RMD

papakong88

If you do RMD, you don’t have to withhold tax each time. You can withhold tax in December.

Freedom-Of-Trades

My pension crashed 3 times over my workforce lifetime. It was supposed to pay the average of my 5 best years ( including overtime ). Instead it paid about 1/2 of my base wage. It's less that my SS. Believe me, I am thankful for the income. But I am also thankful that I saved and invested in a Roth, a 403b, Hysa/savings, and real estate. Keep at it and diversify. And If you wind up in a tax deferred account in the future ( like a 401k ) get a tax strategy years in advance of retirement to minimize your RMD's or you'll risk jumping tax brackets, higher social security taxation, and a possible exponential increase in your Medicare cost. Have a blessed day and good luck.

Freedom-Of-Trades

1st, Only max a 401k to the point that they will match. Next Max a ROTH IRA. Then, if you have the $ and available 401k headroom, max that. Or If you are up to it take that $ and buy a rental property. I want to warn you about RMD's and the brutal tax consequences that they can have. Your 401k will be subject to them. Not only will you pay tax on the Mandatory withdrawals, but they can kick you up one or more tax brackets AND they can cause more taxes on your social security, AND it can drastically raise what you are charged on Medicare in retirement. A Roth won't do that. And when you get closer to retirement, get a plan together to deal with those RMD's years before they start so you can mitigate the taxes as effectively as is possible. You tax strategy is as important as your investment strategy.

Classic-Passenger-17

I started saving seriously for retirement before Roths were a thing. When they became available, I had an existing system that was working for me, so I stuck with the traditional 401(k) I already had. My first RMD will be in 2028, and it'll be at least 3-4x what I spend from investments, with an accompanying very large tax bill. And if my portfolio performance continues, it'll get worse in later years. So, if I had it to do over again, I'd focus much more on my brokerage account and Roth IRA/401(K), limiting my traditional IRA investments to somewhere between 0 and 20%.

gabrintx

AGI last year was $518k, with a large LT Cap Gain of $282k which won't happen this year. I do make quarterly payments, just much less than the $17k suggested. As of today, we are looking at $401k income, but there are 4 months to go. I currently am projecting tax withheld from my 2 RMDs at 60%. With that projection, I believe we will be over paid $5k. I am guessing that I will have to increase the RMD withholding. That's my adjustment joke. I could also add a EFTPS payment.

papakong88

The best way to pay your estimation tax is to use the safe harbor rule. Assuming your adjusted gross income (AGI) is less than 150K last year, your tax withholding plus estimated tax payment this year must be greater than 110% of the tax last year. Since you have missed 2 quarters of estimated tax already, you can make it up by withholding tax from your RMD. Ref: [https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/irs/tax-responsibilities/avoiding-underpayment-tax-penalty/](https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/irs/tax-responsibilities/avoiding-underpayment-tax-penalty/)

Howell317

Not really. Like the RMD on $4 million is only $150k. Like rolling into a Roth isn't a bad idea at all, but the odds of being bitten by an RMD bad means you have a ton in your 401k. In the 150k RMD example, it's $15k for married filed jointly. Maybe a bit higher with social security layered on top. Not to mention you get taxed on the conversion, so you probably would have paid tax on it early.

LosReason

The best way to hedge is to have both a Roth and non Roth 401k. Then if tax rates lower dramatically(We know this is unlikely), you can pull the entire 401k regular. If not, do as you please with Roth and worry less about the 401K regular RMD.

Various_Couple_764

When you are 75 ther is no choice you have to withdrawal the RMD ammount and pay the tax. You don't have to spend it or give it a way. You can invest it in a taxable account. The only way to avoid a RMD is to open a Roth acount before you retire and then start moving money out of the 401K, pay tax and put that money in the Roth. These are thinly option available to you.

swampassOG

Resmed is a company that makes money hand over fist and will until people stop wanting to breathe RMD

Former_Island_4730

My dad lost that gamble. Early 70’s…CPA…played every game to minimize taxes in his late 50’s and 60’s. Now staring at a massive wall of RMD’s. Having tax diversity later in retirement is always a benefit…ESPECIALLY if the rules change.

CoolFuture3767

What are you saving it for when you're 75 years old? Take the RMD, pay the tax. Spend it or give it away.

D74248

By all means go and learn about them, but you have to have more money saved than is common and live a long time for them to really bite. It is one of those things that attract YouTube content makers, and they blow it out of all proportion. At age 80 your required withdraw rate is likely to be 4.95%, for example. The risk is that someone’s retirement planning becomes so focused on RMDs that they use strategies that increase their vulnerability to market risk (poor long term market returns). And in any case RMDs for the account holder may go away in coming years anyway; the argument being that the 10 year RMD window for inherited IRAs sort of achieves the same thing. It is really hard to plan with a sharp pencil when future market returns and tax policy are unknowns. All you can do, IMO, is save aggressively, hit retirement with no debt or other financial obligations, and then see where you are.

wild_b_cat

If a pretax IRA is all you have, and you want to leave it to your heirs, then that makes some sense - but not much. It's not a good inheritance vehicle at all, because your heirs will need to drain it on a 10-year schedule *and* they are more likely to be in their peak earning years. A better use of an IRA is to spend it on yourself and leave your heirs other things, especially taxable assets that can get a step-up in basis. I'm making a pretty esoteric point here and I may not be making it well enough, for which I apologize, but I think that if you actually walk through the numbers, what you'd find is that in a world without RMDs, your ideal plan would involve doing aggressive early Roth conversions anyway. Which means they're also the best plan in a world with RMDs, and thus that RMDs themselves are basically irrelevant other than as a small nuisance. If you did what you suggested and just took what you need, you'd be hurting yourself. In lower-than-RMD withdrawal years, you have lower spending power. Lower taxes, yes, but also less money in the bank, period. In higher-than-RMD withdrawal years, you'd pay higher taxes needlessly. Even without RMDs, it makes sense to smooth your withdrawals. That's all I'm saying. It amounts to not much of a meaningful point, I admit. I think I'm the only person who cares.

pandymen

You would take as much as you need. Why would you take more in a non RMD world? RMDs are the main motivator for Roth conversions.

wild_b_cat

Imagine, hypothetically, if you could exempt yourself from RMDs for 1 year, and you used that to withdraw less than your RMD amount. Would that result in a lower, or higher, *after-tax-income* than if you had just taken an RMD?

