Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?












2















My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401ks and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401ks give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401ks doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401ks as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 hours ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 hours ago











  • 401k versus more rental properties. Pick the one with the higher ROI after tax considerations.

    – Bob Baerker
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 hours ago











  • your employer gives your 8% for 1% of yours? that's very nice!

    – njzk2
    3 mins ago
















2















My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401ks and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401ks give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401ks doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401ks as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 hours ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 hours ago











  • 401k versus more rental properties. Pick the one with the higher ROI after tax considerations.

    – Bob Baerker
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 hours ago











  • your employer gives your 8% for 1% of yours? that's very nice!

    – njzk2
    3 mins ago














2












2








2








My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401ks and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401ks give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401ks doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401ks as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.










share|improve this question
















My wife and I are in our later 30s and make about $100,000 per year from salary. We also net about $40,000 from rental properties that we have purchased over the past several years. Our essential monthly expenses are about $2500.



We've been diligently contributing to our retirement accounts (401ks and Roth IRAs) for about a decade. We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.



My question is: Should we keep putting money into the retirement accounts? The $40,000 that we get from rental properties would already be enough for us to retire on if we wanted (not that we plan to retire anytime soon), so my thinking is that it's silly to keep putting money into retirement accounts where we can't touch it (without steep penalties) for another ~20 years. On the other hand, the idea of stopping retirement contributions feels wrong because we've been trained (by ourselves and by financial advisors) to feel irresponsible if we were to stop making retirement accounts a priority.



Another part of my reasoning is that instead of continuing to put money into retirement accounts, we can redirect the money into buying more rental properties. Doing so will expand the passive rental income we can rely on for retirement, with the bonus that neither the principal (i.e., the money we spend buying properties) nor the interest (the rental property income) will be locked up in a retirement account.



I realize that the 401ks give us tax benefits, but saving a few thousand dollars a year in taxes by funneling some income into 401ks doesn't seem that significant in our current situation.



Our employers do an 8 percent match on the 401ks as long as we put in 1 percent, so we'd keep doing that, but I don't see a reason to put in more or to keep doing the Roths.







united-states investing 401k retirement






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Chris W. Rea

26.6k1587174




26.6k1587174










asked 3 hours ago









painter48179painter48179

1,4213814




1,4213814








  • 2





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 hours ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 hours ago











  • 401k versus more rental properties. Pick the one with the higher ROI after tax considerations.

    – Bob Baerker
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 hours ago











  • your employer gives your 8% for 1% of yours? that's very nice!

    – njzk2
    3 mins ago














  • 2





    Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

    – Aganju
    2 hours ago











  • @Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

    – nanoman
    2 hours ago











  • 401k versus more rental properties. Pick the one with the higher ROI after tax considerations.

    – Bob Baerker
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

    – Hart CO
    2 hours ago











  • your employer gives your 8% for 1% of yours? that's very nice!

    – njzk2
    3 mins ago








2




2





Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

– Aganju
2 hours ago





Note that you can take out part or all of your contributions anytime penaltyfree from a Roth, after it existed for five years. Not that you would, as all gains will be tax-free, but you could.

– Aganju
2 hours ago













@Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

– nanoman
2 hours ago





@Aganju There is no five-year requirement for withdrawal of contributions.

– nanoman
2 hours ago













401k versus more rental properties. Pick the one with the higher ROI after tax considerations.

– Bob Baerker
2 hours ago





401k versus more rental properties. Pick the one with the higher ROI after tax considerations.

– Bob Baerker
2 hours ago




1




1





@BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

– Hart CO
2 hours ago





@BobBaerker So simple and impossible at the same time.

– Hart CO
2 hours ago













your employer gives your 8% for 1% of yours? that's very nice!

– njzk2
3 mins ago





your employer gives your 8% for 1% of yours? that's very nice!

