logo
4 cases when a Roth conversion won't pay off for you

4 cases when a Roth conversion won't pay off for you

Yahoo22-05-2025
If you're eager to jump on the Roth bandwagon, it may be frustrating to go through the process and find roadblocks. But sometimes, you run the math and it just doesn't make sense for you.
Roth IRA conversions are not a good idea for everyone. They work in certain circumstances where the tax arbitrage comes out in favor of paying the tax now rather than paying it later. It's not simple math, and it involves a lot of guesswork about the future, plus it requires a lot of cash on hand. And the transactions can be tricky — paperwork and strict timetables are involved.
My ex-wife said she should have been compensated for working part time during our marriage. Do I owe her?
Morgan Stanley turns bullish on U.S. stocks. Here's why it says the market lows have already been made.
After 25 years, I finally asked for separate checks — and my friends iced me out. Did I do something terrible?
This chart shows why investors should be worried about the latest bond-market selloff
My husband used my money to renovate his house. Will I now get half of his property in a divorce?
'It's like French cooking,' financial planner Thomas Duffy said. 'There are so many difficult techniques to master.' MarketWatch spoke with Duffy, who is based in New Jersey, as he was preparing for a call about Roth conversions with a client for whom there were a slew of considerations.
The client is 68 and just retired. He wants to continue working part-time and start collecting Social Security. His spouse is still working. Duffy wanted to convince him to wait two more years, until he turns 70, to claim Social Security, and in the meantime to convert some significant IRA money to a Roth using a stash of $200,000 in cash to cover the tax bills. 'I will tell him that his tax bill for this year will be close to the 12% bracket, but once his spouse retires and they start taking required minimum distributions, they'll be at least in the 24% bracket,' Duffy said.
Doing Roth conversions for a few years now could save that couple 2% on their taxes in later years.
But Duffy has other clients for whom the math doesn't make sense. And whenever I write an article about Roth conversions — which entail taking money out of a tax-deferred account like a 401(k) or IRA, paying the tax on the income and then moving the money to a Roth account — I get lots of letters from people outlining their circumstances and then asking why the conversion won't work out for them, or why their adviser is telling them not to do it. Here are four cases where readers ran into obstacles to making the Roth conversion strategy work for them.
Reader No. 1 wrote: 'I'm 66 and hope to work another year or two. I currently have a rollover IRA of $725,000 managed by an adviser and another $250,000 rollover IRA that I manage. I also opened a Roth IRA three years ago and have approximately $25,000 in it via direct contributions and no rollovers. I have approximately $50,000 in money-market accounts and $40,000 in gold and silver coins. I am trying to determine the best solution for rolling over money from my IRAs to my Roth account over the coming years.'
The case against a Roth: This person, who is 66 and has about $1 million saved, doesn't appear to have enough cash on hand to make it worthwhile to do a Roth conversion. They would need cash to pay the extra tax. If they take that payment out of the conversion itself, they'd miss out on part of the value, in that they would be converting $80 out of $100 instead of the whole $100. They could just leave the money in the IRA universe and pay the tax as money is disbursed each year, or they could wait until they have greater cash savings.
The other reason to stall on a Roth conversion is that Reader No. 1 is still working and is probably in a relatively high tax bracket. Ideally, you do Roth conversions after you retire, when your income is lower, and pay at the lowest tax bracket you can.
Reader No. 2 wrote: 'I recently turned 68 and want to retire next year at 69. I expect to have roughly $1.2 million in my Employee Stock Ownership Plan account, which will need to be transferred into a standard 401(k) upon my separation from the company. I also have a state employee pension of roughly $100,000 per year, gross. What I am trying to understand is how to utilize a Roth conversion for the 401(k). I have a significant mortgage, as my wife and I executed on our dream of living in California wine country. Other than that, I have no debt and apparently now qualify for full Social Security benefits due to the recent change in the law. Does a Roth conversion strategy apply, and can it help me?'
The case against a Roth: Like Reader No. 1, this reader has a lot saved, is still working and is in a high tax bracket. They are a few years older, so they have even less time to take advantage of conversions before they start having to take required minimum distributions. Plus, once they retire, they will be on Medicare, and their income will likely be high enough to cancel out any tax savings they'd get from doing conversions. You want to make the most use you can of the years before age 63 to avoid those IRMAA surcharges.
Reader No. 3 wrote: 'I have about $300,000 in an IRA. I'm 79 years old and want to pay the least tax possible. I am currently taking my RMDs but want to convert to a Roth IRA and give some money to my college-bound granddaughter. Does a school savings account qualify as a qualified charitable distribution?'
The case against a Roth: There's a strategy where you can use direct charitable contributions to offset your RMDs and thereby maximize the tax efficiency of a Roth conversion. However, the account balance for this grandparent is probably not enough to worry about doing a Roth conversion, and giving money to their granddaughter for school won't count as a charitable contribution for the purposes of their RMD.
The only way that contributing to a 529 would help this reader with their taxes is if their state gives a deduction for it, or if they have an estate over $13.99 million and need to give away some money to avoid estate taxes. With $300,000 in their IRA, this reader's required minimum distribution is around $14,000. That's not likely to affect their income-tax bracket very much, but that would depend on their other holdings. They may be better off leaving that money in the IRA and having it available to pay for long-term-care costs, should those be needed.
Reader No. 4 wrote: 'I'm 53 with almost $2 million combined in my 401(k) and Roth IRA. Should I consider a Roth conversion anytime soon?'
The case against a Roth: The answer to this really depends on the ratio of what's in the 401(k) and the Roth. I'm going to assume that it's at least an even split, which means this reader has $1 million at a young age in a tax-deferred account, which could grow to more than $4 million by the time they reach 75, the age they would need to start taking RMDs under current regulations. That's going to mean a huge RMD, and they might want to do something about that now. But if they're still working and they've saved that much already, they're likely already in the 32% or 37% tax bracket.
If that's the case, they might want to wait until they stop working and their tax rate goes down to 12% or 22%. That said, sometimes people expect their tax rates to drop in retirement and they never do. If that is the case, they'll have to decide when they want to pay the tax on their savings, which could either be a phased conversion strategy, a giving strategy or doing nothing at all and just paying as they go.
One thing this reader can do in the meantime is stop contributing to tax-deferred accounts and switch to a Roth 401(k). With that, they'll pay their working tax rate as they go but won't run into bigger problems down the road with conversions.
Got a question about investing, how it fits into your overall financial plan and what strategies can help you make the most out of your money? You can write to me at . Please put 'Fix My Portfolio' in the subject line.
You can also join the Retirement conversation in our .
30-year Treasury yield is above 5% again — that's usually a bad sign for stocks
Bond 'vigilantes' are sending warnings globally. What does that mean for your portfolio?
Surge in Treasury yields points to U.S. debt concerns as Trump's tax bill advances. Investors want this fix.
My husband and I spend more money on our daughter and her family than on my single son. Do we compensate him?
My father's widow keeps sending me $200 checks in the mail. Why would she do this?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

