.
Feedback

Traditional vs. Roth IRA

What are the diffrence of of a Traditional vs. Roth IRA.

Traditional IRAs, which were created in 1974, are owned by roughly 37.0 million U.S. households. And Roth IRAs, created as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997, are owned by nearly 18.6 million households.1

www.mundofs.com

Both are IRAs. And yet each is quite different.

Up to certain limits, traditional IRAs allow individuals to make tax-deductible contributions into the account. Distributions from traditional IRAs are taxed as ordinary income and, if taken before age 59½, may be subject to a 10% federal income tax penalty.2

For individuals covered by a retirement plan at work—or for those whose spouse is covered by a retirement plan at work—the deduction for a traditional IRA in 2012 is phased out for incomes between $92,000 and $112,000 for married couples filing jointly, and between $58,000 and $68,000 for single filers.

Also within certain limits, individuals can make contributions to a Roth IRA with after-tax dollars. To qualify for a tax-free and penalty-free withdrawal of earnings, Roth IRA distributions must meet a five-year holding requirement and occur after age 59½.3

Like a traditional IRA, contributions to a Roth IRA are limited based on income. For 2012, contributions to a Roth IRA are phased out between $173,000 and $183,000 for married couples filing jointly and between $110,000 and $125,000 for single filers.

In addition to contribution and distribution rules, there are limits on how much can be contributed to either IRA. In fact, these limits apply to any combination of IRAs; that is, workers cannot put more than $5,000 per year into their Roth and traditional IRAs combined. So, if a worker contributed $3,500 in a given year into a traditional IRA, contributions to a Roth IRA would be limited to $1,500 in that same year.4

Individuals who reach age 50 or older by the end of the tax year can qualify for “catch-up” contributions. The combined limit for these is $6,000.5

If you meet the income requirements, both traditional and Roth IRAs can play a part in your retirement plans. And once you’ve figured out which will work better for you, only one task remains: open an account

 

www.mundofs.com

Fast Fact: Wealthy Owners. The higher your income is, the more likely you are to have an IRA. In 2011, 74% of wealthy households—those with incomes of $200,000 or more—owned an IRA.
Source: Investment Company Institute, 2011

Features of Traditional and Roth IRAs

Traditional IRA

Roth IRA

Tax-deductible contributions

*

 

Tax-deferred growth

 

 

Tax-free withdrawals

 

**

Income limit for 2012 contributions

Deduction phases out for adjusted gross incomes between $92,000 and $112,000 (married filing jointly) or between $58,000 and $68,000 (single filer)

Eligibility phases out for adjusted gross incomes between $173,000 and $183,000 (married filing jointly) or between $110,000 and $125,000 (single filer)

Distributions required at age 70½

 

 

 

www.mundofs.com

Source: Investment Company Institute, 2012

* Up to certain limits
** To qualify, Roth IRA distributions must meet a five-year holding requirement and occur after age 59½.

1. Investment Company Institute, November 2011
2. Generally, once you reach age 70½, you must begin taking required minimum distributions from a traditional IRA.
3,4,5. Internal Revenue Service, 2012

The content is developed from sources believed to be providing accurate information. The information in this material is not intended as tax or legal advice. It may not be used for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties. Please consult legal or tax professionals for specific information regarding your individual situation. This material was developed and produced by FMG, LLC to provide information on a topic that may be of interest. The opinions expressed and material provided are for general information, and should not be considered a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security. Copyright 2012 FMG, LLC

