf
    yesterday






  • 2





    Read How to retire early without penalty? to understand why the 401(k) are IRA are not locked until age X.

    – JoeTaxpayer
    yesterday








4




4





Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

– Aganju
2 days ago





Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

– Aganju
2 days ago













@Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

– nanoman
2 days ago





@Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

– nanoman
2 days ago




3




3





@BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

– Hart CO
2 days ago





@BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

– Hart CO
2 days ago




12




12





I see a potential problem with relying almost exclusively on rental income in retirement. Suppose the housing market in your area tanks, as it did in Detroit?

– jamesqf
yesterday





I see a potential problem with relying almost exclusively on rental income in retirement. Suppose the housing market in your area tanks, as it did in Detroit?

– jamesqf
yesterday




2




2





Read How to retire early without penalty? to understand why the 401(k) are IRA are not locked until age X.

– JoeTaxpayer
yesterday





Read How to retire early without penalty? to understand why the 401(k) are IRA are not locked until age X.

– JoeTaxpayer
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















21














First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401(k) you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. As you mentioned, you are only making $40,000 and will never max it out, but you already indicated a desire to expand. It may be obvious to some, but there is still $40,000 that you can defer taxes on. Right now if you are maxing the 401(k) contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



The 401(k) contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401(k) in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401(k), as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



Try to enjoy yourself.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

    – Ben Voigt
    2 days ago













  • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

    – CQM
    2 days ago






  • 6





    The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

    – Mark Henderson
    yesterday











  • @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

    – CQM
    yesterday



















8














Whoa. The real estate is a business, not a retirement. Totally different.



The 401(k) is a trust account that is absolutely protected. It cannot be sued out from under you. You cannot lose it in bankruptcy; it cannot be garnished or attached (until you are near retirement and you reach a point where withdrawals are compulsory). The only way you can lose it is if you are willfully stupid in a moment of weakness, and collectors are pretty good at tricking you there.



Investmentwise, a university endowment is a sure thing over 30+ years. A 401(k) invested the same way over the same period is the same sure thing. The only risk is misinvesting, or being duped by brokers into wasting capital on sales loads and high expense ratios. (My institution has about 1.5% total expenses on their endowment; my donor fund has about 0.65% and my IRAs/401(k) have about 0.2% because I'm a sharper investor than a committee).



The problem with your 401(k) and IRAs is they are not nearly sufficient for a decent retirement. A sustainable withdrawal rate is 5-8% a year out of that; can you really retire on $6000-10,000/year?



Real estate is a wild ride. I imagine your investments are leveraged? That means the potential swings in asset value could greatly outrange the capital you sank. This works in your favor more often than not. But another real estate dip - and I do expect one - could put you deep in the hole. You can find yourself with upside-down properties and banks calling notes. Depending on your private capitalization and how events turn, you could actually go bankrupt. That can happen.



In that case, don't you dare think about cashing out any 401(k)s or IRAs (if IRAs are protected in your jurisdiction).



The other thing is that endowment-strategy investing is a surer thing that houses - which might explain why university endowments are in 60-70% in the stock market and typically 0-10% in real estate (and only that for diversification).



I would be moving as much profit from the real estate business to the 401(k) as I possibly could. That protects/checkpoints that money. Even if the real estate business takes you into bankruptcy, the 401(k) is fully shielded and that money can't be yanked back out, (unless the creditor can prove you drew so much out of the business that you undercapitalized it; leaving it unable to fund its foreseeable needs).]





Since you are not so concerned about the tax benefits; I would use Roth 401Ks, Roth IRAs and/or "back door Roth". This is even better; you pay taxes on the money today; then pay no taxes whatsoever on final withdrawal. That really matters when the investment may be worth 5-10 times more. What's more, you are able to pull the corpus (initial contribution amount) back out without any penalties or taxes at all - so that portion is able to function as an emergency fund.



Even more, Roths let you contribute more total money. Imagine a single deposit, your combined Fed and State bracket is 25% and your investment increases 10x over the years.




  • In an IRA you earn $6000, contribute $6000 of tax-unpaid money, withdraw $60,000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $15,000 in taxes on it, giving $45,000 of tax-paid money.

