The Roth Awakening
Ten years ago I embarked on my retirement savings journey by opening a Roth IRA. The research I did at the time gave me the conviction to make post-tax contributions in the present—to avoid paying taxes on the projected earnings 35-40 years in the future (while also hedging against the risk of higher taxes). It seemed like a no-brainer. Later, when I had access to a Roth 401(k) at work, I followed suit and contributed even more, rolling that balance over to my Roth IRA between jobs.
But it turns out that I fundamentally misunderstood how our progressive tax system works. In short I’ve been paying the full marginal tax rate on my contributions (25-28% Federal + 9.3% CA), but if I had put that money in a Traditional 401(k) instead, I could have avoided paying those taxes, and I would very likely have paid little to no effective tax on any future distributions (depending on my cost of living in retirement).
I could bend over backwards trying to explain why this is, but instead I’ll refer you to two excellent blog posts on the subject from the travel/finance blog Go Curry Cracker: Turbocharge Your Savings and The Great Roth Controversy. There are a number of other posts within the Financial Independence/Early Retirement blogosphere that explain pretty much the same thing (e.g. The Case Against Roth 401(k)), but maybe you prefer something more academic? Here’s an article from the peer-reviewed Journal of Financial Planning entitled Thinking About a Roth 401(k)? Think Again. TL;DR: unless your annual income exceeds $400k, they recommend that most people contribute to a Traditional 401(k).
Suffice it to say, from this point forward, I’ll be diverting my 401(k) contributions from Roth to Traditional. It only took me ten years to figure this out.
But you should have at least been able to claim up to the statutory max each year you contributed to get a deduction? But yes, a 401(K) is better – particularly if there is company matching.