-Mx-Life-

You have no idea how RMD's work. How can you say they aren't that high when they are literally tied to your account balance.

-Mx-Life-

Absolutely incorrect. RMD's can influence you IRMAA, SS taxability, Phase outs of certain items, NIIT, Medical expenses when itemized. They are a big factor in tax planning.

Admirable_Nothing

Here is an AI table of RMDs for a million dollar IRA for a single person aged 73 whose IRA will grow at 7% annually:[](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0759bf0158cab453b73c19b6fbcdd327cc00e1a132fe8c73eda6df454e81cac4JmltdHM9MTc4Njc1MjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=30a1f270-d316-64a9-21c7-e47dd27c6586&u=a1L2NvcGlsb3RzZWFyY2g_cT1ncmFwaCtybWRzK2ZvcithK21pbGxpb24rZG9sbGFyK2lyYStzdGFydGluZythdCthZ2UrNzMrZm9yK2Erc2luZ2xlK3BlcnNvbit3aXRoK2FuK2lyYStncm93dGgrb2YrNyUyNSZmb3JtPUNTQlJBTkQ&ntb=1)RMD Schedule for $1M IRA at Age 73 with 7% Annual Growth **At age 73, your first RMD on a $1,000,000 IRA is $37,736 (3.77% of balance). With 7% annual growth, your RMDs will grow each year, and your IRA balance will increase over time.** # Year-by-Year Projection (Age 73–82) |Age|Prior Year Balance|RMD (before tax)|% of Balance|Balance After RMD| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |73|$1,000,000.00|$37,736|3.77%|$1,039,964| |74|$1,039,964|$39,216|3.92%|$1,079,964| |75|$1,079,964|$40,650|4.07%|$1,119,964| |76|$1,119,964|$42,194|4.22%|$1,159,964| |77|$1,159,964|$43,668|4.37%|$1,199,964| |78|$1,199,964|$45,455|4.55%|$1,239,964| |79|$1,239,964|$47,393|4.74%|$1,279,964| |80|$1,279,964|$49,505|4.95%|$1,319,964| |81|$1,319,964|$51,736|5.06%|$1,359,964| |82|$1,359,964|$54,108|5.08%|$1,399,964| Here are the even withdrawals you can take from the same IRA at the same 7% if you take an even withdrawal that will get to zero at the same time as the IRA using RMDs. Your level payment starting at age 73 and ending at age 98 would be $8988/month or $107856/year. When you are healthy and in your 70s would you rather have a taxable $108,000/year to spend or something in the $40,000 to $50,000/year so spend? Yep, you would save taxes but you still have to empty that IRA at some point.

Admirable_Nothing

No, taking the absolute minimums creates a pig in a python problem. You end up delaying withdrawals as long as possible so you don't have after tax access to the majority of your funds until you are in your late 80's or older. By then you don't care much about money as you are too old to enjoy it. The denominator on the RMD calculation doesn't get below 10 until you are 82 so most of the earlier years your taxes may be lower but your money is tied up.

DystopianDominos

The increase of RMD age to 75 per Secure 2.0 isn't in effect until 2033. It's age 73 until then.

wild_b_cat

This is not something to plan around. If you reach RMD age and have to take more than you want, you just have extra money. It’s not a big deal. If you want to use your tax money efficiently, you want to use your pretax money smoothly over retirement years. That’s true even if RMDs didn’t exist. If you’re just focusing on RMDs themselves you may not be optimizing the right way.

tms2x2

I'm withdrawing from my 401K at 66. I have a ROTH also. I should be about 10% tax bracket next year. Watched a bunch of videos about tax conversions 401k to ROTH to reduce required minimum distributions at 75. I don't have a large enough 401k to affect the Medicare IRMA limits when I will have to pull RMD. It is very complicated. Self study or pay someone for advice.

InscrutableIcicle

Yes. Once you reach a certain age, the IRS tells you how much money you have to withdraw. The rough calculation of your RMD is the value of your retirement account divided by your expected lifespan.

Mobile_leprechaun

I mean everything is constantly being decided on the fly. Look at new RMD laws, changing tax brackets, IRA contribution limits, etc. etc.

ptexpat

# Resmed Inc. Announces Results for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2026 Thu, August 6, 2026 at 1:05 PM PDT * Q4 revenue increased by 9% to a record $1.5 billion; up 8% on a constant currency basis  * Q4 GAAP diluted earnings per share up 2% to $2.64; non-GAAP diluted earnings per share up 16% to $2.95 * Returned $1.0 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends during FY2026, an increase of more than 70% *Note: A webcast of Resmed's conference call will be available at 4:30 p.m. ET today at* [*http://investor.resmed.com*](https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=ppY_7RUVp4LgZlQc5fT-xnLajKJuwzTY7PW9fdwzGDYPTjAPJbSem1Ys-GWIhYW2BRqzcN99kih7IHVLaTtihoLnQ6Jab3hLnWy-XcWLZdZtpf4rPcAgj6hZcosz_71yKL14GWpi5g6tLHjPvCkQhw==) SAN DIEGO, Aug. 06, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Resmed Inc. (NYSE: RMD, ASX: RMD) today announced results for its quarter ended June 30, 2026. "We closed fiscal year 2026 with strong fourth quarter results, reflecting continued momentum of our global business, sustained demand for our market-leading products, and disciplined execution of our strategy," said Resmed's Chairman and CEO, Mick Farrell. "Year-over-year, we delivered 9% reported revenue growth, 90 basis points of gross margin expansion, and a 16% increase in earnings per share. For full year 2026, our $1.6 billion in free cash flow enabled us to invest in innovation, strengthen our market leadership, and return more than $1 billion to our shareholders." "As we enter fiscal year 2027, we will leverage our global scale and enhance our digital capabilities to benefit our patients, providers, and customers. We will use our industry-leading portfolio to improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and drive long-term profitable growth for our shareholders." ***Financial Highlights*** * FY 2026 revenue increased by 10% to $5.7 billion; up 8% on a constant currency basis * FY 2026 GAAP gross margin up 170 bps to 61.1%; non-GAAP gross margin up 240 bps to 62.4% * FY 2026 GAAP operating margin up 70 bps to 33.4%, non-GAAP operating margin up 180 bps to 36.1% * FY 2026 GAAP diluted earnings per share of $10.43; non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $11.17, an increase of 17% * FY 2026 operating cash flow of $1.8 billion; free cash flow of $1.6 billion * Guiding to more than $1.85 billion in capital to be returned to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends during FY 2027; announced quarterly dividend increase of 10% to $0.66 per quarter

