Over the past week or so I’ve been hearing rumblings from various talking heads that the government should consider, or has considered, changing the rules when it comes to the Roth IRA and their tax free withdrawals at retirement. In some scenarios some people would just like to do away with the accounts altogether. The reasoning? They allow for too much tax revenue to be lost, and with government entitlements growing every day, they’re going to need more tax revenue.
While even a year or two ago I would have dismissed this type of thinking as it would represent a significant betrayal of savers and investors, the more I see our government spending, the more I’m inclined to not rule out the idea that the Roth IRAs as we know them may not always be around. They’re just too tempting of a target for our politicians and their big spending ways.
So what are some of the ways that people are predicting that Roth IRAs could change in the future?
Quick Navigation
Roth IRA Become Taxable At Retirement For Some?
One of the ways that folks are suggesting that Roth IRAs could change in the future is that politicians could institute a tax of some sort on taxpayers over a certain income threshold, or those with what one writer in the New York Times calls an “excessive balance”.
So in one scenario, say you make over $250,000, you’d be taxed 5% on your Roth withdrawals. Or they could do something like charging tax on earnings through a capital gains tax of some sort. The possibilities are endless.
At the most extreme end, the federal government might try to tax the earnings on a Roth after all, say through the capital gains tax, which is currently at 15 percent for long-term gains but could go up in the next few years. Or it might levy some sort of an excise tax on excessive balances, however those might be defined.
Roths are especially useful for estate planning purposes. Regular I.R.A. holders have to start taking money out once they reach the age of 70 and a half, but Roth owners don’t have to take money out during their lifetimes. Heirs of Roth holders, meanwhile, pay no income taxes when they cash out of the inherited account and can spread those distributions over an entire lifetime, allowing for decades more of tax-free growth thanks to the wonders of compound interest. Some part of this could certainly change.
So the author seems to thinks that some of the other benefits of a Roth IRA, including no required minimum distributions and inheritance provisions, could be phased out – or changed to include some sort of tax.
Forced Withdrawals From Roth IRA
Some say that the Roth IRA is a drag on the economy because the money can sit in the account indefinitely with no required minimum distribution. An article in the LA Times yesterday says as much:
All of which makes Roths a perfect “fiscal Frankenstein.” In return for little more than ordinary upfront taxes, Congress waived untold billions in future Treasury receipts. Then, too, Roths could be a drag on the U.S. economy. Since no withdrawals are required, assets can lie idle indefinitely.
I can’t say I agree with that idea that because the money is in someone’s investment account growing – that somehow they’re a drag on the economy. To me it speaks to the mindset that far too many have that somehow the government owns everything and is only being gracious and allowing us to have a little taste of our own money. I also don’t agree that having money site idle in the private sector is somehow worse for the economy than allowing the public sector to spend it all for us. In the end most will be withdrawing it, and I think having the money in the private sector to actually have people purchasing things, creating jobs, and creating more tax revenue that way is the better way to go.
Include Roth IRA Withdrawals In Calculating Tax On Social Security Benefits
Another idea that some have put forth is the idea that the government could change it to that people would have to include their Roth IRA withdrawals in retirement as regular income when coming up with the tax due on their Social Security checks. Of course this again would mean more taxes to the government.
Will You Continue Using The Roth IRA?
So with all this speculation out there, do you think that the government would ever go down this road of making Roth IRAs taxable at withdrawal, through capital gains taxes or by including it in social security income? Does it give you pause when thinking about investing in a Roth, or will you continue to invest there anyway because it’s all just speculation?
Tell us your thoughts on the Roth IRA and if they’ll ever end up making changes to make them taxable at the front end and back.
Wayne says
Hmm this is very interesting. I plan to continue to max out my Roth IRA though until something more materializes. I don’t currently contribute much to my work sponsored 401k, so when I max my Roth IRA, I am paying ~$7500 up front to invest $5000. That excess $2500 could be going toward my 401k if I invested in a traditional IRA instead. Thank you for the interesting perspective!
TFB says
Nobody knows whether the rules will change but they certainly could. The laws on Roth IRA withdrawals only affect withdrawals *today*. They do not guarantee tax free withdrawals in the future. In addition to directly taxing the withdrawals, there can be numerous ways to tax Roth IRAs — taxing balances in the accounts; including Roth IRA withdrawals in (dis)qualification for Social Security or Medicare benefits; just to name a few.
I’m not saying they will be taxed or any tax will be more onerous on Roth IRAs and 401k’s versus traditional IRAs and 401k’s, but everyone should know they are guaranteed to be tax free forever.
Frugal Living says
There are only two types of IRA that I would even consider investing into. Those are the Roth and Self Directed IRA
slug | sunkcostsareirrelevant.com says
Ugh! I even hate to hear the speculation. Any representative of mine that even tries to bring this up will be hearing from me by mail, email, and by phone. If the government wants us to take more personal responsibility for our retirement, that’s great – just stay out of the way!
Noah says
I have no problem with them taxing people’s Roths who are making more the maximum allowed to be eligible. The Roth wasn’t really designed for people making over $250K a year. They should also get rid of Roth conversions if you are making more than the limit.
Chris @cfcents.com says
The fact that we don’t know what will happen with Roth IRA withdrawals is why I try to split my contributions between Roth and Traditional. Who knows what the government will do in the future?
Mike Piper says
Ditto.
How will Roths be taxed in the future? What will my income look like 40 years from now? What will tax rates look like 40 years from now?
I don’t have a clue about any of those answers. So I mix it up–some Roth, some traditional (or more specifically, SEP in my case).
Jenna, Adaptu Community Manager says
I’d keep contributing to my Roth IRA until there is some definite changes happening. Then I’d do some more research into seeing if contributing to my Roth IRA is still worth it.
Kevin says
This is why diversifying your tax mix is really, really important. Use some Roth and some tax deferred accounts. You get the “average” result, kind of like index investing.
Evan says
Who knows what will happen? Roths didn’t exist 20 years ago…and traditional IRAs didn’t exist 40 years ago…
Posts like this remind me how important it is to have multiple buckets so you can optimize your life as the gov’t changes the rules
Ken Faulkenberry says
I agree with Kevin that diversifying between Roth and tax-deferred has benefits and those advantages come before and after retirement.
Overall, I don’t think anyone should change what they do because of speculation of what the government might do in the future. I agree with Peter that this was unthinkable a couple of years ago, but with what we are seeing out of our government now we have to more open minded about what is possible.
Ken Faulkenberry
max says
It is impossible, because it would be double taxation.
Ano Nymous says
Agree. It is inevitable that there will be some tax hit…what form or when is pure speculation. Bottom line is that diligent savers will get penalized, while the prodigal sons will crying (and voting for like minded politicians) about how “unfair” a deal these “wealthy” people have. Nevertheless, it is the right strategy to continue with one’s strategy re: Roth IRA’s, as it is likely to be a better deal than not, as I expect regular IRA’s will take some hit too – for the same reasons.