We need more budget bipartisanship, not less
We need more budget bipartisanship, not less

The Hill

timea few seconds ago

  • The Hill

We need more budget bipartisanship, not less

The director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, was recently quoted saying that 'the appropriations process has to be less bipartisan.' While it's easy to think this would lead to less of the frustrating gridlock that can overtake the budgetary process, Vought is both procedurally and substantively wrong: The answer is more bipartisanship. If this sounds naïve, consider the alternative. The first and most obvious issue is realism. Thanks to the Senate filibuster, 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and end debate before proceeding to a final vote on legislation. With only 53 Republicans in the Senate, it's easy for Democrats to grind things to a halt, and vice-versa under Democratic majorities. Unless Vought is implicitly calling for an end to the filibuster — an unlikely event, though Trump has argued for it in the past — expecting government funding bills to be passed without a large, messy bipartisan effort is fanciful thinking. Presumably, Vought wants to make it easier to pass spending cuts such as the recent $9 billion rescissions package. The recissions process is notably exempted from the filibuster, meaning only a simple majority is required to rescind money which was previously appropriated (most likely with some degree of bipartisan support). We shouldn't scoff at those savings, but any frustration on Vought's part is understandable. $9 billion doesn't correct our budget problem. But going after the rest of appropriations won't, either. Last year, we spent $1.81 trillion on discretionary spending — the portion of the budget subject to appropriations — while the entire budget deficit was $1.83 trillion. Instead, we must fix mandatory spending programs — such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — that are on autopilot outside of the appropriations process. But President Trump has repeatedly said these are off-limits. So, sure, we got $9 billion rescinded on a partisan basis. We also got $1.1 trillion in partisan spending cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a win for fiscal responsibility greatly overshadowed by $4.5 trillion in lost revenue. Indeed, as the act just illustrated, Vought's preferred partisan approach will fail to meaningfully fix our fiscal woes. That's because every large-scale partisan reform invites partisan opposition. For years, Democrats attacked Republicans over the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, deriding it as a giveaway to the rich. Republicans returned the favor in 2021 and 2022, relentlessly hammering Democrats for the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act, respectively. Now it's the Democrats' turn again with the 'big, beautiful, bill,',with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently stating that it would 'rip healthcare away … and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans.' That's a strong statement about a bill that only cuts noninterest spending by about 1.5 percent over the decade. To be clear, holding politicians accountable for their voting record is essential. But this partisan cycle encourages politicians to accentuate policy differences — which are then used against incumbents during elections — rather than find areas of agreement. Taking away the filibuster or other processes that frustrate the party in power would turn political whiplash into even greater policy whiplash. Already, Republicans have repealed about $500 billion in IRA green tax credits to help finance the recently passed spending bill. For years, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And it's especially apparent in the back-and-forth we see in regulations and executive orders, with recent administrations immediately seeking to undo the actions of its predecessor. That puts any one-party reforms, regardless of how essential, at risk of being reversed. Even after considering the political blowback and fickleness of partisan reforms, some may dismiss fiscal bipartisanship as unrealistic. After all, Democrats only care about the Green New Deal while Republicans just want to enrich their wealthy donors, or so we're told. Setting these and other tropes aside, there are multiple bipartisan groups in Congress calling for fiscal responsibility and addressing the national debt. Each member of these groups holds different views on how spending should be reduced or revenue increased, but there is clearly a willingness to have those debates. Embracing bipartisanship, rather than lamenting it as so many have done, would bring common ground to the forefront in a way that's been missing. And so, while some will blame a lack of willpower for our fiscal situation, I blame the partisan approach that's been failing lately. It forces politicians more often into choosing between what they believe is right or what gives them the best chance for reelection. Americans deserve better. Let's brush aside the political barriers preventing bipartisanship and work towards our common objectives once again.