– njzk2
3 mins ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4














First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401K you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. Right now if you are maxing the 401k contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



The 401k contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401k in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401k, as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



Try to enjoy yourself.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

    – Ben Voigt
    2 hours ago













  • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

    – CQM
    2 hours ago



















2














Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






share|improve this answer

































    1














    You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



    Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



    Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






    share|improve this answer































      0














      The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401ks is extremely powerful. On a 401k or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



      It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401ks. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401ks are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401k than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



      It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



      Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401k is a good idea.






      share|improve this answer























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "93"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106895%2fshould-i-stop-contributing-to-retirement-accounts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        4














        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401K you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. Right now if you are maxing the 401k contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401k contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401k in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401k, as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.






        share|improve this answer



















        • 1





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 hours ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 hours ago
















        4














        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401K you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. Right now if you are maxing the 401k contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401k contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401k in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401k, as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.






        share|improve this answer



















        • 1





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 hours ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 hours ago














        4












        4








        4







        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401K you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. Right now if you are maxing the 401k contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401k contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401k in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401k, as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.






        share|improve this answer













        First, if you structured your rental properties correctly and had a Self-directed 401K you could each be contributing over $56,000 a year into it under various characterizations. Right now if you are maxing the 401k contribution out, you are deferring $19,000, each.



        The 401k contribution limit is $19,000 from income, and the rest from employer contribution. The 8% match is the employer contribution and is often linked to the income max. So your employer is only giving a max of $1,520 (let me know if I get that right), meaning that $35280 can be put away ($56,000-$19,000-$1520 = $35280) by having a self directed 401k in the entity governing your real estate holdings and making employer contributions from that. As a reminder, all these limits are doubled for married couples so its $70,560 annually, which you two aren't even close to.




        We have about $120,000 total in retirement savings currently.




        Second, $120,000 is a privileged situation when compared to the rest of the planet, but are you in the business of comparing yourself to the rest of the planet or in the business of making money for comfortable retirement and generational wealth. If the latter, then $120,000 is nothing to brag about 🤷‍♂️The goal is millions.



        Third, you presented a question of retirement OR reinvesting, when its AND reinvesting. Ideally you reach the actual max for retirement contributions and have other accounts you are funding. You want flexibility, liquidity, and keeping your productivity and efforts as your own and not giving an undue cut of that to other entities.



        Fund the savings account. Get above the $ thresholds for banks to start treating you better. Many services become free. They'll even court your business with the latest consumer electronics, for free. So the conspicuous consumption you would actually save up for now no longer even cost you anything.



        Fund the non-tax deferred brokerage account. Same situation as the banks. It gets better as you get richer.



        You want to buy more houses? You can do that with the cash. You can also borrow against a 401k, as well as your existing properties, at the lowest interest rates imaginable. So now the government is cutting your capital in half, and you get to deduct the interest.



        Try to enjoy yourself.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        CQMCQM

        15.1k23373




        15.1k23373








        • 1





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 hours ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 hours ago














        • 1





          They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

          – Ben Voigt
          2 hours ago













        • @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

          – CQM
          2 hours ago








        1




        1





        They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

        – Ben Voigt
        2 hours ago







        They aren't going to be contributing $56k times two per year from a stream of rental income that's $40k per year. But the solo 401(k) isn't important, since with $120k cumulative over a decade, they clearly haven't been maxing out even the employee contribution limit. The access a solo 401(k) gives to a much wider range of investments is actually far more important to OP than the possibility of self-employment employer-side contributions.

        – Ben Voigt
        2 hours ago















        @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

        – CQM
        2 hours ago





        @BenVoigt right they can aim to get it up to $35,280 times two per year, as they already have desire to expand their real estate empire.

        – CQM
        2 hours ago













        2














        Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



        If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



        Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



        Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






        share|improve this answer






























          2














          Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



          If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



          Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



          Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






          share|improve this answer




























            2












            2








            2







            Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



            If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



            Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



            Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.






            share|improve this answer















            Ultimately, it's just a matter of your retirement goals and preferences.



