Which state do saving interests come from?
"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia.  Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located.  If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state.  Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual ""$'s"" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US."
"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is ""load"") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have ""retirement"" or ""senior"" in the name. A good question for any planner is ""Are you a fiduciary?"" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not ""on your side"" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The ""free"" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck." You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing. Credit cards are often more fool proof, against over-drawing. Consider Bill has solid cash flow, but most of their money is in his high interest savings account (earning interest) -- an account that doesn't have a card, but is accessible via online banking. Bill keeps enough in the debit (transactions) account for regular spending, much of which comes out automatically (E.g. rent, utilities), some of which he spends as needed eg shopping, lunch. On top of the day to day money Bill keeps an overhead amount, so if something happens he doesn't overdraw the account -- which would incur significant fees. Now oneday Bill sees that the giant flatscreen TV he has been saving for is on clearence sale -- half price!, and there is just one left. It costs more than he would normally spend in a week -- much more. But Bill knows that his pay should have just gone in, and his rent not yet come out. Plus the overhead he keep in the account . So there is money in his debit account. When he gets home he can open up online banking and transfer from his savings (After all the TV is what he was saving for) What Bill forgets is that there was a public holiday last week in the state where payroll is operated, and that his pay is going to go in a day late. So now he might have over drawn the account buying the TV, or maybe that was fine, but paying the rent over draws the account. Now he has a overdraft fee, probably on the order of $50. Most banks (at least where I am), will happily allow you to overdraw you account. Giving you a loan, at high interest and with an immediate overdraft fee. (They do this cos the fee is so high that they can tolerate the risk of the non-assessed loan.) Sometimes (if you ask) they don't let you do it with your own transcations (eg buying the TV), but they do let you do it on automated payements (eg the Rent). On the other hand banks will not let you over draw a credit card. They know exactly how much loan and risk they were going to take. If Bill had most of his transactions going on his credit card, then it would have just bounced at the cash register, and Bill would have remembered what was going on and then transferred the money. There are many ways you can accidentally overdraw your account. Particularly if it is a shared account. I believe this argument is most often used when considering which debts to pay back first, or when there are other options available such as investment options, building up an emergency fund, or saving for a large purchase.  In that case, it's simply justifying making minimum payments and paying more over the life of the loan in exchange for larger liquidity in the present. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between which debts to pay (e.g. My mom pays more than the minimum on her car because she can't deduct auto loan interest, despite her mortgage carrying a higher interest rate), it's only beneficial if the tax savings offsets the interest savings difference. The formula for that is: tax bracket > (1 - (target loan interest rate / mortgage interest rate)) That said, most people don't think in the long term, either by natural shortsightedness, or by necessity (need to have an emergency fund). This is subject to some amount of opinion, but I think that Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are closest to what you describe.  These are issued by the US Treasury like a treasury bond, but the rate is adjusted for inflation. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glance.htm I see your comment about taxes.  TIPS are exempt from state and local taxes, but they are subject to federal tax on the income and on the growth of the principal. Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect.  I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr.  The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support. "replace ""new member acquisition"" with ""new loans"" and see how true your statement isn't.  ...but more fundamentally, there are two factors that exclude banks from ponzi scheme membership:  1 - the thing they create is not in finite supply (they create money at a 10 to 1 rate by encumbering future labor proceeds).  Technically, one could argue that future labor proceeds *are* the thing that does have a finite supply.  I've never seen **anyone** post an estimate of the maximum supply of future labor proceeds (which is totally adjustable via inflation).  2 - they lend at a higher interest rate than they pay.  Technically, all they have to do is keep the time value of money under control with respect of inflation over the duration of loans and they're good." I wonder if this comment would be better under a conspiracy. But you know the banks can claim your income tax for payment of your college loans, and that the government is increasing how much you can get back on your income tax. Basically, isn't that just to get government money and giving it to the big banks?