Any experience with maxing out 401(k)?
The biggest challenge as a young person maxing out a 401k in my opinion is the challenge of saving for a house, and (if necessary) paying off student loans. You have to consider - are you OK renting for the next 3, 5, 10 years? Or do you eventually want to buy a place? how much will that cost vs your current expenses?  That being said, I didn't max out but had over 8-10% of 401k contribution in the same situation you're in right now and I don't regret it.  Rereading your question, I see you are considering investing in a Roth IRA. Especially at your current age, assuming your wages will go UP, investing to the company match with the 401K and then maxing out a Roth IRA would be my recommendation. THEN continue maxing out the 401k (if you wish).  P.S. I highly recommend doing two things if you go down this path: You want to take the hit now.   There are tons of calculators out there, but the rule of 70 should be enough to help convince you: Assume you can put an extra $10k in a 401k now, or keep it.  If you pay ~30% in taxes, you  can have either: A) $7k now, or: B) What $10K will grow to in your 40 years till retirement less taxes at the end. The rule of 70 is a quick, dirty way to calculate compounded returns.  It says that if you divide 70 by your assumed return, you get the approximate number of years it will take to double your money.   So let's say you assume a 5% rate of return (you can replace that with whatever you want): 1) 70/5 is 14, so you'll double your $10k every 14 years. 2) In 40 years, you'll double your money almost 3 times (2.86) 3) That means you'll end up with almost $80k before taxes 4) Even if we assume the same tax rate at retirement of 30% (odds are decent it's lower, since you'll have less income, presumably), you still have $56k. Whatever you think inflation will be, $56k later is a LOT better than $7k now. I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation.  Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan.  Pay that off first.  Then work on maxing the 401(k).  Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option.  It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits.  My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying. "On #1: One way to make it less painful is to ""split"" your raises between yourself and your 401k. That is, if you get a 2% raise, increase your contribution to the 401K by 1% and keep the other 1%. Keep doing this until you are maxed out. You won't miss money you never had nearly as much as money you were used to living on. On #2: Yes, go with the Roth. Another consideration: If you are ever going to max out your 401K it is best to do it early even if you have to cut back later than to wait. Take advantage of the extra investment time while you are young." I second CrimsonX's advice to max out Roth then 401k. At your age in what sounds like a similar situation I did the same thing -- thankfully. It's easier to do when you're young and unencumbered. 10 years later with kids, house, changing from double to single income, job changes, etc, it's harder to max out retirement accounts. Not to mention that priorities change, e.g. saving for college. Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving.  Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come.  You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time.  (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work. "To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that!  I did even a bit more.  I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either.  In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I ""front-loaded"" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year.  (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a ""buffer"" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or ""front-loading"" 401(k) contributions.  You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck.  As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving  priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern.  (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment.  I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends.  If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no.  Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year.  People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand.  But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck.  It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits).  So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice.  After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc." "The answers so far are excellent. I need to respond to your 8-9% withdrawal rate. Uh, wherever you heard that, I'd suggest you listen/read elsewhere. 4% seems to be the ""safe"" withdrawal rate. I've seen people who were convinced that 7-10% were ok get absolutely trashed in the downturns, both 2000 and 2008. Proper asset allocation and low withdrawal rate will help avoid disaster. I wrote an article about the assumptions we make, looking at 1980-2000 and extrapolating from there. Not pretty. In 2000, I remarked that the near 20%/yr couldn't continue. Understatement of my life. I expected a return to normalcy, maybe 8-10%/yr, and got zero." Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23.  I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so.  I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so.   Another consideration:  Is your companies program a good one?  if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match.  Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there.  The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year.  Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year.  Otherwise you may miss out on your company match.  It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not.  It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future.  On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth. Don't forget to also build up an emergency fund - retirement saving is important, but you don't want to be caught in a situation where you need money for an emergency (lose your job, get hit by a bus, etc.) and it's all locked away in your 401(k).
