Is 401k as good as it sounds given the way it is taxed?
Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth).  For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off.  For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you.  For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest. There are 3 options (option 2 may not be available to you) When you invest 18,000 in a Traditional 401k, you don't pay taxes on the 18k the year you invest, but you pay taxes as you withdraw.  There's a Required Minimum Distribution required after age 70.  If your income is low enough, you won't pay taxes on your withdrawals.  Otherwise, you pay as if it is income.  However, you don't pay payroll tax (Social Security / Medicare) on the withdrawals.  You pay no tax until you withdraw. When you invest 18,000 in a Roth 401k, you pay income tax on the 18,000 in the year it's invested, but you pay nothing after that. When you invest 18,000 in a taxable investment account, you pay income tax on that 18,000 in the year it's invested, you pay tax on dividends (even if they're re-invested), and then you pay capital gains tax when you withdraw. But remember, tax rules and tax rates are only good so long as Congress doesn't change the applicable laws. "Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that.  (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet -  We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred.  EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme -  In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal.  The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 ""zero bracket"" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate).  Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between.  In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc.  Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income." When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement.  You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year.  In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement?  In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement.  After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less. "when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money).  growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for  by the growth in the deferred portion.  that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed.  this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account.  the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire.  also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the ""wash sale"" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers.  even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty." If you put it in a normal account it is (1) taxed as ordinary income now and then (2) any growth is taxed again at the capital gains rate.  Additionally, (3) any dividends will be taxed each year.  If you put it in a 401(k), you will only be taxed once, at the ordinary income rate.   Mathematically, if you start with X and have a regular tax rate of t and capital gains rate of g and your investments return r and there are n years to retirement, then your total wealth if you put it in a mutual fund (ignoring annual taxes on dividends) will be While if you used a 401(k) it would simply be The whole g term (along with any annual taxes on dividends) is gone in the second case and that's potentially a lot of taxes.  The 401(k) is much better in terms of total wealth unless tax rates dramatically rise between now and when you retire so that the t in the second case is much higher than in the first. This is virtually never the case for people retiring now.  Of course, what tax rates the future holds, we do not know. "You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now.  First off you are going to have a ""boat load"" of money.  Like probably a multi-millionaire.  Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest.  For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds.   So fast forward to retirement time.  You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties.  For one your expenses are much lower.  You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt.  Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well.   You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans.  This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments.  You can also draw social security income.  For most of us social security will provide sustenance living.  Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc.  Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K.   Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw.  Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary.  Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation.  With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it.   In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash.  Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates.  (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year.  Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice:  Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car.  It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not." Don't forget inflation.   With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains.  You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it).   With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount.  And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real.  So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice.  Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains.  I'll give an example later.   With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount.  You pay taxes on the distributed amount.  That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice.  All the taxes are paid at distribution time.   Here's a semirealistic example.  This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off.  They could happen.  I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math.   So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings.   Roth:  $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad):  $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA):  $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%.  Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past.  That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case.  Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases.  Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240.   Balances after one year:   Roth:  $12,960 Trad:  $17,280 TIA:  $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases.  And by $480 in the Trad case.   Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative):   Roth:  $5354 Trad:  $7138 TIA:  $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth:  $25,907 Trad:  $34,543 TIA:  $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power):   Roth:  $20,554 Trad:  $27,405 TIA:  $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes.  That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes.  In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000.   Do that for five years and the new balances are  Roth:  $9931 Trad:  $13,241 TIA:  $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year.  The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year.   So to summarize.  The Traditional IRA initially grows the most.  The TIA grows the least.  The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first.  The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included.   Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k.  That would help both those options.  I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions.  It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA.  I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period.  If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse.   Inflation could be higher or lower.  As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation. Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money.  So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option. "This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K.  Yes, you pay taxes upfront.  All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules).  This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever.  Contributions can be funded past age 70.5.  Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties.  All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties.  For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions.  This is like getting paid for retirement saving.  These funds are ""locked"" up until age 59.5, with exceptions.  All contributed funds and all earnings are ""untaxed"" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars.  The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity." "If you pay 20% tax now and none later or if you pay no tax now and 20% later, it doesn't make a difference.  Mathematically, it's the same. You have to guess about which tax rate (now vs later) will be higher for you in order for you to make the best choice.  Predicting tax rates 40 years in advance is hard.  Everybody pretends like they can do this accurately. I would suggest going half and half. If you have 20k and put half in pre-tax (10k in) and half in post-tax (only 8k in) you end up with 18k total in which is right in the middle of where you would be if you went with the whole 20k in either extreme.  It would also leave you owing 2k in tax rather than the possible 4k in tax if you had gone with all pre-tax. When you split down the middle, you are guaranteed to have 50% in the ""right"" side, the side with the best outcome. Being guaranteed to be 50% on the right side is pretty good compared to maybe being 100% on the wrong side."