carbontag

I have an elderly relative with sizable annual RMDs. Rather than wait till December, she recently sold about $100K of her IRA’s high-performing funds rather than waiting till December. If the market climbs much more, she might sell to cover the remaining $70K of the RMD obligation. She might be leaving money on the table, but at some point, enough is enough.

paq12x

Index is 50% of my portfolio; SGOV is 20% (this is where I keep the cash for dip buying, mostly the index dip), so I don't have any single that's too large. My 4 largest positions account for less than 20% of my portfolio (Google is 800k; the other three are around 500k each, mostly due to the recent run-up). I don't know what to do if they become 50% of my portfolio. Maybe I'll look more into an exchange fund (where you exchange your concentrated position for index shares w/o paying tax, but you pay an annual fee). I also look into early retirement (or heavily defer compensation plans) to lower the tax on a particular year(s) to diversify. But the other half of the battle is to get the 401(k) account down to avoid a high RMD, so there's a lot of balancing to think about in the next couple of years.

ElevatorMoney4359

ResMed $RMD getting primed for earnings

Suspicious_Green8013

Yes RMDs in prior years kill NUA treatment You have to zero out the account in the same year you take the RMD Plan carefully or you lose the tax advantage

hopn

Its still early so not many company offer a Roth 401k matching. Most goes into traditional. Not sure about other brokers... but with Fidelity, if you run a statement report, it will show what amount belongs to which. Roth contributions balance. Roth growth balance, traditional contributions balance as well as traditional growth balance. Each will also apply to company matching and any additional company profit sharing balance. Its a very detailed breakdown. When its time to withdraw... like in 72(t), Rule of 55, or 59.5, you will have total control as to which type you want to withdraw... Roth or Traditional or a mix of both. Depending on plan, you can do an in plan Roth conversion! Also, at RMD, only the Traditional side will be considered in calculation. I know all these things cause im actively researching for my retirement in 2.4 years with Rule of 55.

Elegant_Degree_6902

Outside of selling stocks and taking capital gains and/or leveraging muni's for non-taxable income (which is portfolio inefficient due to lost compounding) are there ideas out there for how we can generate very high portfolio income in retirement \~ $300K/yr while preserving as much tax bracket capacity as possible for Roth conversions. We have very high tax deferred account balances today and can use the bracket capacity to avoid RMD oblivion. Not sure if this is the right forum but throwing it out there in case anyone has thought about or has ideas specific to that strategy. Thanks

Ridge_Capital

I am long on RMD, if you want you can check my profile.

deeptones

One more: $RMD - I don't buy GLP-1 disruption for cpap machines. And the data agrees with me so far.

HandyManPat

No, it’s not correct. Under recent IRS rule changes, if the account holder passed away in 2026, the beneficiary would have until Dec 31, 2027, to complete the decedent’s year of death RMD.

Overall-Structure-21

my parent passed at the end of march, and i believe we have an RMD due at the end of this year (2026) because parent didn’t withdraw for this year yet. does that sound correct? thank you-

HandyManPat

You are a designated beneficiary subject to the 10-year rule to fully deplete the Inherited IRA. Since your father had reached his Required Beginning Date (RBD) for RMDs, you must continue taking RMDs during the 10-year period. Your first RMD, which is computed based on your Life Expectancy Factor not your father’s, must be taken by Dec 31 of the year following the year of death. If he just recently passed away it would be Dec 31, 2027. If your father has not completed his RMD for the year of death, the beneficiary must do so from the Inherited IRA. The beneficiary has until Dec 31 of the year following the year of death to complete the decedent’s RMD. If he just recently passed away it would be Dec 31, 2027. (If there are multiple beneficiaries the decedent’s RMD can be divided between them in any ratio they agree on as long as the total is met by the Dec 31, 2027, deadline.) Note that although both RMDs must be taken by Dec 31, 2027, it might be to your tax advantage to spread some or all of the RMDs across both 2026 and 2027 tax years.

big_deal

> do you know if the first rmd needs to be split 50/50, like an above commenter posted? Only if it fulfills your father's required RMD. If it's your personal RMD, then it's going to be based on your individual inherited account balance and age.

big_deal

Your RMD's are based on your own age so it has to be calculated individually. However, it might be possible that your father did not take a required RMD and so both heirs need to pay equally for the missing RMD to fulfill your father's RMD obligation. We've recently gone through this too - sorry for your loss.

EchoVictory

Maintaining inter-connectivity of tax liability across separate beneficiaries accounts would be a logistical nightmare for you and the IRS. The pie has been distributed, each Beneficiary deals with their own crust (RMD) now. Each Beneficiary's RMD is calculated from their individual inherited accounts value, and what the decedent's age would have been at each year end. [https://www.investor.gov/financial-tools-calculators/calculators/required-minimum-distribution-calculator](https://www.investor.gov/financial-tools-calculators/calculators/required-minimum-distribution-calculator)

Ltjenkins

It can be split however you want. Just so long as the entire amount is taken. But to be clear, that is only for the final RMD that the decedent had not taken yet in the year they died. You and the other beneficiary will each have your own RMDs calculated each year beginning the year after the decedent died.