            If your goal is to keep acquiring additional rental properties then contributing to 401k beyond employer match at this point doesn't make much sense. If you imagine getting out of the landlord business in retirement you might want to max out Roth IRA contributions each year now to help normalize tax burden on years with big capital gains when you sell property.



            Personally, I view my traditional retirement accounts as a way to diversify. I just don't want to be tied too heavily to my local real estate market. If your rentals aren't spread across the nation, remember that local housing markets can take a nasty turn pretty quickly. However unlikely that is, it sticks in my mind as a reason to keep investing elsewhere. I also re-evaluate frequently, you don't have to do one or the other and stick with it. My local housing market is starting to cool after a very hot streak, so I intend to wait to buy any more rentals and therefore have been putting more in 401k and CD's recently.



            Don't forget to budget the big-ticket items when evaluating your rental income. Roofs, HVAC systems, sewer mains, etc. They can throw off rental income pretty significantly year over year, so for retirement planning evaluate estimated average income including those infrequent but large rental expenses.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 2 hours ago









            Hart COHart CO

            33.3k57894




            33.3k57894























                1














                You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






                share|improve this answer




























                  1














                  You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                  Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                  Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    1












                    1








                    1







                    You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                    Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                    Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.






                    share|improve this answer













                    You should try creating a financial plan that specifies when you want to retire, and what income and expenses you will have throughout retirement. It appears that your main current assets are the rental properties. The issue with relying on this income is that it's an undiversified investment subject to swings in the local property market as well as building-specific issues. Do you really want your retirement livelihood to be dependent on finding good tenants for the rest of your life? It would be good to also calculate your current equity in the properties and how much income that could generate if placed in diversified investments.



                    Consider the expense side carefully; you say $2500/month, but are you accounting for expenses that may grow faster than inflation and/or lose a current employer contribution, such as health care? You don't mention children, but if there is any chance you want them then that would change everything.



                    Also note that contributions (as opposed to earnings) can be withdrawn from Roth IRAs at any time without taxes or penalties, making them a savings vehicle with very little downside.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 2 hours ago









                    nanomannanoman

                    5,37711015




                    5,37711015























                        0














                        The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401ks is extremely powerful. On a 401k or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                        It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401ks. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401ks are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401k than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                        It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                        Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401k is a good idea.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          0














                          The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401ks is extremely powerful. On a 401k or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                          It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401ks. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401ks are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401k than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                          It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                          Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401k is a good idea.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401ks is extremely powerful. On a 401k or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                            It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401ks. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401ks are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401k than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                            It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                            Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401k is a good idea.






                            share|improve this answer













                            The fact that you pay taxes at the end on IRAs and 401ks is extremely powerful. On a 401k or deductible IRA you can think of it like you keep the money you would have paid in taxes, invest it, and keep (taxably) the returns. This assumes your tax bracket is the same in retirement as it is today. Over 30 or 50 years that is enormous.



                            It depends on your investment philosophy. If you believe real estate is the place to be, you have a hard time being there in IRAs and 401ks. Even if I were into real estate like you, I would want to diversify into at least an S&P 500 stock fund. It is clear that assuming you can wait to 59 1/2 for the money. IRAs and 401ks are the way to go for this part of your portfolio. If you want to own only real estate, you shouldn't put any more into your 401k than gets matched. The match is free money, so is hard to turn down.



                            It is important to recognize the difference in scale between the balance in the account and the income it can produce. A typical rule of thumb is that an account can throw off 4% of the principal forever, adjusted for inflation. That says 120k can give you about 5k in income. You can adjust the 4% to your taste, but the fact is that 120k sounds large but is not. It can certainly be a part of the income to support you.



                            Although taxes are important, it comes down to return on capital after taxes. If you can make more in real estate than in the stock market, you should do that. If you can fund all the good real estate opportunities you can find, putting the rest in a 401k is a good idea.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 30 mins ago









                            Ross MillikanRoss Millikan

                            37516




                            37516






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106895%2fshould-i-stop-contributing-to-retirement-accounts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                GameSpot

                                日野市

                                Tu-95轟炸機