  • In a Roth you earn $8000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $2000 taxes, contribute $6000 tax-paid money, withdraw $60,000, keeping $60,000 of tax-paid money.


So instead of $6000 you get to contribute $8000 of tax-unpaid money (33% more). And in the end, instead of $45k tax-paid, you get $60k tax paid (33% more). Why not just contribute $8000 to the Trad IRA? You can't because of contribution limits. The Roth lets you snake in e.g. 33% more capital into the account. Roths are really quite amazing.






share|improve this answer


























  • Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

    – T. M.
    yesterday











  • @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

    – Harper
    yesterday






  • 1





    A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

    – T. M.
    yesterday











  • "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

    – stannius
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

    – Harper
    7 hours ago



















6














Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






share|improve this answer

































    3














    You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



    Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



    Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






    share|improve this answer































      1














      The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401(k)s is extremely powerful. On a 401(k) or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



      It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401(k)s. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401(k)s are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401(k) than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



      It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



      Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401(k) is a good idea.






      share|improve this answer

























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "93"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106895%2fshould-i-stop-contributing-to-retirement-accounts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        21














        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401(k) you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. As you mentioned, you are only making $40,000 and will never max it out, but you already indicated a desire to expand. It may be obvious to some, but there is still $40,000 that you can defer taxes on. Right now if you are maxing the 401(k) contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401(k) contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401(k) in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401(k), as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 2





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 days ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 days ago






        • 6





          The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

          – Mark Henderson
          yesterday











        • @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

          – CQM
          yesterday
















        21














        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401(k) you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. As you mentioned, you are only making $40,000 and will never max it out, but you already indicated a desire to expand. It may be obvious to some, but there is still $40,000 that you can defer taxes on. Right now if you are maxing the 401(k) contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401(k) contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401(k) in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401(k), as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.






        share|improve this answer





















        • 2





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 days ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 days ago






        • 6





          The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

          – Mark Henderson
          yesterday











        • @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

          – CQM
          yesterday














        21












        21








        21







        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401(k) you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. As you mentioned, you are only making $40,000 and will never max it out, but you already indicated a desire to expand. It may be obvious to some, but there is still $40,000 that you can defer taxes on. Right now if you are maxing the 401(k) contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401(k) contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401(k) in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401(k), as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.






        share|improve this answer















        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401(k) you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. As you mentioned, you are only making $40,000 and will never max it out, but you already indicated a desire to expand. It may be obvious to some, but there is still $40,000 that you can defer taxes on. Right now if you are maxing the 401(k) contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401(k) contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401(k) in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401(k), as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered 2 days ago









        CQMCQM

        15.3k23374




        15.3k23374








        • 2





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 days ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 days ago






        • 6





          The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

          – Mark Henderson
          yesterday











        • @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

          – CQM
          yesterday














        • 2





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 days ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 days ago






        • 6





          The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

          – Mark Henderson
          yesterday











        • @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

          – CQM
          yesterday








        2




        2





        They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

        – Ben Voigt
        2 days ago







        They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

        – Ben Voigt
        2 days ago















        @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

        – CQM
        2 days ago





        @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

        – CQM
        2 days ago




        6




        6





        The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

        – Mark Henderson
        yesterday





        The bank thing shocked me. When I passed whatever threshold it was they started waiving normally expensive bank fees and almost giving me free money. It's a different world when you have 6 figures sitting in an account.

        – Mark Henderson
        yesterday













        @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

        – CQM
        yesterday





        @MarkHenderson its great, the bank is still making more money from these deposits, but now the amount they make covers the static costs they incur, so they don't need to pass those down to you.

        – CQM
        yesterday













        8














        Whoa. The real estate is a business, not a retirement. Totally different.



        The 401(k) is a trust account that is absolutely protected. It cannot be sued out from under you. You cannot lose it in bankruptcy; it cannot be garnished or attached (until you are near retirement and you reach a point where withdrawals are compulsory). The only way you can lose it is if you are willfully stupid in a moment of weakness, and collectors are pretty good at tricking you there.



