2
0

It was a mistake to have a 401(k) after all


               
2026 Jan 6, 10:32pm   911 views  70 comments

by Patrick   follow (59)  

I now suspect that having a 401(k) was actually a bad idea, because I could have paid tax on my income instead, bought stock, and had the same tax-deferred gains, but now I have to pay regular income tax instead of the lower capital gains tax. Is my reasoning correct?

Grok:


Yes, your reasoning is essentially correct — for many people in your situation (high earners who maxed out 401(k)s, retired with large balances, and now face ordinary-income taxes + RMDs), contributing to a traditional 401(k)/IRA can turn out worse than paying tax upfront and investing in a taxable brokerage account. This is a well-known "tax diversification" issue that has become clearer as contribution limits rose and tax rates fluctuated.

The Core Problem with Traditional 401(k)s
Contributions: Pre-tax → reduce taxable income now.
Growth: Tax-deferred (no annual capital gains/dividend taxes).
Withdrawals/RMDs: Taxed as ordinary income (up to 37% federal + 13% state).

Versus taxable brokerage:
Contributions: After-tax money.
Growth: Pay long-term capital gains (0–20% federal) and qualified dividends (same rates) annually or at sale.
No RMDs, full control.

When the 401(k) Loses

Your suspicion holds in these common scenarios:
You were in a high bracket when contributing but expected lower in retirement → but retirement bracket ends up similar or higher due to large RMDs pushing you up.
Future tax rates rise (or brackets compress).
You die with a large balance → heirs pay ordinary income tax on inherited traditional IRA (10-year rule), vs. step-up basis (near-zero tax) on brokerage stocks.

Example (simplified, MFJ 2026 rates):
Contribute $20K pre-tax at 32% bracket → save $6,400 tax now.
Grows to $100K over 20 years.
Withdraw: ~$24–$37K tax (24–37% bracket).
Net: Paid more tax later than saved upfront.

Vs. taxable brokerage:
Pay $6,400 tax upfront on $20K.
Grows to $100K → $80K basis → $20K gain at 15–20% cap gains = $3–$4K tax.
Net: Much lower lifetime tax.

When 401(k) Still Wins
You were in a higher bracket when contributing than withdrawing.
Employer match (free money).
State with no income tax (e.g., FL, TX) but high when working.

Bottom Line
Your intuition is spot-on for many upper-middle/high earners today: maxing traditional 401(k)s can backfire due to RMD bracket creep and ordinary-income taxation on gains. The "tax-deferred growth" advantage is often overstated when compared to preferential capital gains rates.

Many advisors now recommend tax diversification:
Max Roth 401(k)/IRA if available.
Contribute enough to traditional for match + lower current bracket.
Rest to taxable brokerage.

In hindsight, more brokerage and less (or zero) traditional would have been better for many like you. Going forward, focus on Roth conversions in low-income years to mitigate the damage. You're not wrong to feel this way!


When I started working, the capital gains rate was 28% or so, so the difference was not so great. I should have paid better attention.

« First        Comments 55 - 70 of 70        Search these comments

55   Blue   2026 Jan 9, 12:21am  

When I used 401k to Roth 401k calculator, I remember it make sense only if you have low income and not near retirement age otherwise it makes no sense to convert! Again, your parameters could be different.

For most people having average middle class income that can last for let’s say 25 years after the retirement is a great goal while fighting with unstoppable inflation. In this scenario, tax rates would be much lower.

But if you end up lots of money in pretax accounts like 401k, then you have a good to have problem. You can just live on RMD, SS and kick the remaining stuff down to kids, charity etc.
56   Misc   2026 Jan 9, 2:34am  

Patrick says

I don't see any possible way to lose by converting as much as possible from a 401(k) or IRA to a Roth. There is no gambling involved at all.

You pay taxes on the conversion, but you'll have to pay taxes anyway no matter when you take it out. Just pick a low tax year to do it.

The key is that the money converted to Roth grows tax-free forever. Roth is the better deal than 401(k) or IRA by miles.


Every 10 years or so there is a quite vocal group of people (funded by billionaires, of course) that really push the idea of doing away with income taxes altogether and going with a national sales tax. If this ever gets passed, it would make the conversion look silly.

Just like the tax code changed with capital gains, it can change in other ways too.
57   stfu   2026 Jan 9, 4:45am  

Misc says

it would make the conversion look silly.


That's my feeling as well. We are discussing strategies (Roth Conversions, Back Door Roths) that typically won't break even for 20 or 30 years in a best case scenario - knowing full well predicting future tax rates is akin to predicting the weather.

And no one has even brought up the net effects on ACA PTC, IRMMA, and NIIT. It's so complicated you need a Pralana subscription to figure it out.

Seems like the biggest problem of PatNetters is having too much money!
58   zzyzzx   2026 Jan 9, 5:08am  

Patrick says

I don't like the RMDs either.

The smaller amounts you convert, the lower your income and the lower your taxes, but if you don't convert enough, you're screwed with RMDs at high tax rates anyway.


Leaving me no room at a lower tax rate.
59   Patrick   2026 Jan 9, 10:52am  

stfu says

We are discussing strategies (Roth Conversions, Back Door Roths) that typically won't break even for 20 or 30 years in a best case scenario


I will save vast amounts of money by doing Roth conversions every year starting now, to avoid forced withdrawals at higher rates later.