McKnuckle_Brewery

RMD for the first year only, i.e. the year the person died, is based on the value of the IRA on 12/31 of the **prior** year. In other words, when they were still alive. So that amount is known at the time of death and can be split 50/50 to be equitable. In subsequent years, the RMD will be individual for each of you, because - again - it is based on the end-of-year final value of the IRA. And you each have a different, separate IRA, with potentially different investments and withdrawals. So your balances will be different, and your RMDs not linked in any way.

Ltjenkins

Just to make sure you’re not conflating two concepts. There are potentially two RMDs you need to take. Did the decedent have their own RMD this year that had not been taken? If so, then yes you and the other beneficiary will need to satisfy that RMD by the end of next year. You each will need to distribute 50% of that number. In addition, you both will each have your own RMD beginning next year.

Overall-Structure-21

do you know if the required RMD is a combined number for both of us to withdraw, or is it a separate number for each of us to withdraw?

EchoVictory

Inherited IRA's need to be empty 10 years from the date of passing. An annual withdrawal, compensating for gains, to empty the account would minimize tax impacts of significantly size accounts. So upward of 10% of the original value per year would be needed. You may find this number higher than the RMD. If so, only withdrawing RMD could leave you will a large year 10 withdrawal. Depending on the size and beneficiaries income at the time it could fill higher tax brackets.

PutinBoomedMe

You have separate RMDs. The only scenario where you two have to make a decision on who gets what is the year of death assuming your parent hadn't taken their RMD

Admirable_Nothing

Each of you will have an RMD.

Nuclear_N

That brokerage trap is real. So is the RMD with deferred. 100k a year will not deplete. Not a bad problem I guess. At least it’s in a decent broad index.

ElevatorMoney4359

Caught ResMed $RMD at the open and closed for 40%. Done for the day see u regards tomorrow. RMD will be a good buy around 190ish again later this week

dvdmovie1

"ELF (e.l.f. Beauty): 10%" I owned it originally from the $80's until a bit under $200 and sold after it started eroding off highs. Thought I'd left money on the table. Cut to: $50's. The re-rating of a consumer growth story is significant, see also: CELH. Can you do well after that? Sure, but it depends on why it re-rated and can it regain the kind of growth profile it had? Stuff like this (and CELH) were reminders why I don't like investing in consumer brands. "SFM (Sprouts Farmers Market): 9.1%" Nasty re-rating. Probably does okay going forward but given that it's not cheap, not the place to be if the economy cools. "ADBE (Adobe): 11%" I don't like it. Obviously not apples-to-apples, but it feels like it's going to be this sub's next PYPL: something that people go "but it's cheap" and "the buybacks" year after year as it erodes. It's clearly not operating in the same environment going forward that it's enjoyed for decades, I think even people bullish can agree on that. "NVO (Novo Nordisk): 9%" I bought some not that long ago. I'm glad that I emphasized LLY instead of owning NVO in recent years but it was cheap enough recently to consider. "RMD (ResMed): 7.5%" The TAM is going to be smaller going forward imho, so unless it becomes extraordinarily cheap I don't see the reasoning behind making this such a large position. "VEEV (Veeva Systems): 7.5%" Eh. It hasn't been that compelling imo in a while, even before the SaaS negativity. You are largely trying to be a value investooor and while there's nothing wrong with that, my one concern would be that your entire portfolio is going to be fairly correlated. You've done well lately as part of a rotation into names that haven't done as well, but if that rotation stopped tomorrow, you could easily see the opposite over the next 3 weeks. Selective bottom feeding is great, but imho it's allocating part of your portfolio to selected situations where you have a distinct thesis/near-term catalyst in mind - I wouldn't make it the entire portfolio. Something can be at a 5 year low and seem cheap but if it doesn't have a catalyst it can go to a 10 year low. Look at BSX back to where it was about 22 years ago. Good luck.

ElevatorMoney4359

Looking for ResMed $RMD to have another 5% drop in the next week or two so i can reenter before earnings. If I miss the boat, oh well

ElevatorMoney4359

ResMed RMD debit calls are so free

ElevatorMoney4359

If RMD ResMed drops below 200 in the next week it will be a great time to load more calls 6+ months out

ElevatorMoney4359

30 days until ResMed RMD earnings where it will absolutely rip. Institutional sentiment has done a reversal this past month after the stock became oversold

ElevatorMoney4359

ResMed $RMD ripping to almost 5% today after 4% on thursday. Up 13% on the week and month. Yet, WSB sleeps

ElevatorMoney4359

The sickest part about ResMed $RMD is that most people with sleep apnea havent even been diagnosed yet. Consumers are increasingly interested in their sleep and health tracking (see google fitbit air, whoop, garmin cirqa, etc) which indirectly navigates patients to getting treatment for their poor sleep

ElevatorMoney4359

!banbet RMD 240 August 6

ElevatorMoney4359

Where ResMed $RMD gang at

Zestyclose-Rain-2943

The logic is generally sound and is often referred to as asset location rather than asset allocation. Higher expected return assets are frequently better suited for Roth accounts because all future appreciation can potentially be withdrawn tax-free. That said, I wouldn't optimize for taxes in isolation. Your overall portfolio risk, expected retirement tax bracket, RMD considerations, and rebalancing flexibility all matter. Optimizing the household balance sheet is usually more valuable than optimizing a single account

1h8fulkat

My nephew inherited an IRA from his dad and a life insurance payout. Input the payout in a UTMA and he receives an RMD (which you have to keep track of) annually from the inherited IRA. I put those proceeds into his UTMA as well and I invested it aggressively. He has tripled the value of those accounts in the last 8 years.

greytoc

Your situation is probably best discussed with your RIA if possible. With RMD and other factors - it usually is a lot more complicated than just picking an allocation. It's also going to depend a lot on your personal risk tolerance and how much you plan to withdraw.

jdub965

Not true if you have a very substantial pretax account going in to retirement with a pension plus social security for recurring income. Withdrawals and a pension will likely trigger IRMAA and NIIT which are additional costs. This will become even more acute when you are forced to take RMD’s and effective tax rate increases.

