Can somebody give a brief comparison of TSP and IRAs?
Ideally, one would contribute the maximum amount you're allowed to both the TSP and an IRA. For the 2015 tax year, that would be $18,000 for the TSP and $5,500 for the IRA (if you're 50 or older, then you can add an additional catch up amount of $6,000 to the TSP and $1,000 to the IRA). If, like most people, you cannot contribute the maximum to both, then I would recommend the TSP over an IRA, until you've maximized your TSP. Unquestionably, you should contribute at least enough to the TSP to get the maximum agency match. Beyond that, there is a case to be made to contribute to an IRA for certain investors. Benefits of TSP, compared to IRA: Benefits of IRA, compared to TSP: So, for an investor who wants simplicity, I would recommend just doing the TSP (unless you can invest more, in which case an IRA is a smart choice). For a knowledgeable and motivated investor, it can make sense to also have an IRA to gain access to asset classes not in the TSP's basic index funds. The TSP is similar to a 401K.  If you were hired as a federal employee on or after 1 January 1987 you are under the FERS retirement program. That means that you are eligible for matching. If they will match your deposits then the TSP, up to the matching limit, is a better choice. Skipping the TSP will mean that you you are leaving money on the table.
"You didn't have a situation of ""excess contribution"". If you have proof that someone in Fidelity actually told you what you said, you might try to recover some of your losses through a lawsuit. However, their first (and main) defense would be that they're not in the business of providing tax advice, and it is your problem that you asked random person a tax question, and then acted on an incorrect answer. By the way, that only goes to say that anything you might read here you should, as well, take with a grain of salt. The only one who can give you a tax advice is a licensed tax professional. I explained it in details in my blog post, but in short - it is either an EA (Enrolled Agent, with the IRS credentials), or a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or Attorney licensed in your State. Back to your question - ""Excess Contribution"" to a IRA is when you contribute in excess to the limits imposed. For Traditional IRA in 2012 the limit was $5000. You contributed $4000 - this means that you were not in excess. There's nothing they can ""correct"", the 1099-R you got seems to be correct and in order. What you did have was a case of non-deductible contribution. Non-deductible contribution to your IRA should have been reported to the IRS on form 8606. Non-deductible contribution creates basis in your IRA. Withdrawals from your IRA are prorated to the relation of your basis to your total value, and the taxable amount is determined based on that rate. It is, also, calculated using form 8606. So in short - you should have filed a form 8606 with your 2012 tax return declaring non-deductible IRA and creating $4000 basis, and then form 8606 with your 2013 tax return calculating which portion of the $4000 you withdrew is non-taxable. If your total IRA (in all accounts) was that $4000 - then nothing would be taxable. Talk to a tax adviser, you might need to amend your 2012 return (or send the 2012 form separately, if possible), and then do some math on your 2013 return. If 60 days haven't passed, you might want to consider depositing the $4000 in a Roth IRA and perform what is called ""Conversion""." "I haven't heard 30-year mortgages called unwise. As @jared said, the shorter terms often will be cheaper if you are going to pay off within that term anyway, but the extra cost of the 30 may still be justified because it gives you the ""safety net"" of being able to fall back to the lower payment if money gets tight. Cheap insurance if you might need that insurance. That wasn't something I was worried about, so I took a 20-year, later refinanced as 15-year, and got a slightly better rate by doing so. Consider how long you expect to own this house, and shop for the best deal you can find. Remember to figure points into the real cost the loan. There are calculators on many bank/credit-union websites that can help you do this comparison." Will strongly vouch for this. Ray Dalio gives you the macro view in that video, while Ackman gives more of the micro view. Would highly recommend watching them both in the same sitting, particularly for somebody who is just entering their study of finance Somebody will have to file all the required paperwork and fees with the local government, state government and even the federal government. This paperwork is used by these governments to record who owns the property and how it is owned.  Prior to the settlement date they also will need to verify how the property is described and owned so that you are sure that you are being sold the exact property you expect, and that it is delivered to you free and clear of all other debts. If this is done wrong you might discover years later that you paid money for something that you don't really own. In some jurisdictions this has to be done via a law office, in others there is no requirement for a lawyer. Because a mortgage company, bank, or credit union is giving you money for the loan, they may require you to use a settlement attorney. They don't want to discover in 5 years that a simple mistake will cost them hundreds of thousands to fix. The mortgage company is required to give you a more detailed estimate of all the closing costs before you are committed to the loan. The quoted paragraph is not good enough. Even if you can avoid the use of a lawyer these functions still need to be done by somebody, and that will still cost money. Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror.  The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings.  Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index. Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages.  That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc.  As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800.  That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement.  In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k.  In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters).   So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821.  You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income.  [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now.  This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA.  (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.)  Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets.  If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate. "One difference is in the ability to split the pre-tax and after-tax portions of the Traditional account. (Note that earnings in a Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k) are always pre-tax, even if it was earned from after-tax money, so if you left the money for some amount of time after an after-tax contribution, chances are it's a mix of pre-tax and after-tax money.) When you take money out of a Traditional IRA, including for conversion to a Roth IRA, you are generally subject to the ""pro-rata rule"", which means that your withdrawal will consist of pre-tax and after-tax amounts in the same proportion as in your whole Traditional IRA. This means that a conversion of a Traditional IRA with any mix of pre-tax and after-tax amounts, will always be taxed on a portion of the withdrawal (the pre-tax portion), and it will leave some after-tax amounts in the Traditional IRA unless you take everything out. The only way to separate the pre-tax and after-tax amounts is to roll over to a Traditional 401(k) (if you have a 401(k) plan that allows this); rules say that only pre-tax amounts can be rolled over into a 401(k), so only pre-tax amounts are rolled over, and if you roll over all the pre-tax amounts, only after-tax amounts will remain. On the other hand, when you rollover your entire Traditional 401(k) to IRAs, you can choose to have the pre-tax portion rolled over to a Traditional IRA and the after-tax portion rolled over to a Roth IRA, separating them, due to IRS Notice 2014-54." The 1099 income is subject to the same total limit on IRA deposits. If you are looking to shelter more than $5500, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It offers higher limits and other potential advantages.