> g Money wrote: > > indeed, which is why i've got one. > But the traditionals for people that don't qualify for Roth still have the benefit of staying tax-free while the interest accrues. The idea is that if you were taxed today you'd be taxed at a higher rate than in retirement plus you'd lose those funds in the interest calculation.
So a traditional is still a good deal, just not as good as a Roth. But in 2010 Bush says if you don't quality for a Roth, no problem, you can convert! Which makes you wonder why we need the policy distinction in the first place. I mean why not rescind the Roth qualifications wholesale and make them available to all no matter your income? and since this was done in 2005, Republicans would've owed everything so why did they only remove the rules for one year and not all years? So what we're left with is 2 possibilities: (1.) Roth income restrictions are stupid policy, but the Republicans were too dumb to remove them for more than a year, or (2.) Roth income restrictions are a good policy, but even so the Republicans passed a quick little give away against their own better policy judgment. Just couldn't keep their hands our of the till. Which do you think it was? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:305118 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