        Investmentwise, a university endowment is a sure thing over 30+ years. A 401(k) invested the same way over the same period is the same sure thing. The only risk is misinvesting, or being duped by brokers into wasting capital on sales loads and high expense ratios. (My institution has about 1.5% total expenses on their endowment; my donor fund has about 0.65% and my IRAs/401(k) have about 0.2% because I'm a sharper investor than a committee).



        The problem with your 401(k) and IRAs is they are not nearly sufficient for a decent retirement. A sustainable withdrawal rate is 5-8% a year out of that; can you really retire on $6000-10,000/year?



        Real estate is a wild ride. I imagine your investments are leveraged? That means the potential swings in asset value could greatly outrange the capital you sank. This works in your favor more often than not. But another real estate dip - and I do expect one - could put you deep in the hole. You can find yourself with upside-down properties and banks calling notes. Depending on your private capitalization and how events turn, you could actually go bankrupt. That can happen.



        In that case, don't you dare think about cashing out any 401(k)s or IRAs (if IRAs are protected in your jurisdiction).



        The other thing is that endowment-strategy investing is a surer thing that houses - which might explain why university endowments are in 60-70% in the stock market and typically 0-10% in real estate (and only that for diversification).



        I would be moving as much profit from the real estate business to the 401(k) as I possibly could. That protects/checkpoints that money. Even if the real estate business takes you into bankruptcy, the 401(k) is fully shielded and that money can't be yanked back out, (unless the creditor can prove you drew so much out of the business that you undercapitalized it; leaving it unable to fund its foreseeable needs).]





        Since you are not so concerned about the tax benefits; I would use Roth 401Ks, Roth IRAs and/or "back door Roth". This is even better; you pay taxes on the money today; then pay no taxes whatsoever on final withdrawal. That really matters when the investment may be worth 5-10 times more. What's more, you are able to pull the corpus (initial contribution amount) back out without any penalties or taxes at all - so that portion is able to function as an emergency fund.



        Even more, Roths let you contribute more total money. Imagine a single deposit, your combined Fed and State bracket is 25% and your investment increases 10x over the years.




        • In an IRA you earn $6000, contribute $6000 of tax-unpaid money, withdraw $60,000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $15,000 in taxes on it, giving $45,000 of tax-paid money.

        • In a Roth you earn $8000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $2000 taxes, contribute $6000 tax-paid money, withdraw $60,000, keeping $60,000 of tax-paid money.


        So instead of $6000 you get to contribute $8000 of tax-unpaid money (33% more). And in the end, instead of $45k tax-paid, you get $60k tax paid (33% more). Why not just contribute $8000 to the Trad IRA? You can't because of contribution limits. The Roth lets you snake in e.g. 33% more capital into the account. Roths are really quite amazing.






        share|improve this answer


























        • Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

          – Harper
          yesterday






        • 1





          A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

          – stannius
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

          – Harper
          7 hours ago
















        8














        Whoa. The real estate is a business, not a retirement. Totally different.



        The 401(k) is a trust account that is absolutely protected. It cannot be sued out from under you. You cannot lose it in bankruptcy; it cannot be garnished or attached (until you are near retirement and you reach a point where withdrawals are compulsory). The only way you can lose it is if you are willfully stupid in a moment of weakness, and collectors are pretty good at tricking you there.



        Investmentwise, a university endowment is a sure thing over 30+ years. A 401(k) invested the same way over the same period is the same sure thing. The only risk is misinvesting, or being duped by brokers into wasting capital on sales loads and high expense ratios. (My institution has about 1.5% total expenses on their endowment; my donor fund has about 0.65% and my IRAs/401(k) have about 0.2% because I'm a sharper investor than a committee).



        The problem with your 401(k) and IRAs is they are not nearly sufficient for a decent retirement. A sustainable withdrawal rate is 5-8% a year out of that; can you really retire on $6000-10,000/year?



        Real estate is a wild ride. I imagine your investments are leveraged? That means the potential swings in asset value could greatly outrange the capital you sank. This works in your favor more often than not. But another real estate dip - and I do expect one - could put you deep in the hole. You can find yourself with upside-down properties and banks calling notes. Depending on your private capitalization and how events turn, you could actually go bankrupt. That can happen.



