From: "Elizabeth Richardson" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: 100% of retirement accounts in Roth- is tax bracket 0%?
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:14:48 -0500
	iQBVAwUARmGJaPl/I4+O31e5AQEjfAH/cr+KTj4yy9hl55lka/4w8cbNCgFUHaqK
	pIs0J6gMAJ/JR/jXcnxqZ3HbjTTjKB6A1u4seZChz1376dGNZSu3KA==
	=3I1a


"joetaxpayer"  wrote in message
news:B6OdneU3TIss5fzbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> Thumper then states,"[tax rates] have been as high as 46% marginal to
> only 15% and I haven't been able to see any difference in my happiness
> that correlates to tax rates."
>
> To that, I respond, That's my point exactly! Blinding thinking that
> pre-tax accounts are sacred, or that a Roth is best for 100%, will lead
> to lower returns.

I'm not sure I can fully agree that blind thinking will always lead to lower
returns. There are many (most?) households in the US where no savings would
take place if it were not for the automaticity of pay-related pre-tax
contributions to a 401k. You may be correct that these contributions have
lower returns than might be, but I'll say the returns are higher because the
savings exist at all.

As to jLM's initial question: Part of the beauty of these accounts is the
absence of RMDs, not just the absence of taxes on withdrawal. Others have
noted that the rules regarding inheritance are different, too. While I hold
the optimistic view that Uncle Sam will not mess with the current status of
a Roth, others believe there are ways to affect its tax status obliquely if
not directly. Pay attention to Joe and his recommendations for
diversification if you have more than just this vehicle available to you.

Elizabeth Richardson