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from South Windsor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Gail Cloutier June 15, 2013 at 04:20 pm
One Mr. Yagaloff I was not rude to anyone else I was talking about you and was not in no mean rudeRead More to you. If you take it that way then so be it. Do I wish to talk to you no, cause it won't do any good. Everyone has given their own comment and the damage is done and now it's time for eveyone to learn from it and move on.
keith yagaloff June 15, 2013 at 05:11 pm
Gail, I agree that its time for everyone to learn from this incident. It is a teachable moment asRead More well. Both the Boy Scout and Cub Scout oaths can be the source of guidance in this instance. Scouting asks its youth to obey the rules of the pack and the law. Here is a direct quote "DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your family and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God. Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points." The fundraising committee made a mistake. Choosing to adopt the mean spirited rhetoric of the Chair of the Republican Town Committee is not what these children expect or deserve. The BSA leadership stepped up and are leading by example. I met my responsibility as a community leader. Can you say the same?
Gail Cloutier June 15, 2013 at 07:11 pm
If you feel the same as me as everyone needs to stop and move on. I can clearly see you can't, causeRead More of the long letter above. I was always told by my wonderful parents to mind your own busy and not someone else. God Bless to us all and Good Bye.............
Rick Usifer June 11, 2013 at 06:38 pm
I agree that these statements seem inappropriate. I wasn't at the meeting and didn't see it, butRead More from this account an apology is certainly in order. I'm surprised that Dr. Anwar, a thoughtful and reasonable man, would say that to someone who absolutely did the right thing. One of South Windsor's biggest attributes is that is NOT a "large" town. That would have cost us revenue in other areas such as housing. I'm very disappointed in both men.
Dana June 12, 2013 at 09:22 am
It seems to me that Dr. Anwar and Mr. Delnicki do not like the truth and would rather the town liveRead More a lie than to let the public know reality. Hopefully the public sees this and votes for those who tell the truth.
Hank Cullinane June 12, 2013 at 03:45 pm
While I do think Deputy Mayor Bazzano said "funny" I think his opponents are trying toRead More take his statement out of context. I believe he said it was funny that the magazine has us in large towns. That is funny as is strange not it ha ha. Is he going to get an apology from Council Anwar I doubt it. As to losing business, I hope any business planning on coming to South Windsor is not doing it solely on a Hartford Magazine article. Now we can also publicize the integrity of our town officials who wanted the information to be correct.
Kevin McCann:  Don't we deserve better?
Darren DeMartino June 7, 2013 at 03:51 pm
Mike, While I too would like to address thew schools we cant change the fact that are town isRead More slipping in comparison to other towns around us. do you still feel the same way that the ratings didnt come at a convenient time? The truth is we need to invest in in our town to maintain the quality of life people are looking for today. If we dont do it we will not remain an attractive place to live. There are a number of towns in our area that have faced these choices. Some of those town have decided to look to the future and others have fallen behind, not very surprisingly some of our surrounding towns have fared much better over the past 15-20 years than others. The key questions is what does the town of South Windsor want to be? I want it to maintain the quality of life it had since I was a small child. That means growing and investing not letting others pass us by because people are short sighted. I think we need too challenge our town council to look at the towns around us and figure out how they do so much more yet our taxes aren't much different that ours. We pay a lot for very little in comparison to other towns in our area. We get trash and leaf pickup, not that big of a deal cost wise yet we dont get new schools, rec center, senior center, or neccessary fields. We should all want more for our tax dollar!
Michael Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 01:19 pm
Mr. DeMartino - I will stand by what I've said earlier, even after Mr. Bazzano corrected SouthRead More Windsor's rankings in Hartford Magazine. Yes I think this is (still!) good news and as such always welcome and convenient. My earlier comment was that these favorable rankings come at a rather inconvenient time for THOSE WHO PREFER to propagandize and insist that our salvation will come only in the form of more athletic fields and further that we must borrow more money to build them! These revised rankings don’t change anything in my opinion (with the exception of the crime statistic – that’s alarming if not an error!) and meanwhile the TC politics and propagandizing over our “status” is deplorable. I maintain these rankings STILL represent great news for South Windsor. We’re ranked no. 3 in our medium towns group (if not overall). We’re ranked no. 2 for families and schools in our medium group. And STILL we’re in top 10 overall for the county. And still that's just not good enough for some folks?!?
Michael Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 01:25 pm
WRT wanting more for our tax dollars - oh yes there we can agree! But how might we agree onRead More priorities? I don’t see the need for borrowing money NOW to build UNNECESSARY (there I said it!) athletic fields no matter which other towns are perceived to be better/worse than South Windsor by our athletics enthusiasts who might prefer to bypass public referendum to get their desires. I feel strongly that the Town has other priorities – particularly if we must borrow! You cite two prime examples in the elementary schools due to their obsolescence – and the need for taking care of our seniors for rec/community space and aged-care social services that will surely be needed with predictable demographic trends. Let’s do those before we talk about more athletic facilities.
Bert Marchael June 15, 2013 at 09:00 pm
It was Bush's fault. He let the IRS stay in business. In the words of Nancy Pelosi, this will be theRead More most transparent administration, what she failed to say out loud was, this administration looks at the constitution and the laws of our country as suggestions. They pertain to everyone else. Gangsta Chicago politics in Washington. Peace