Perplexity offers to buy Chrome for billions more than it's raised
Perplexity offers to buy Chrome for billions more than it's raised

TechCrunch

timea few seconds ago

  • TechCrunch

Perplexity offers to buy Chrome for billions more than it's raised

In a moonshot move, AI search engine Perplexity has offered to buy Chrome from Google for $34.5 billion cash in an unsolicited offer, Reuters reported and Perplexity has confirmed to TechCrunch. Perplexity tells TC the terms of the offer include a commitment to keep Chrome's underlying engine, Chromium, open source and continue to invest in it. Perplexity's offer includes a promise to invest $3 billion into the open source project. Perplexity is also promising not to change the user defaults of Chrome users, including the default search engine. That is, Perplexity is promising to leave Google as the search engine rather than making its own AI-powered option the default. Google could not be reached for comment. TechCrunch will update the article if the company responds. This bid comes after the Department of Justice proposed in March that Google be forced to sell Chrome after a judge ruled the tech giant acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search. Google has not agreed to sell Chrome and has vowed to fight the ruling. The Perplexity spokesperson believes the court will soon set terms for remedies, perhaps later this month. (Google is also fighting another federal case where the judge ruled it illegally monopolized adtech, and the DOJ is proposing Google be forced to divest two of its adtech products or otherwise break up its ad business.) When the DOJ first proposed that Google divest Chrome, both OpenAI and Perplexity expressed interest in buying it. Given that Chrome is the dominant browser, with 68% marketshare according to Statcounter, if the court rules Chrome must be sold, no doubt others worldwide would want to bid as well. Techcrunch event Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital, Elad Gil — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $600+ before prices rise. Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. San Francisco | REGISTER NOW Interestingly, the CEO of rival search engine Duck Duck Go testified in April that Chrome could be worth 'upwards of $50 billion,' Bloomberg reported at the time. Should Perplexity's offer succeed, it could be considered a bargain. Still, this offer for Chrome is far more than Perplexity has raised from investors and more than the startup's current valuation. Perplexity has raised about $1.5 billion to date, Pitchbook estimates, including an extension round of $100 million raised last month that valued it at $18 billion, Bloomberg reported. In the meantime, Perplexity last month launched its own browser, called Comet, in its bid to grow its AI search business without having to serve its customers through a browser, particularly one owned by its main rival Google. And, by the way, last month, Perplexity also reportedly submitted a bid to merge with TikTok.

AI Startup Perplexity Makes $34.5 Billion Bid For Google Chrome
AI Startup Perplexity Makes $34.5 Billion Bid For Google Chrome

Forbes

time2 minutes ago

  • Forbes

AI Startup Perplexity Makes $34.5 Billion Bid For Google Chrome

AI company Perplexity has made a $34.5 billion offer for Google's Chrome browser, according to multiple outlets, making the bid as a judge considers forcing Google to spin off Chrome after it was ruled to have held a monopoly over online advertising technology. The offer was first reported Tuesday morning. (Photo Illustration by Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The $34.5 billion offer is backed by several unnamed investors 'including large venture-capital funds,' according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the bid. Forbes has reached out to Perplexity and Google for comment. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store