2
0

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


               
2026 Jan 6, 10:32pm   1,109 views  76 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 66 - 76 of 76        Search these comments

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.
72   declarethecauses   2026 Jan 11, 10:35am  

Maga_Chaos_Monkey says

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LIP63k2uGuk
An excellent but flawed explanation. In her scenario, you pay $35K in taxes on a Roth conversion with cash or by selling income-generating (tax inefficient) assets from an after-tax account. Then she compares the “lost” income on the $35K with the growth she expects to achieve in the Roth.

Well, you significantly changed your asset balance in the conversion, so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. Of course you come out way ahead if you convert cash (or other poor performing assets) to equities - and the stock market rally keeps going - especially if the money ends up in a Roth.

I have cash for a reason. If that reason didn’t exist, I’d have nothing but growth stocks in my after-tax portfolio. And if that were the case, her math wouldn’t come out so good.

To be clear, I think there are reasons for doing Roth conversions. I just hate how complicated it is. And I really wanted to like this chick, too.
73   Maga_Chaos_Monkey   2026 Jan 11, 12:33pm  

I think part of her point (or all? I was falling asleep watching it) was to not use part of the rollover to pay the taxes, so you maximize $ going into the tax shelter. But yeah, good to have cash.
74   clambo   2026 Jan 11, 12:53pm  

"Brevity is the soul of wit."
That girl takes too long.
75   Booger   2026 Jan 11, 1:59pm  

The problem with all those Roth conversion videos is that they are for poor people filling up their 12% federal tax bracket.
76   clambo   2026 Jan 11, 3:07pm  

Because my retirement investments are IRA, Roth IRA, a modest SEP-IRA, and a variable annuity, my actual net worth is largely in non-retirement accounts. IRA contribution limits previously were low ($2000) unlike today.

I think my first RMD from the IRAs will be about $20,000; so the tax owed won't be that bad.
The variable annuity doesn't have an RMD and of course my other accounts don't either.

I gave some money to a couple people and decided to just transfer some shares to them; they'll get stuck with the capital gains tax.
Boo hoo.

« First        Comments 66 - 76 of 76        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

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