Qs9bxNKZ

Yes, to a degree. Don't believe everyone who says "put as much in" because it's not always fiscally wise. There is a cap of about $75K per year for a 401K if you include things like after-tax income. If it were absolutely advantageous, people would max out - and they don't. Maximize the pre-tax contribution (with or without the company match) up to a point. What you want to do is then forecast until you're about 73 years of age and determine what your required-minimum-distributions will be. If your RMD is going to be massively heavy in terms of taxable income, that means you're contributing too much - this is why the full $75K / yr contribution is not worth it. In order : 401K up until the pre-tax max is it for most people, IRA again capped about $8000/yr or whatever it is, then an equities account.

Silver_Surfer_60

If you were born in the year 1960 or later, RMD's kick in when you turn 75.

scubajay2001

401K simply means your employer contributes too. Within that bucket, their contributions are made as a "pre-tax" and thus lowers their obligation on it. There's also likely vesting tied to it based on your tenure. When it comes to YOUR contributions you can either make them as a pre-tax deduction from your income, or post-tax as a Roth contribution. So, in your scenario if you make $100K and contribute 10% to a 401K here's the impact both ways: \- Just making the Safe Harbor contribution means your annual taxable salary is now $90K. But, when you go to take that money out, it will be taxed on withdraw (possibly at a higher rate if taxes go up). If you wait until you are 73, you'll be forced into taking a withdraw of a certain minimum at that time, called a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD). \- Making a post tax contribution, means your taxable income is still that $100K. Because you've already made your tax payments, it now is growing tax free and you can take it out without owing anything (after 59.5) without penalties. No RMDs either, leave it in, take it out as you prefer. With a 10-15 year horizon, I'd go with Roth at this point...padding that as much as you can now is better because it'll grow past your retirement date, and hopefully you won't need it too soon, so it can continue to grow tax free.

HolidayTangerine2753

An example response from Hermes:  **Top opportunities (quality + on sale + stable)** **INTU — Intuit @ $296.76** \- ROE: 22.5% | Margin: 21.9% | Debt/Eq: 33% \- Rev growth: 10.4% | P/E: 18.1 \- **Down 63% from 52-week high**, -27% in 30 days \-  QoQ numbers look distorted: revenue +84%, income +342%, margin +21%. This smells like acquisition accounting (Mailchimp/ProConnect) or a one-time tax benefit. Don't trust the acceleration signal here without reading the latest 10-Q. **NFLX — Netflix @ $82.18** \- ROE: 48.5% | Margin: 28.5% | Debt/Eq: 54% \- Rev growth: 16.2% | P/E: 26.5 \- Down 38.7% from high, -6.9% in 30 days \- QoQ: income +118%, margin +23%. Fundamentals accelerating while price drops. Still a strong compounder; the drop may reflect subscriber saturation fears or competitive pressure. **NEM — Newmont @ $99.71** \- ROE: 25.8% | Margin: 33.9% | Debt/Eq: 16% \- Rev growth: 45.8% | P/E: 12.9 \- Down 25.8% from high \-  Gold miner = cyclical. That 45% revenue growth and 33% margin could be peak-of-cycle. Low P/E in mining is often a trap, not a bargain. Treat as a commodity bet, not a durable compounder. **RMD — ResMed @ $196.04** \- ROE: 25.2% | Margin: 27.4% | Debt/Eq: 13% \- Rev growth: 10.8% | P/E: 18.9 \- Down 32.8% from high \- QoQ is flat (rev +0.6%, income +1.6%). Stable but not accelerating. Medical devices moat is solid; GLP-1/weight-loss drug overhang may be pressuring sleep-apnea sentiment. **MKC — McCormick @ $47.24** \- ROE: 25.3% | Margin: 23.1% | Debt/Eq: 65% \- Rev growth: 16.7% | P/E: 7.7 \- Down 37.8% from high \-  That P/E 7.7 and QoQ income +351% / margin +42% scream one-time gain or restructuring benefit. Do not trust the screen alone here. **PODD — Insulet @ $153.22** \- ROE: 23% | Margin: 10.4% | Debt/Eq: 78% \- Rev growth: 33.9% | P/E: 35.8 \- Down 57% from high \- QoQ revenue -2.8%, income -10%, margin -1%. Slight deterioration — watch closely. Omnipod competition heating up? **ROL — Rollins @ $47.10** \- ROE: 38.7% | Margin: 13.8% | Debt/Eq: 77% \- Rev growth: 10.2% | P/E: 43.2 \- Down 28% from high \- QoQ revenue -0.7%, income -7.4%. Pest control is recession-resistant but not immune. High P/E means expectations are still priced in.

Possible_Sign_2564

For this topic, I’d look less for a general investing podcast and more for episodes from CFP/CPA types who focus on retirement tax planning. The areas you’re talking about are pretty specific: Roth conversions, withdrawal order, tax brackets before/after retirement, capital gains harvesting, RMDs, Social Security timing, and how taxable/Roth/traditional accounts work together. A lot of normal investing podcasts touch taxes, but they don’t go deep enough to be useful for actual planning. I’d search for terms like: “retirement tax planning” “Roth conversion ladder” “tax-efficient withdrawal strategy” “asset location” “capital gains harvesting” “RMD planning” I’ve found the most useful content is usually from fee-only planner/CPA-style shows, not stock-picking or market commentary podcasts. The big thing is learning the framework: which account to pull from, in what order, and how that changes depending on tax bracket, FIRE timeline, and retirement date. Are you mainly trying to learn this for your own FIRE/retirement plan, or because you want to eventually help other people with planning?

ConsequenceFade

A 401k had required minimum distributions. So it does not potentially hurt tax revenue as much as a Roth which never has RMD. Also, if tax rates go up in the future, 401k are still affected but not the Roth. Don't ask me about the backdoor roth with which came later.

ElevatorMoney4359

Anyone else have a long position in ResMed $RMD this stock is undervalued 20k in calls 15k in stock

ElevatorMoney4359

Anyone else have money on Resmed $RMD. whats your position? I have 20k on 200/240 1/27 calls

jvaritek33c

**First — confirm an RMD is even owed, and check you're not already late.** For a non-spouse beneficiary under the 10-year rule, whether you must take *annual* RMDs depends entirely on whether the original owner had reached their required beginning date (RBD) when they died: - **Died on/after their RBD** (i.e. was already taking their own RMDs): you must take an annual RMD in years 1–9 and empty the account by year 10. Starting in 2025, missed RMDs can result in penalties [Keystonecapitalpartnersgroup](https://www.keystonecapitalpartnersgroup.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2025-changes-to-inherited-ira-rules) — a 25% penalty on the amount you should have withdrawn, reducible to 10% if you withdraw the right amount within two years and file Form 5329. [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/24/inherited-iras-change-2025.html) - **Died before their RBD:** no annual RMD required — you just have to empty it by the end of year 10, on whatever schedule you like. So "letting it build up and compound" is only fully available in that second case. If the owner had started RMDs and you inherited ~a year ago, a distribution may already have been due (the deadline is Dec 31), and that's a penalty exposure to clean up. (If you're a *spouse* beneficiary, ignore all of this — you have separate, more flexible options.) **On the timing question itself, assuming you have discretion:** The honest framing is that it hinges on whether you need the cash. If it's funding living expenses, monthly makes sense — steady income plus dollar-cost-averaging out, so no single bad day matters. If you're reinvesting it into a taxable account, a year-end lump is the textbook move: it leaves the money compounding *tax-deferred* inside the IRA as long as possible. And even if you have full discretion through year 10, letting it all ride to the final year usually backfires — one giant taxable distribution can spike you into a higher bracket, so spreading across years is generally smarter than maximizing compounding. **On "good day vs. dipped day" for the lump:** Two things make this matter less than it feels like it should. The RMD is a *fixed dollar amount* (prior Dec 31 balance ÷ your life-expectancy factor), so the day doesn't change what you owe. And if you're selling to raise the cash, an up day is marginally better only because you liquidate fewer shares to hit that dollar figure — but daily timing isn't something you can reliably call. The cleaner answer: you don't have to sell at all. Take the RMD **in-kind** — transfer the shares themselves to a taxable brokerage account. The value on the transfer date satisfies the RMD, you stay continuously invested, and you never lock in a dip. You just need cash elsewhere to cover the taxes, since the distribution is taxable income regardless of whether you sold. I'm not a financial advisor, and the RBD determination above is the kind of detail worth confirming with a CPA or the IRA custodian, since the penalty math turns on it.

ElevatorMoney4359

Someone talk to me about their Resmed $RMD position and conviction

MayorMcCheezz

The boomers are addicted. When I visit my grandparents in the retirement home. There was a lot of old people talking about how they have their RMD deposits already set up to buy new stocks.

Nicole_FreeWill

The ETF route gets complicated because most ESG or thematic funds are structured around investing in companies aligned with a cause, not donating to it. The returns go to you. The cancer research hospitals are not seeing a dollar from your share appreciation. If the goal is actually getting money to the cause with some tax efficiency, a donor-advised fund is closer to what you are describing. You contribute appreciated assets, get the full deduction in the year you contribute, then grant out to specific organizations over time. Fidelity Charitable and Schwab both have DAFs with no minimum grant size. The other option if you are 70 and a half or older is a QCD directly from an IRA. Goes straight to a qualifying charity, never hits your income, counts toward your RMD. From the nonprofit side this is one of the cleanest ways to give because there are no capital gains complications and the acknowledgment is straightforward. I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill

The ETF route gets complicated because most ESG or thematic funds are structured around investing in companies aligned with a cause, not donating to it. The returns go to you. The cancer research hospitals are not seeing a dollar from your share appreciation. If the goal is actually getting money to the cause with some tax efficiency, a donor-advised fund is closer to what you are describing. You contribute appreciated assets, get the full deduction in the year you contribute, then grant out to specific organizations over time. Fidelity Charitable and Schwab both have DAFs with no minimum grant size. The other option if you are 70 and a half or older is a QCD directly from an IRA. Goes straight to a qualifying charity, never hits your income, counts toward your RMD. From the nonprofit side this is one of the cleanest ways to give because there are no capital gains complications and the acknowledgment is straightforward. I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Lowfi-Concert

That money doesn’t get brought back in and reconverted to RMD once it’s smuggled out

KidfromConeyIsland

Just my 2 Cents…. 1st- great job on setting investment and retirement objectives!! I assume you have some $$$ in retirement accounts, if so, do not sleep on the benefits of a Roth IRA. I did and it’s the only regret that I have. As you age during retirement and pull RMD, the taxman will take a significant cut. You can reduce the cut with a Roth. Again, just my 2 cents, based upon experience and not from being a tax professional.

Nicole_FreeWill

Rolling the 403b into the IRA before your first RMD year makes the math cleaner and is generally the right call for simplification. Timing it before year 72 rather than right before year 73 gives you more flexibility and avoids any ambiguity about which account the RMD is calculated from. One angle worth thinking about before you get into RMD territory: if charitable giving is part of your plan, qualified charitable distributions become available at 70 and a half. QCDs let you direct up to 105,000 dollars per year directly from the IRA to a qualifying charity without the amount hitting your income. That keeps your AGI lower, reduces the Medicare premium impact, and satisfies part of your RMD in the most tax-efficient way available. From the nonprofit side, QCDs need to go directly from the custodian to the charity. If the distribution comes to you first it becomes ordinary income plus a separate donation. That distinction matters a lot for how organizations acknowledge the gift. I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

aVolatileAgent

This may or may not be what you are looking for, but I hope you find it helpful: We have an only child. By the time she was 8 or so, I noticed her not being as grateful for the things she received as I would have liked. One day, I had had enough, and we decided to stop buying the various things that she wanted (not necessities) except on her birthday and Christmas. In place of that, I told her she was going to be receiving a weekly allowance of $10 (this was roughly 2010). Of that $10, she had to save $2, keep $1 for charity, and the remaining $7 could be spent how she wanted. In addition, I opened her a kids' checking account and got her a debit card. This completely changed how she handled money. She began to prioritize her wants and actively saved for the things that were important to her. She started looking for sales/bargains. As she got older, I started teaching her the basics of budgeting and investing. I emphasized to her that the $2 she saved weekly was 20% of her "income". Once she started seeing her savings accumulating, she decided to start saving 25% of all the money she received for Christmas, birthdays, etc. I initially funneled all her savings into a HYSA. As her balance grew to a few thousand dollars over her teen years, I opened an additional brokerage account at Vanguard to invest her money (100% VTI). I boosted her balance by $250 per month with an IRA RMD I was receiving after my father died in 2009. That RMD wasn't enough to change my monthly situation, and I felt that he would have wanted it to benefit her. When she turned 16 and started a job, she started saving 25% of her pay. Since she wasn't earning enough to pay taxes, I directed all of that money to max out her Roth contribution each year. I added the RMD from my father's IRA each month to help meet the yearly max. She continued this through college graduation. Fast forward to now, as a 22-year-old out in the world with a job and paying her own way...she has almost 10k in a HYSA, 25k in a taxable brokerage, and 60k in Roth. She is continuing to save 20% of her take-home pay for retirement. The other thing I did for her financially was add her as an authorized user on several of my credit cards when she was as young as 12. She never had access to the cards, but I wanted to start her credit history. When she turned 18, she got her own card. I taught her not to buy anything she doesn't have cash to pay for, never carry a balance, and to pay her card off weekly. She called me a few weeks ago to thank me for teaching her about money and budgeting...she said that she would not be able to do what she is doing without that knowledge. She sees what her friends' financial situations are like, and feels pretty grateful for the position she's in now. It made me tear up just hearing that from her. I'm hoping this has helped set her up for success as an adult, at least in the financial sense. I

R101C

I would counter that, from a kids perspective, holding that cash random until you're dead, also sucks. My mom told me something similar the other day. We would get some inheritance some day. Based on her family's female longevity, I'll be in my 70s. Based on my both of my parents' family's male life expectancy, I'll probably be in my last decade. When the men make 75 and the women make 95, consistently, and your moms 24 yrs older than you... All it does is complicate my tax management strategies when I'm at RMD age. She's better off giving it to my nephews. I'll get an unknown amount of money that I'll need to deal with in a fixed window. By then my nest egg already does all the work. I can't budget or save around it. Which means my life is no different. It sucks all the value out of the gift... Other than she feels good about giving us kids money, some day. My parents are a year from Rmd's and are dealing with an inherited ira. It's pushing them up a tax bracket. Had they seen this coming and known the value, they could have planned better. Personally, I prefer my brother's in-laws strategy. They asked the kids if they wanted an inheritance in cash or a lake house. Turns out they are all enjoying the house, it's doubled in value since purchase, and the memories are worth far more than the money. Hell, they've invited me down a few times and I've had a blast with them. I'd rather my parents did that vs leaving me money when I'm 70. Give me all the experiences and memories. My SO is a cancer survivor, but that scary shit never leaves our lives completely. Let's also enjoy today. I'll just remember my folks as frugal to the point of sucking the joy out of life. They will pass on whatever they don't use. Most of my memories are about cheap take out, the par 3 golf course (cuz regular golf is too expensive), and the time my mom was going to make me a cake for my birthday, but it took 4 eggs for that variety, and eggs were expensive, so she swapped it for cookies that only took 2 eggs.

cdude

If I were in your position, I'd liquidate all the individual stocks, leave EJ and put it in a better brokerage and stick with an index fund. Yes, you should spread any pre-tax RMD over 10 years. You still have room in the 24% bracket. Taking the full amount out would mean a lot of the distribution lands in the 32% bracket, paying additional taxes for no reasons. Your Roth RMDs are tax-free so you can just do the entire amount.

Necessary--Weevil

Bro, hes just doing his RMD

Rdw72777

RMD’s aren’t particularly high, even on a 7-8-figure account. They don’t start until age 75, so people have 15 years to schedule withdrawals in a tax planning way before RMD’s. The worry of having too much money in retirement is ridiculous, and you’re vastly overstating the horrors of RMD’s.

KweenieQ

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I do carry different assets in taxable accounts than I do in tax-advantaged accounts. The general term for that is **strategic asset location.** My tax-advantaged assets outweigh my taxable assets by about 3 to 1. Some of the tax-advantaged assets are inherited (they have 9 more years) and came with RMDs. I've set up a MM-based cash buffer so that I should never have to cash anything out prematurely to fund an RMD. If I stick to the standard 10-year schedule for the inherited RMDs, they'll overlap with the RMDs for my own IRA for a couple years. I'm hoping that the taxable account will supplement cash flow (if needed) without the bigger tax bite. If it isn't needed, I'll continue draining the trad IRA first (either thru RMD or charitable donation), leaving what's left, plus a Roth and taxable accounts to my heirs.

Wide-Bet4379

I prefer Roth because it'll give me more freedom. If I want to take out extra one year, I won't care about tax brackets. If I don't want to take any at all, I don't have to care about RMD's.

i_am_viet

You do realize the HSA behaves like a tIRA after age 65? And that it has additional benefits over IRAs? * Not subjected to RMD rules. * Contributions not subjected to FICA. That is another 7.65% in taxes recovered. * No taxation on qualified medical expenses.