        In that case, don't you dare think about cashing out any 401(k)s or IRAs (if IRAs are protected in your jurisdiction).



        The other thing is that endowment-strategy investing is a surer thing that houses - which might explain why university endowments are in 60-70% in the stock market and typically 0-10% in real estate (and only that for diversification).



        I would be moving as much profit from the real estate business to the 401(k) as I possibly could. That protects/checkpoints that money. Even if the real estate business takes you into bankruptcy, the 401(k) is fully shielded and that money can't be yanked back out, (unless the creditor can prove you drew so much out of the business that you undercapitalized it; leaving it unable to fund its foreseeable needs).]





        Since you are not so concerned about the tax benefits; I would use Roth 401Ks, Roth IRAs and/or "back door Roth". This is even better; you pay taxes on the money today; then pay no taxes whatsoever on final withdrawal. That really matters when the investment may be worth 5-10 times more. What's more, you are able to pull the corpus (initial contribution amount) back out without any penalties or taxes at all - so that portion is able to function as an emergency fund.



        Even more, Roths let you contribute more total money. Imagine a single deposit, your combined Fed and State bracket is 25% and your investment increases 10x over the years.




        • In an IRA you earn $6000, contribute $6000 of tax-unpaid money, withdraw $60,000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $15,000 in taxes on it, giving $45,000 of tax-paid money.

        • In a Roth you earn $8000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $2000 taxes, contribute $6000 tax-paid money, withdraw $60,000, keeping $60,000 of tax-paid money.


        So instead of $6000 you get to contribute $8000 of tax-unpaid money (33% more). And in the end, instead of $45k tax-paid, you get $60k tax paid (33% more). Why not just contribute $8000 to the Trad IRA? You can't because of contribution limits. The Roth lets you snake in e.g. 33% more capital into the account. Roths are really quite amazing.






        share|improve this answer


























        • Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

          – Harper
          yesterday






        • 1





          A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

          – stannius
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

          – Harper
          7 hours ago














        8












        8








        8







        Whoa. The real estate is a business, not a retirement. Totally different.



        The 401(k) is a trust account that is absolutely protected. It cannot be sued out from under you. You cannot lose it in bankruptcy; it cannot be garnished or attached (until you are near retirement and you reach a point where withdrawals are compulsory). The only way you can lose it is if you are willfully stupid in a moment of weakness, and collectors are pretty good at tricking you there.



        Investmentwise, a university endowment is a sure thing over 30+ years. A 401(k) invested the same way over the same period is the same sure thing. The only risk is misinvesting, or being duped by brokers into wasting capital on sales loads and high expense ratios. (My institution has about 1.5% total expenses on their endowment; my donor fund has about 0.65% and my IRAs/401(k) have about 0.2% because I'm a sharper investor than a committee).



        The problem with your 401(k) and IRAs is they are not nearly sufficient for a decent retirement. A sustainable withdrawal rate is 5-8% a year out of that; can you really retire on $6000-10,000/year?



        Real estate is a wild ride. I imagine your investments are leveraged? That means the potential swings in asset value could greatly outrange the capital you sank. This works in your favor more often than not. But another real estate dip - and I do expect one - could put you deep in the hole. You can find yourself with upside-down properties and banks calling notes. Depending on your private capitalization and how events turn, you could actually go bankrupt. That can happen.



        In that case, don't you dare think about cashing out any 401(k)s or IRAs (if IRAs are protected in your jurisdiction).



        The other thing is that endowment-strategy investing is a surer thing that houses - which might explain why university endowments are in 60-70% in the stock market and typically 0-10% in real estate (and only that for diversification).



        I would be moving as much profit from the real estate business to the 401(k) as I possibly could. That protects/checkpoints that money. Even if the real estate business takes you into bankruptcy, the 401(k) is fully shielded and that money can't be yanked back out, (unless the creditor can prove you drew so much out of the business that you undercapitalized it; leaving it unable to fund its foreseeable needs).]





