Why invest in IRA while a low-cost index fund is much simpler?
Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends. "Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may ""outgrow"" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS." The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty. Lots of good answers.  I'll try and improve by being more brief.  For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund:   Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account.  It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well.  The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today.  The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional.  Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here.  An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains.  It's clearly worse than either. "Whoa. These things are on two dimensions.  It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings.   You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA.  And then, within each of those...  You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible.  If someone says otherwise, take your money and run.  They are a shady financial ""advisor"" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end.  Not to mention any names.  E.J.    If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all.  Or, just ask here.  But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer.  And read John Bogle's book.   They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts.  Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds.  The difference is taxation.  Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however  Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000.  Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income.  If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower ""capital gains"" tax rate.  With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000.  Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000.  If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300).  With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000.  When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes.  Provided you followed the rules.   You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return.  You won't keep up with the market.  Bonds.  Low return but usually quite safe.  Individual stocks.  Good luck.   Managed mutual funds.  You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and  good social connections.  He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an ""expense ratio"", which is a total loss to you.  The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts.  But he's not 1.5% better!  Index funds.  These just shrug and buy every stock on the market.  There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week.  As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%.    If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account.  This problem gets fixed in ETF's.  Index ETF's.  These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks.  Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes.  If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these.  Too many other options to get into here."
Both types of plans offer a tax benefit.  A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free.  Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type. As I stated in my comment on @JCotton's answer, the only way you benefit by putting your money in an IRA or other tax-deferred vehicle is if you expect to have a lower tax rate when you withdraw than when you put the money in.  If you look at @JCotton's numbers and remember to pay taxes when you withdraw the money in 30 years, you will see that both situations - paying taxes now or 30 years from now - give you the exact same dollar amount if the tax rates are the same at both points in time.  So if you put money in an IRA, you're betting on the fact that the government will not substantially raise interest rates by then, and/or that you will be in a lower tax bracket. To me, the only valid reasons to invest in an IRA or 401K are the following: However, you should also consider the major downside that the money is locked away and, at best, inconvenient to access when you need it.  At worst, you have to pay taxes and penalties if you ever withdraw that money.  If you are a financially responsible person, I think you're generally better off keeping your money outside of an IRA or 401K, with the exception of making sure to get all of your employer's matching contributions. Why would somebody want an IRA if they have a 401K and a Roth 401K? The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth. When you are putting your money in an index fund, you are not betting your performance against other asset classes but rather against competing investments withing the SAME asset class. The index fund always wins due to two factors: diversity, and lower cost.  The lower cost attribute is essentially where you get your performance edge over the longer run. That is why if you look at the universe of mutual funds (where you get your diversification), very few will have beaten the index, assuming they have survived. -Ralph Winters Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds. Advantage of cash: You can spend the money without having to pay any fees or taxes to get it out. Disadvantage: When inflation is greater than zero, which it has been for many decades, your cash is continually losing value. Advantages of an IRA (Roth or classic): Your money will usually grow as the investments return a profit. You get special tax benefits. Disadvantages: There's risk -- you may lose money. There are tax penalties for withdrawing the money before retirement. In general, you should only put money in an IRA if you expect to leave it there until you retire. Or at least, for a long time. Whole life is a combination of a life insurance policy and an investment. Advantages: Combines insurance and investment into one convenient monthly payment. Disadvantages: The investment portion typically has lower returns than you could get elsewhere. If you have no need for life insurance -- if you're not supporting anyone or you're confidant they could get along without you or you don't like them and don't care what happens to them when you're gone or whatever -- then there's no point buying life insurance, whole or term. You're paying for a product that you don't need. It's pretty common advice to tell people that instead of buying a whole life policy, they should buy a term policy with the same coverage, and then invest the difference in the premium. For example, if you were considering getting a $100,000 whole life policy that costs $50 per month (just making up numbers, of course it depends on your age, health, etc), and you see you could get a $100,000 term life policy for $30 per month, you will almost certainly do better in the long run to buy the $30 term policy and put the other $20 into investments. The catch to this plan is that there are usually transaction costs to investing. Even a discount broker like Ameritrade or Scott Trade charges around $10 per transaction. So if you tried to invest $20 each month, you'd lose half of it to transaction fees. Which means that in practice, you'd have to save that money up until you had at least a few hundred. And at that point many people find other things always seem to come up to spend the money on, so that while they start out with every intention of investing this money, they don't. "Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the ""outcome"" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M?  Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word ""average"". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. ""Heavyweights"" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes.  Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion." I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier. "One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs.  Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares.  This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month.  If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned.  This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult.  (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating ""leftover"" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small.  It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a ""hands-off"" auto-investing plan.  With ETFs, you generally must remember to ""manually"" buy the shares yourself every so often.  For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio.  The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up." What makes the S&P 500 Index funds have low expenses ratios is that the amount of money spent by the mutual fund company on research is Zero. Standard and Poors does the research, the fund companies piggy back on that research.  Another big factor in keeping expenses low is the fact the companies that makeup the index don't change very often. If the fund frequently changes the makeup of the investments not only can that trigger tax considerations but there are costs associated with all those transactions. The question is: do the other algorithms overcome the additional costs due to higher expenses and taxes. When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones.  If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider.  That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones.  They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to.  But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested.  The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds. "Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a ""hot"" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers.  However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this." "There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification.  To build a diverse portfolio ""manually"" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort.  If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say ""buying shares gives higher return""; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs.  If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell.  If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees.  With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies.  In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier.  Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank.  It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time.  All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares.  The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small.  Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that ""buying shares gives higher return"", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them." If you've been using TurboTax, let me suggest a compromise: Let TTax fill out the forms, but then print them out and go through it again by hand. If you don't get the same numbers, investigate why. If you do, you can probably conclude that you could do it by hand if you really want to, especially if you have the previous year's returns as a reference. (I've gone through every version of this from before personal tax software existed thru hand-constructed spreadsheets to commercial software and e-filing (federal only; I refuse to pay for something that reduces THEIR work). I can't use the free online version -- my return's got complications it won't handle -- and I'm uncomfortable putting that much data on a machine I don't control, so I'm still buying software each year. I COULD save the money, but it's worth a few bucks to me to make the process less annoying.) Late edit: Note that a self-constructed spreadsheet is one answer to the annoyance of pencil and paper -- you're still doing all the data manipulation yourself, but you're recording HOW you manipulated it as you go, and if numbers change you don't have to redo all the work. And it avoids raw math errors. It does require that you enter all the formulas rather than just their results, and figuring out how to express some things in stylesheet form can be a nuisance, but it isn't awful... and once you've done it (assuming you got it right) updating it for the next year is usually not hard unless you've introduced a completely new set of issues.