If contributions to all retirement accounts become taxable income, then what’s the incentive for anyone to save for retirement in a retirement account? “
Are you telling us that something saving for retirement is not worth doing without a Gummint subsidy??
Hmmmm.....
I always object when people classify the tax deferral on 401(k) and IRA contributions as a "subsidy." Yeah, you can call it that if you look through one end of the telescope, but from the other end, not so. As a matter of principle, we should shift the tax burden from income to consumption in the interests of encouraging savings, investment, and personal financial security. The current structure of thrift savings plans incorporates a form of a consumed income tax, with income being taxed when it is taken/realized, not when it is earned. That is a perfectly rational tax policy, not a gimmick.
Not that rationality or consistency has anything to do with the U.S. tax code ... but there's still no reason to surrender the rhetorical high ground.
No. I asked if it was worthwhile to save for retirement "in a retirement account" (i.e., an IRA or 401k account) without the tax advantage.
I'll save for retirement in any case. It's just that without the tax treatment of an IRA or 401(k) plan, I'll be saving through investment vehicles outside a traditional retirement account. In fact, I've already scaled back my 401(k) contributions dramatically in recent years because I can do a hell of a lot more with my money in the long run outside a retirement account.
It sounds like it doesn't affect Roths. If you pay the taxes up front on a Roth, invest in Silver Futures and wait for the STHTF, you'll come out ahead. That's what I'm doing.