        Since you are not so concerned about the tax benefits; I would use Roth 401Ks, Roth IRAs and/or "back door Roth". This is even better; you pay taxes on the money today; then pay no taxes whatsoever on final withdrawal. That really matters when the investment may be worth 5-10 times more. What's more, you are able to pull the corpus (initial contribution amount) back out without any penalties or taxes at all - so that portion is able to function as an emergency fund.



        Even more, Roths let you contribute more total money. Imagine a single deposit, your combined Fed and State bracket is 25% and your investment increases 10x over the years.




        • In an IRA you earn $6000, contribute $6000 of tax-unpaid money, withdraw $60,000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $15,000 in taxes on it, giving $45,000 of tax-paid money.

        • In a Roth you earn $8000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $2000 taxes, contribute $6000 tax-paid money, withdraw $60,000, keeping $60,000 of tax-paid money.


        So instead of $6000 you get to contribute $8000 of tax-unpaid money (33% more). And in the end, instead of $45k tax-paid, you get $60k tax paid (33% more). Why not just contribute $8000 to the Trad IRA? You can't because of contribution limits. The Roth lets you snake in e.g. 33% more capital into the account. Roths are really quite amazing.






        share|improve this answer















        Whoa. The real estate is a business, not a retirement. Totally different.



        The 401(k) is a trust account that is absolutely protected. It cannot be sued out from under you. You cannot lose it in bankruptcy; it cannot be garnished or attached (until you are near retirement and you reach a point where withdrawals are compulsory). The only way you can lose it is if you are willfully stupid in a moment of weakness, and collectors are pretty good at tricking you there.



        Investmentwise, a university endowment is a sure thing over 30+ years. A 401(k) invested the same way over the same period is the same sure thing. The only risk is misinvesting, or being duped by brokers into wasting capital on sales loads and high expense ratios. (My institution has about 1.5% total expenses on their endowment; my donor fund has about 0.65% and my IRAs/401(k) have about 0.2% because I'm a sharper investor than a committee).



        The problem with your 401(k) and IRAs is they are not nearly sufficient for a decent retirement. A sustainable withdrawal rate is 5-8% a year out of that; can you really retire on $6000-10,000/year?



        Real estate is a wild ride. I imagine your investments are leveraged? That means the potential swings in asset value could greatly outrange the capital you sank. This works in your favor more often than not. But another real estate dip - and I do expect one - could put you deep in the hole. You can find yourself with upside-down properties and banks calling notes. Depending on your private capitalization and how events turn, you could actually go bankrupt. That can happen.



        In that case, don't you dare think about cashing out any 401(k)s or IRAs (if IRAs are protected in your jurisdiction).



        The other thing is that endowment-strategy investing is a surer thing that houses - which might explain why university endowments are in 60-70% in the stock market and typically 0-10% in real estate (and only that for diversification).



        I would be moving as much profit from the real estate business to the 401(k) as I possibly could. That protects/checkpoints that money. Even if the real estate business takes you into bankruptcy, the 401(k) is fully shielded and that money can't be yanked back out, (unless the creditor can prove you drew so much out of the business that you undercapitalized it; leaving it unable to fund its foreseeable needs).]





        Since you are not so concerned about the tax benefits; I would use Roth 401Ks, Roth IRAs and/or "back door Roth". This is even better; you pay taxes on the money today; then pay no taxes whatsoever on final withdrawal. That really matters when the investment may be worth 5-10 times more. What's more, you are able to pull the corpus (initial contribution amount) back out without any penalties or taxes at all - so that portion is able to function as an emergency fund.



        Even more, Roths let you contribute more total money. Imagine a single deposit, your combined Fed and State bracket is 25% and your investment increases 10x over the years.




        • In an IRA you earn $6000, contribute $6000 of tax-unpaid money, withdraw $60,000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $15,000 in taxes on it, giving $45,000 of tax-paid money.

        • In a Roth you earn $8000 of tax-unpaid money, pay $2000 taxes, contribute $6000 tax-paid money, withdraw $60,000, keeping $60,000 of tax-paid money.


