What is the contribution limit for a SEP-IRA?
"Both are saying essentially the same thing.  The Forbes articles says ""as much as 20% [...] up to a maximum of $50,000"".  This means the same as what the IRS page when it says the lesser of a percentage of your income or a total of $53,000.  In other words, the $53k is a cap: you can contribute a percentage of your earnings, but you can never contribute more than $53k, even if you make so much money that 20% of your earnings would be more than that. (The difference between 20% and 25% in the two sources appears to reflect a difference in contribution limits depending on whether you are making contributions for employees, or for yourself as a self-employed individual; see Publication 560.  The difference between $50k and $53k is due to the two pages being written in different years; the limits increase each year.)"
I found this website for some ammo if you need it. For plans with less than 100 participants the limit is 7 days after deduction from your paycheck, though an extension is possible with some paperwork. A DOL audit would probably land your employer in some trouble if they are regularly taking 4 weeks to deposit your funds in the 401k account. "If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA.   One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return).  If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever.  If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively.   If you're estimating ""a few hundred"", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions.  That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all).  At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have.  No reason not to learn this on ""a few hundred"".  While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, ""a few hundred"" is not consequential in the long run.   If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more.  Can you contribute another $100?  You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return." Are the $18,000 401k 2017 limit and the $5,500 IRA limit mutually exclusive for a combined limit of $23,500 (under 49)? Yes, but the amount that you can deduct from a traditional IRA depends on your gross income and marital status - See publication 590-A for details.  Also note that the limit applies to your combined traditional and Roth IRA contributions (meaning you can't contribute $5,500 to both; just a total of $5,500 between the two). I'm also assuming employee match $ count towards these limits - is this correct No - the limit for combined contributions between you and your employer is $54,000 in 2017.  So if you contribute $18,000 your employer can only contribute $36,000. "How will contribution limits rise?  Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is ""415 limits"" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about ""inflation."" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is.  My next step was to calculate how long that money will last  One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long).  I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to ""catch up contributions.""   There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality.  If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want." Yes, eligibility for contributing to a Roth IRA is determined by your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) which is based on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Now, AGI includes the net capital gains from your transactions and MAGI adds back in things that were subtracted off (e.g. tuition deductions, foreign earned income exclusion) in arriving at the AGI. There is a worksheet in Publication 590 that has the details. You are always entitled to contribute to a Traditional IRA. The MAGI affects how much of your contribution is tax-deductible on that year's tax return, but not your eligibility to contribute.  Both the above paragraphs assume that you have enough compensation (wages, salary, self-employment income) to contribute to an IRA: the contribution limit is $5500 or total compensation, whichever is smaller. (If you earned only $2K as wages, you can contribute all of it; not just your take-home pay which is what is left after Social Security and Medicare taxes, Federal taxes etc have been withheld from that $2K). If your entire income is from capital gains and stock dividends, you cannot contribute to any kind of IRA at all. "IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically ""I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains"", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter." Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more.  We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans).  Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings.  The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe. I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can   not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and   subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any   conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert   just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the   backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may   not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you   need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA   contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you   if the 401(k) has poor investment options). Yes. Look at form 1040 AGI is line 37, and it comes well after you report your schedule D cap gains.  I read this question as meaning you wish to contribute to a traditional IRA pretax. There is no income limit to contribute to an IRA and not take the deduction. There is no maximum. The only stipulation other than contribution limits is that you must take withdrawals at age 70 1/2. "This is a great question!  The IRS is not 100% clear on this. IRS publications do however very strongly suggest that assuming your wife has a plan providing family coverage, you can contribute up to your family maximum. If she does NOT have a family coverage plan then the answer is definitively no, you may only contribute the individual limit. Note if you have children covered by her plan then she is considered to have ""family coverage"" even if you are not covered by her plan (see here, question 12). From the 2012 IRS publication, bottom of Page 4. For 2012, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,100. If you have family HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $6,250. This is presumably the referencing the definition which is introduced and discussed for married couples on Page 6: Rules for married people.   If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2012 is $6,250. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouse's Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. Example. For 2012, Mr. Auburn and his wife are both eligible individuals. They each have family coverage under separate HDHPs. Mr. Auburn is 58 years old and Mrs. Auburn is 53. Mr. and Mrs. Auburn can split the family contribution limit ($6,250) equally or they can agree on a different division. If they split it equally, Mr. Auburn can contribute $4,125 to an HSA (one-half the maximum contribution for family coverage ($3,125) + $1,000 additional contribution) and Mrs. Auburn can contribute $3,125 to an HSA. The last example is nearly the exact situation you are in assuming your wife's plan is family coverage. The only assumption beyond what is explicitly written you need to make is that you are considered to have family coverage in the example as per the ""Rules for married people"" section, even though your plan only is a single-coverage plan.  This conclusion seems to logically follow from information in the FAQs here (see Q32), as well as this document. Neither the above example nor any IRS documents referenced in this answer cover your situation completely." "It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer   match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my   money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of   contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? ""Deductible""? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your ""compensation"". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings   from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not ""deducted"" - deferred)." These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates). Because you have maxed your 2011 contribution, you can't add any more for 2011. If you have 2012 income you can make a contribution anytime between now and April 2013. Only you can determine if this makes sense for you, but there doesn't appear to be any reasons to suspect you can't do this. (this was based on your comments to the original question) "This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word ""asset"" has a fairly straight forward definition.  Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value.  The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. ""Liability"" is tougher to define, and depends on context.  In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed.  It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value.  It is not a debt. Many people use the word ""liability"" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income.  (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.)  With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead.  An expense is a cost of doing business.  For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen.  The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business.  It is simply a necessary expense for your business."