The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits.  The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above. I agree, but that's only a small fraction. You could even argue that the money that is not being paid in taxes isn't necessarily a bad thing as it's funneled back to investors, which also includes the common person that is saving for their retirement, which will also get taxed. Of course that's only for public companies. "Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc.  Now, a statement such as ""I see my 401k is up 10%"" is meaningless unless you  tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest  these days), then your 11th contribution increases your  401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is ""up 10%"". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the  401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now.  Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the  401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So,  if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%.  But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase  in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund  because there is no money to pay for the additional shares  you wish to purchase.  Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash  because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan.  One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale.  But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing.  The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up.  With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before.  So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV.  So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%.  Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a  bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the ""return"" can be used to buy more shares." As far as broad principles, I think that you are on track. The only suggestion I would have is to look into HSAs. They are another great tax-advantaged account, accessible to those with high incomes. "Technically, this doesn't seem like a scam, but I don't think the system is beneficial.  They use a lot of half-truths to convince you that their product is right for you. Some of the arguments presented and my thoughts. Don't buy term and invest the rest because you can't predict how much you'll earn from the ""rest""   Also Don't invest in a 401k because you can't predict how much you'll earn They are correct that you won't know exactly how much you'll have due to stock market, but that doesn't mean the stock market is a bad place to put your money.  Investing in a 401k is risky because of the harsh 401k withdrawal rules  Yes, 401ks have withdrawal rules (can't typically start before 59.5, must start by 70.5) but those rules don't hamper my investing style in any way.    Most Term Life Insurance policies don't pay out  They are correct again, but their conclusions are wrong. Yes, most people don't die while you have a term insurance policy which is why Term life insurance is relatively cheap.   But they aren't arguing you don't need insurance, just that you need their insurance which is ""better"" You need the Guaranteed growth they offer  The chart used to illustrate their guaranteed growth includes non-guaranteed dividends.   They invest $10,000 per year for 36 years and end up with $1,000,000.   That's a 5% return!  I use 10% for my estimate of stock market performance, but let's say it's only 8%.   The same $10,000 per year results in over $2 Million dollars.  Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION.   So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are. Are you happy with the state of your finances? Do you still believe their fairytale, “Buy Term (insurance) and Invest the Difference”?  Yes, I sure do believe that fairytale and I'm prospering quite well thank you. :) While I don't think this is a scam, it's outrageously expensive and not a good financial choice." On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account   pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish. The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income. For various reasons, if you can defer tax payment, it's good for you [when you can give uncle sam $x tomorrow, why give it today?]. Some reasons are, you may plan to return back to your country after x years and then you can pay tax at a lower bracket [e.g. convert 401k to Rollover-IRA then do Roth-conversion and pay lower tax bracket]. Paying now versus later is purely based on your anticipated future tax bracket. [if future bracket is same.. say 25% today and after say 20 years, 25%.. there is absolutely no difference between today payment or future payment of tax -- you can mathematically prove the returns are the same for Roth-IRA (or Roth-401k) versus IRA (or 401k)]. Having a bigger balance (in case of 401k compared to roth-401k) can also give you a sense of more security -- since there are provisions for hardship withdrawal (tax may be due) "As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad.  The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase.  I am on the side of ""don't do it"" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more.  Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA." "Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share.   25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it?  I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get ""points"" under their draconian ""no days off ever"" policy." Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope.  My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed.  (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?) "As JoeTaxpayer says, ""It's a very rare circumstance where an early 401(k) withdrawal actually makes any real economic sense."" Your statements that one year's salary for you is $60K and the combination of your spouse's income and yours puts you into the highest income tax bracket together lead to the conclusion that your spouse's income is considerably higher than yours. If this income will continue past your death (e.g. you two are not in a joint venture that will collapse when you pass away because she cannot do the work by herself), then it is very definitely to your joint advantage to leave your money in a tax-deferred account for as long as possible. Her income should be enough to cover the mortgage payments.  Also, rather than take the money out and paying taxes at a high rate right now, your  spouse can roll over the 401k money into an IRA and withdraw only small amounts per year, paying taxes spread over the years rather than in a lump sum." Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year.  Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket.  This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest.  It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets.  Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction. "Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies.  I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k.  The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about.   In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself).  If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future.  Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options.   Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves.  I think it's called a ""nondiscrimination test"" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management.  So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer.  Good luck!" That goodness here in Australia we don't annualise GDP figures rrom just on individual quarter. That is such a stupid practice. We state the quarterly figure and then add the previous three quarters to calculate the rolling 12 month figure. Makes so much more sense.