        So instead of $6000 you get to contribute $8000 of tax-unpaid money (33% more). And in the end, instead of $45k tax-paid, you get $60k tax paid (33% more). Why not just contribute $8000 to the Trad IRA? You can't because of contribution limits. The Roth lets you snake in e.g. 33% more capital into the account. Roths are really quite amazing.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited yesterday









        JoeTaxpayer

        146k23236472




        146k23236472










        answered yesterday









        HarperHarper

        24k63682




        24k63682













        • Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

          – Harper
          yesterday






        • 1





          A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

          – stannius
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

          – Harper
          7 hours ago



















        • Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

          – Harper
          yesterday






        • 1





          A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

          – T. M.
          yesterday











        • "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

          – stannius
          8 hours ago






        • 1





          @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

          – Harper
          7 hours ago

















        Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

        – T. M.
        yesterday





        Ok, good stuff in your answer, but 5-8% is not a remotely sustainable withdrawal rate. Especially for the multi-decade retirement that is possible. Backtested and Monte Carlo studies show sustainable withdrawal rates are 4% or 3% depending on how likely you want it to be that your money doesn't run out.

        – T. M.
        yesterday













        @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

        – Harper
        yesterday





        @T.M. My basis for that is managing endowments under UPMIFA rules, where 4-7% is presumed prudent. To be more precise, 4% is considered quite conservative, and 7% is the upper limit beyond which you'll need to justify yourself. Endowments are to be sustained in perpetuity, whereas retirement accounts should exhaust the day you die... a retirement should burn harder, so I bumped it 1%.

        – Harper
        yesterday




        1




        1





        A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

        – T. M.
        yesterday





        A major difference with endowments is there is an ongoing attempt to grow the endowment through future contributions. That I believe is what allows them to go higher than a truly sustainable withdrawal. Anyway your point about 100k not being remotely enough for a reasonable retirement stands, and is even stronger with more conservative withdrawal rates.

        – T. M.
        yesterday













        "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

        – stannius
        8 hours ago





        "corpus" seems to be an Indian term? I'm not aware of it being used that way in the US. We usually just call them contributions, especially when talking about withdrawing said contributions from a Roth IRA.

        – stannius
        8 hours ago




        1




        1





        @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

        – Harper
        7 hours ago





        @stannius sorry, it's a term from endowments that means "the initial contributions". It's no longer used in endowments, because it's stupid for a food bank to stop serving food to the needy just because the market is in a downturn and their endowment is below the original donor value.

        – Harper
        7 hours ago











        6














        Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



        If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



        Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



        Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






        share|improve this answer






























          6














          Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



          If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



          Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



          Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






          share|improve this answer




























            6












            6








            6







            Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



            If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



            Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



            Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






            share|improve this answer















            Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



            If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



            Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



            Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 days ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            Hart COHart CO

            33.5k57995




            33.5k57995























                3














                You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






                share|improve this answer




























                  3














                  You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                  Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                  Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    3












                    3








                    3







                    You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                    Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                    Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






                    share|improve this answer













                    You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                    Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                    Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 2 days ago









                    nanomannanoman

                    5,39711015




                    5,39711015























                        1














                        The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401(k)s is extremely powerful. On a 401(k) or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                        It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401(k)s. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401(k)s are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401(k) than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                        It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                        Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401(k) is a good idea.






                        share|improve this answer






























                          1














                          The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401(k)s is extremely powerful. On a 401(k) or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                          It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401(k)s. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401(k)s are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401(k) than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                          It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                          Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401(k) is a good idea.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            1












                            1








                            1







                            The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401(k)s is extremely powerful. On a 401(k) or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                            It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401(k)s. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401(k)s are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401(k) than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                            It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                            Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401(k) is a good idea.






                            share|improve this answer















                            The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401(k)s is extremely powerful. On a 401(k) or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                            It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401(k)s. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401(k)s are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401(k) than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                            It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                            Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401(k) is a good idea.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited yesterday









                            JoeTaxpayer

                            146k23236472




                            146k23236472










                            answered yesterday









                            Ross MillikanRoss Millikan

                            38516




                            38516






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106895%2fshould-i-stop-contributing-to-retirement-accounts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                Bunad

                                Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum