Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Personal Finance
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated about 6 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

25
Posts
4
Votes
David Kirkland
  • Mesa, AZ
4
Votes |
25
Posts

All the Roth vs Traditional 401k calculators are wrong!

David Kirkland
  • Mesa, AZ
Posted

I was trying to find a calculator online to compare a Roth vs Traditional 401k (or IRA). I found several, but they all seem to be making the same fundamental mistake. I am posting this finding here to see if anyone can point out the flaw in my logic or otherwise confirm that the online calculators are making false comparisons.

Roth
$7,333 (income) - 25% (tax) = $5,500 (invested)


Traditional
$7,333 (income) - 0% (since its pre-tax) = $7,333 (invested)

In both cases it costs me $7,333 gross, so from the investors standpoint these are equivalent.

However, the calculators don't do it this way.  They compare contribution amounts, which are not equivalent from the investors standpoint because one is pre-tax and the other is not.  By using the same contribution amount the calculators are really only comparing compounding interest.  They are ignoring the fact that the Traditional contribution equivalent to a $5,500 Roth max contribution comes pre-tax, so there is more to compound against.  To truly compare apples to apples we would need to compare a $5,500 Roth contribution to a $7,333 Traditional contribution (assuming 25% tax).

Why don't the calculators account for the "gross cost to me"?

What's the point of comparing two investment vehicles when the values used are not equivalent?

What am I missing here?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

25
Posts
4
Votes
David Kirkland
  • Mesa, AZ
4
Votes |
25
Posts
David Kirkland
  • Mesa, AZ
Replied

For anyone that finds this thread in the future, the concern I outline above doesn't really matter because the investment will grow as a percentage.

For example, let's say you invest $1...

Traditional (pre-tax)
Investment doubles = $2
$2 taxed at 25% = $1.5

Roth (post-tax)
$1 taxed at 25% = $.75
Investment doubles = $1.5

Thus, the real difference comes from the differential between the current tax rate and the future tax rate.

Higher future tax rate?  Pay the tax now (Roth).

Lower future tax rate?  Defer the tax (Traditional).

Obviously the compounding interest and tax strategy are not the only considerations, but I hope this helps someone.

Loading replies...