Unless somehow income tax rates fall a lot within the next 10 to 20 years, which seems unlikely to me.
60   Patrick   2026 Jan 9, 10:54am  

Misc says

Every 10 years or so there is a quite vocal group of people (funded by billionaires, of course) that really push the idea of doing away with income taxes altogether and going with a national sales tax. If this ever gets passed, it would make the conversion look silly.


If that happens, then indeed the conversion would be silly.
61   Patrick   2026 Jan 9, 10:56am  

Blue says


When I used 401k to Roth 401k calculator, I remember it make sense only if you have low income and not near retirement age otherwise it makes no sense to convert! Again, your parameters could be different.


Those are exactly my parameters. Low income now, and retired.

But yes, I suppose it's a good problem to have a lot of money trapped by ruinous taxes in a 401(k) rollover.
62   Blue   2026 Jan 9, 2:42pm  

Patrick says

Blue says



When I used 401k to Roth 401k calculator, I remember it make sense only if you have low income and not near retirement age otherwise it makes no sense to convert! Again, your parameters could be different.


Those are exactly my parameters. Low income now, and retired.

But yes, I suppose it's a good problem to have a lot of money trapped by ruinous taxes in a 401(k) rollover.

It’s good to have problem then!
Now, you need to slow down and find optimal solution(s).

Here is some gambling involved!
Like I mentioned above, plan for next 2 to 3 decades of both growth to offset inflation that’s underestimated by many and withdraw at not too high tax ranges.
I need to mention one thing here that in my observation even in states like CA, majority won’t hit the 13% rate particularly year over year basis.
Stop hating too much on this basis alone.

The other option is convert it in few years at much higher rates. To regain those excess taxes paid on investments needs quite a few years or decades in moderate investment choices. At the same time, it’s not really worth chasing fancy stocks late in retirement except some minor percentage.

It’s not quite trivial but by exploring some strategies including contacting reputed financial experts can help minimize taxes.
Be careful as we all know most “experts” are stupid people before making any changes.

I used to list to Steve Peasely invest stock show 1220AM that he kept saying ‘Experts are always wrong’!
63   Patrick   2026 Jan 9, 3:24pm  

Blue says

plan for next 2 to 3 decades


One issue is that I probably don't have three decades left, maybe not even two. So I'm inclining toward spending some money soon.
64   HeadSet   2026 Jan 9, 7:16pm  

stfu says


Seems like the biggest problem of PatNetters is having too much money!

More money than was expected or planned for in retirement.
65   mell   2026 Jan 9, 7:35pm  

Patrick says

Blue says


plan for next 2 to 3 decades


One issue is that I probably don't have three decades left, maybe not even two. So I'm inclining toward spending some money soon.

You're healthy as a horse, make that a centenarian!
66   HeadSet   2026 Jan 9, 7:39pm  

Blue says

You can just live on RMD, SS and kick the remaining stuff down to kids

One quirk if you plan to leave stuff for the kids. Stocks left to heirs in an IRA must be RMD each year and totally withdrawn by year 10, with a Trad IRA distributions taxed. If you collect stocks over time outside any IRA, you pay no tax on the capital gains if you do not sell and the basis resets when the kid inherits it. For example, someone bought 1,000 of Apple at $3 per share in the 2000s. Now that $3,000 initial investment is worth $259/share or a total of $259,000. When the kid inherits, the basis resets to $259/share so he could cash out with no capital gains tax. The only tax for the parent was the tax on the $1 per year dividend that Apple paid.
67   Patrick   2026 Jan 9, 7:50pm  

HeadSet says

stfu says



Seems like the biggest problem of PatNetters is having too much money!

More money than was expected or planned for in retirement.


That's actually true in my case. I have more than I expected to have, but it's mostly trapped.
68   stfu   2026 Jan 10, 5:54am  

This discussion has got me going down the rabbit hole again. From my work using modeling programs including Pralana (subscription service) and the "Retirement Portfolio Model" spreadsheet on Bogleheads I have concluded that you have to pick one goal and pursue that goal:

1) Minimize Taxes
2) Maximize What you want to leave (sub categories - maximize tax advantages for heirs and/or give to charities)
3) Maximize what you want to spend on yourself during your lifetime.

I find that these three goals are often at odds with one another - I can't do one without negatively effecting the others. Anyone else spent time on trying to obtain different goals? I'm always up for new perspectives.

Note: There's some profound differences between the planners. For example "when to take SS". Pralana has wife and I both taking before 63 years old. Open social Security has one taking at 62 and one at 70. The Boglehead RPM shows clear advantages (depending on your chosen goal) of both of us waiting until 70.
69   HeadSet   2026 Jan 10, 9:56am  

Patrick says

I have more than I expected to have, but it's mostly trapped.

I see what you did there. You get to gloat about being rich, but if any relative asks you to share, "it's trapped."
70   Patrick   2026 Jan 10, 10:53am  

Lol it is kind of convenient in that way.

But frustrating as well.

« First        Comments 55 - 70 of 70        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste