[hearsathought]

Solid advice overall. But I have to disagree with the 401k advice.

> Fund your company 401K to the maximum.

Fund it up to amount your company matches. The maximum you can contribute to 401k is 40% of your salary I believe. I wouldn't contribute 40% of my salary to the 401k. Just the amount your company matches ( 5% or whatever it is for your company ). That 5% match ( or whatever it is ) is free money. It would be foolish to leave it on the table.

[Izikiel43]

No, if you can, max the 401k, as long as you've set up emergency fund and other stuff. After maxing the 401k, then go to taxable brokerage.

The personal finance reddit goes like, fund it up to the match is basic, but if you can, max it.

You reduce your taxable income and the money doesn't pay capital gains when you pull it out.

[aidenn0]

> You reduce your taxable income and the money doesn't pay capital gains when you pull it out.

You do pay income tax on it when you pull it out though. Whether or not you come out ahead depends at least partially on your marginal tax rates before and after retirement.

[Izikiel43]

If you are in the situation where you can max your 401k, it's likely your income during retirement and the associated taxes will be lower.

[aidenn0]

But it does not follow that your marginal tax rate will be lower; there's policy uncertainty there.

[tyrust]

There is not percentage limit, it's a flat number that increases annually https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/401k-limit-increases-to-24500-f...

I max my 401k because not taking advantage of tax-advantaged income is leaving money on the table.

[lateforwork]

So if your company doesn't match your contribution then contribute nothing to 401k?

[ygjb]

Not American, but as I understand it, 401k's are tied to your employers 401k implementation and while you are employed you have little choice in how the funds are managed. If you are contributing to a third party managed fund (employer or otherwise) that is not being matched, then you are ceding control of your retirement funds for no practical benefit. You would be better off putting your savings into another tax shelter appropriate to your needs that you can control.

If you aren't getting a matching benefit or other reward for using an employer managed investment, then you shouldn't. If someone doesn't have the time, inclination, or knowledge to understand the difference then investing in an unmatched 401k is still better than not saving at all :S

[lateforwork]

This is incorrect. First off, you do control your retirement funds. The amount of control varies, but at the very least you are offered dozens of mutual funds, indexed funds and bond funds to choose from. Some companies allow offer Fidelity BrokerageLink which allow you to invest in anything including individual stocks.

Secondly, as far as "another tax shelter" there aren't any. For most people the only tax shelter available is 401(k). And the tax shelter is a very good reason to contribute to 401(k), even if there is no company match.

[SoftTalker]

Most people could do an IRA, no?

[aidenn0]

IIRC limits on pre-tax contributions to an IRA are much lower than pre-tax contributions to a 401k

[lateforwork]

Right, it is much lower, and also there is this: If your company offers a 401(k), the IRS limits your ability to deduct Traditional IRA contributions from your taxes based on your income.

[Multicomp]

Tacking on, in evangelical circles Dave Ramsey's financial peace university talks about saving 15% of retirement when getting out of debt and generally working through that list, then once you have paid off the house, build more retirement wealth as you desire...most of us don't get to that point until later in life.

[Izikiel43]

There is also the rent vs buy calculation to take into account, depend on where you live, it might make more sense to rent and invest the difference than buying.

[SoftTalker]

Especially now since the mortgage interest deduction is less than the standard deduction for most people.

[SoftTalker]

Every 401K I've been in has had some choice in investments. Even if they don't, you'd have to assume that you could do better actively managing your own funds in another tax shelter than the "S&P 500 index" or whatever the 401K is doing. For most people, this is unlikely.

[kristianp]

Unless you work for Enron, where the retirement fund went down with the company.

[jpadkins]

401k's are independent of the company. The account is in your name, not the companies.

[kristianp]

My bad, I think the problem with the Enron 401k was that employees were encouraged to buy more Enron stock in them: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87516&page=1