Hot_Medicine_476

the employer match is completely non-negotiable -- that's a guaranteed 50-100% return on your contribution and NO taxable account can replicate that. you always capture the full match, full stop. beyond the match is where it gets interesting. the real argument for ALSO building a taxable brokerage isn't that taxable beats a 401k (it usually doesn't). it's about WITHDRAWAL FLEXIBILITY in retirement. if your entire nest egg is in a traditional 401k, every dollar you pull out is ordinary income -- no exceptions. but if you have traditional 401k, roth, and taxable working together, you can blend your withdrawals to stay in a lower bracket. take $40k from taxable at LTCG rates, $30k from Roth tax-free, and only dip into traditional for the rest. suddenly you're managing your effective rate instead of just taking what you're forced to take. the RMD thing is also underrated here. let $2M+ sit in a traditional 401k until 73 and the IRS is going to force distributions whether you need the money or not. stack that on top of Social Security and you could end up in a higher bracket than you were in your working years. that's the scenario where people look back and wish they'd done more Roth or taxable along the way. so the answer isn't "stop contributing to 401k." its "always get the match, then build the other buckets intentionally so you have OPTIONS later." tax rate predictions are a coin flip, but having multiple account types to choose from is ALWAYS valuable regardless of which way rates move.

Potato_Donkey_1

You're getting the benefit of untaxed growth and earnings until you hit RMD age. It's true that we have a national debt burden, two political parties that refuse to confront it realistically, and will probably have something very different in the future in terms of taxes and private wealth. How do you tax plan for global or national systematic collapses? I think the answer is that you invest a little for some extreme contingencies and hope that we will keep muddling through. But in terms of outcomes in the main body of the bell curve, 401k contributions keep making sense.

belovedkid

That tax rates can change.…and that after tax accounts have more net value over 30-50 years of compounding than a deferred account of any type irregardless of taxes. The ONLY time this could be possible is if you plan on taking gigantic chunks out in retirement and depleting the deferred account very quickly. RMDs are not a concern regarding income because you can use QCDs to remove that income from your return. You can also convert portions of the IRA to a Roth in pre-RMD years to reduce RMD requirements. Only the largest IRA balances would need to worry about not being able to offset with QCDs. Those people typically have plenty of wealth and would prefer to spend down their traditional IRAs before anything else anyone and eat the taxes so their heirs don’t have to. Returns are higher in deferred accounts because dividends and interest are not taxed until taken out. If I own an S&P fund and 20ish % of my total return comes from dividends (which is low compared to historical), assuming a 25% Fed/State marginal rate, I’m giving up 5% of my total return annually during working years. Compound that difference over 20-40+ years and it makes a huge difference, especially when you control what comes out of the IRA. This isn’t even considering somebody with a lower risk tolerance who wants higher div/int in their portfolio.

plawwell

If your RMD is $340k then your IRMAA delta is only $2450. It's buttons so stop spreading FUD.

Careful-One5190

Not a nothing burger for many of us. And it doesn't require a "gargantuan" RMD. It absolutely CAN happen for regular people. Maybe not you, though.

mapleflaked

Roth has no RMD rules as compared to normal 401k

plawwell

To hit that amount requires a gargantuan RMD for a particular year. That just doesn't happen for regular people. It's a nothing burger so move on.

wild_b_cat

I think the question is: are you facing that excess RMD because the market did better than your expectations after you retired? Or because you waited too long to retire?

owenmills04

What if your RMD requires you to pull out 200k/year, but the tax brackets at that time step up at 150k and that's all you want/need to take to stay in a lower bracket? And yes your heirs getting a tax bomb isn't ideal This strategy doesn't apply to much of the population that isn't maxing out their tax buckets, and likely won't have high RMDs or a large balance at end of life I never said it did though

MattieShoes

Not parent poster, but yeah, it's kind of a fake problem unless you're worried about inheritances. The withdrawal rates we're talking about are ~4% for people in their 70s and hits ~5% around age 80. Those rates are low. Subsidy cliffs are real, but it's still first world problems. Plus it's not like you can't plan ahead, like Roth conversions before RMD kicks in. And if that ain't enough, then it's because "boo hoo too much money" -- we're back to inheritance crap.

Kindly-Eagle6207

>You're obviously not retired and just aren't familiar with the math and how SS and Medicare work Translation: I'm taking advantage of Healthcare subsidies and social welfare for people significantly poorer than I actually am and I'm incredibly pissed off that I might be forced to pay my fair share decades after I retire. There's no universe where RMDs leave you unable to pay your bills. If you hit a welfare cliff due to income limits you can withdraw more to cover the gap in premium payments for the year. Since RMDs are based on life expectancy and account value one of two things will happen the next year: 1. You have enough money left that you're forced to withdraw over the income cliff again. Or 2. Last year's RMD has dropped your account value low enough that your RMD for this year is under the subsidy limit. Realistically if you're moaning about the "tax trap" of RMDs, it will never be 2. You will always withdraw more money than you need and pay taxes on it rather than getting to hoard it for, at best, a late life inheritance that would be worth significantly less to your kids than helping them out earlier in life.

Jumpy_Childhood7548

If you can get a state and federal deduction for contributing your extra funds into a 401k, or similar plan, that may be more advantageous, especially if you also invest the tax savings, as you save at your combined marginal bracket, during your highest earning years, with tax deferral of gains, till your 70’s, with only a RMD of about 3.7% initially per year then. Even your beneficiaries can defer some taxation.

Careful-One5190

An RMD is not a bonus, and that is not a valid comparison. You're obviously not retired and just aren't familiar with the math and how SS and Medicare work, or you don't have enough in your 401k to make much of a difference anyway. For many of us, it's not a "fake problem" at all. Learn a little.

cliftondon

When people load up the boat in a traditional retirement account, they are stuck with a big clunky battleship with no idea what the water will be like and limited control over when they can set sail. Past the point of free money in an employer match, I fail to see why anyone would shovel any more money into these, though it’s a matter of conviction and security for some. Also, a six-figure RMD is also a good problem to have, but it’s a bad one to have if you don’t want to be taxed on it for any specific reasons in a specific year. All that growth could be taxed much less in a brokerage or not at all in a Roth. And in their own way taxable brokerages are tax deferred - growth can happen over years and decades, you decide when you sell, not the federal government via RMD, and when you do it’s NOT taxed as ordinary income. Roth is a no-brainer if you can do one directly or via backdoor. But some people get inhibited by the complexity when they make too much or don’t qualify for a contributory Roth. Taxable brokerage is so easy and so powerful