"I humbly disagree with #2. the use of Roth or pre-tax IRA depends on your circumstance. With no match in the 401(k), I'd start with an IRA. If you have more than $5k to put in, then some 401(k) would be needed.  Edit - to add detail on Roth decision. I was invited to write a guest article ""Roth IRAs and your retirement income"" some time ago. In it, I discuss the large amount of pretax savings it takes to generate the income to put you in a high bracket in retirement. This analysis leads me to believe the risk of paying tax now only to find tHat you are in a lower bracket upon retiring is far greater than the opposite. I think if there were any generalization (I hate rules of thumb, they are utterly pick-apartable) to be made, it's that if you are in the 15% bracket or lower, go Roth. As your income puts you into 25%, go pretax. I believe this would apply to the bulk of investors, 80%+." "I am not 100% sure, but I think the answer is this:  You can't max out both.  You could theoretically max out the SIMPLE IRA ($11,500) and then contribute $4,000 to your 401k, but your total can't exceed the 401k limit of $16,500.  This also means you could max out your 401k at $16,500, but you couldn't contribute anything to the SIMPLE IRA.  Note that no matter what, you can't contribute more than $11,500 to your SIMPLE IRA. (Note that this is all independent from your Traditional or Roth IRA, which are subject to their own limits, and not affected by your participation in employer-sponsored plans.) As I understand it, a 401k and a SIMPLE IRA both fall under the umbrella of ""employer-sponsored plans"".  Just like you can't max out two 401k's at two different employers, you can't do it with the 401k and the SIMPLE IRA.  The only weird thing is the contribution limit differences between SIMPLE IRA and 401k, but I don't think the IRS could/would penalize you for working two jobs (enforcing the lower SIMPLE IRA limit for all employer-sponsored retirement accounts). You should probably run the numbers, factoring in the employer match, and figure out which account-contribution scenario makes the most financial sense for you.  However, I'm not sure how the employer match helps you when you're talking about a small business that you own/run.  You may also want to look at how the employer match of the SIMPLE IRA affects the taxes your business pays. Disclaimer #1:  I couldn't find a definitive answer on your specific scenario at irs.gov.  I pieced the above info from a few different ""SIMPLE IRA info"" sites.  That's why I'm not 100% sure.  It seems intuitively correct to me, though.  Does your small business have an accountant?  Maybe you should talk to him/her. Disclaimer #2:  The $ amounts listed above are based on the IRS 2010 limits." 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. Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k?  If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income).  It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA.  The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k.  You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it.  The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young.  This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile.  Bond funds are the usual choice.  They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds.  Rather, it is a gradual transition over time.  As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds.  Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds. If you can afford to put more money into the 401(k) -- which is what paying yourself back at a higher rate than you're earning would amount to -- why not just put more money into the 401(k)?  Or into an IRA, if you've maxed out what the 401(k) will allow. That would seem to have the same positive effects you're looking for, while avoiding the negative ones. If your budget allows for it, max out both plans!  However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances. Unless that 401K has very low expense ratios on its funds, you should roll it into an IRA and choose funds with low expense ratios. After rolling it over you should not take the 10% penalty and use it to purchase a home.  Unless you use that home as an income property, it is unlikely to provide you more than a 1% inflation-adjusted rate of return given historical data.  The S&P 500 is about 4% adjusted for inflation.  And that money currently in your 401(k) is for your retirement - your future.  Don't borrow against your future.  Let compound interest do its work on that money. The value of a house is in the rent you aren't paying to live somewhere and there are a lot of costs to consider.  That doesn't mean don't buy.  It just means buy wisely. If you are currently maxing out your 401(k), you may consider cutting back to save for your down payment.  Other than that I wouldn't touch retirement money unless it was a dire financial emergency. Math - The half-match is 3% or $3900. After 5 years, $19,500.  If you stay, you are vested, and have $20K (I hope it's actually far more) extra. For you, it's like 2 month's salary bonus after 5 years.  If you leave early, the good news is that even if the expenses within the plan weren't great, you have the money you put in, along with what vested so far. You move that to an IRA and choose your own thrifty funds or ETFs.  For me (as Duff said, there's no one answer, so to be clear, this is my feeling, or preference, not gospel) 6% is far too little to save as a percent of my income. So if the 401(k) fees ran say .8% or higher, I'd put in the 6% to get the potential match, and then save on the side.  Our answers might change slightly depending on the exact fees you're exposed to. The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand. I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math.  What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY.  A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal. Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too! "Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as ""not guided by or based on good sense."" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers.  That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%).  Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P." I'm sorry for your situation.  If 15 years of maximum savings only has you at $60K, I'm going to assume you are currently in the 15% bracket. A withdrawal will cost you 15% (and maybe push you into the 25% bracket) as well as the 10% penalty, and state tax. Don't do it. Be sure your 401(k) has listed beneficiaries. Your wife will be able to take an annual withdrawal, and pay very little, probably 10%, maybe 15% worst case.  You reference that she'd have a lump sum. Yes, but she won't have to take it all at once. She should be able to transfer the funds from the 401(k) to an IRA, and withdraw small amounts each year.  It's a very rare circumstance where an early 401(k) withdrawal actually makes any real economic sense. My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000.  There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation.  The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans. At your age, the only place you are going to get a loan is from relatives. If you can't... Go to next year's conference. Missing it this year might feel like a disaster, but it really, really isn't.