Any experience with maxing out 401(k)?
The biggest challenge as a young person maxing out a 401k in my opinion is the challenge of saving for a house, and (if necessary) paying off student loans. You have to consider - are you OK renting for the next 3, 5, 10 years? Or do you eventually want to buy a place? how much will that cost vs your current expenses?  That being said, I didn't max out but had over 8-10% of 401k contribution in the same situation you're in right now and I don't regret it.  Rereading your question, I see you are considering investing in a Roth IRA. Especially at your current age, assuming your wages will go UP, investing to the company match with the 401K and then maxing out a Roth IRA would be my recommendation. THEN continue maxing out the 401k (if you wish).  P.S. I highly recommend doing two things if you go down this path: You want to take the hit now.   There are tons of calculators out there, but the rule of 70 should be enough to help convince you: Assume you can put an extra $10k in a 401k now, or keep it.  If you pay ~30% in taxes, you  can have either: A) $7k now, or: B) What $10K will grow to in your 40 years till retirement less taxes at the end. The rule of 70 is a quick, dirty way to calculate compounded returns.  It says that if you divide 70 by your assumed return, you get the approximate number of years it will take to double your money.   So let's say you assume a 5% rate of return (you can replace that with whatever you want): 1) 70/5 is 14, so you'll double your $10k every 14 years. 2) In 40 years, you'll double your money almost 3 times (2.86) 3) That means you'll end up with almost $80k before taxes 4) Even if we assume the same tax rate at retirement of 30% (odds are decent it's lower, since you'll have less income, presumably), you still have $56k. Whatever you think inflation will be, $56k later is a LOT better than $7k now. I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation.  Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan.  Pay that off first.  Then work on maxing the 401(k).  Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option.  It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits.  My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying. "On #1: One way to make it less painful is to ""split"" your raises between yourself and your 401k. That is, if you get a 2% raise, increase your contribution to the 401K by 1% and keep the other 1%. Keep doing this until you are maxed out. You won't miss money you never had nearly as much as money you were used to living on. On #2: Yes, go with the Roth. Another consideration: If you are ever going to max out your 401K it is best to do it early even if you have to cut back later than to wait. Take advantage of the extra investment time while you are young." I second CrimsonX's advice to max out Roth then 401k. At your age in what sounds like a similar situation I did the same thing -- thankfully. It's easier to do when you're young and unencumbered. 10 years later with kids, house, changing from double to single income, job changes, etc, it's harder to max out retirement accounts. Not to mention that priorities change, e.g. saving for college. Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving.  Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come.  You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time.  (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work. "To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that!  I did even a bit more.  I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either.  In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I ""front-loaded"" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year.  (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a ""buffer"" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or ""front-loading"" 401(k) contributions.  You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck.  As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving  priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern.  (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment.  I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends.  If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no.  Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year.  People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand.  But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck.  It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits).  So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice.  After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc." "The answers so far are excellent. I need to respond to your 8-9% withdrawal rate. Uh, wherever you heard that, I'd suggest you listen/read elsewhere. 4% seems to be the ""safe"" withdrawal rate. I've seen people who were convinced that 7-10% were ok get absolutely trashed in the downturns, both 2000 and 2008. Proper asset allocation and low withdrawal rate will help avoid disaster. I wrote an article about the assumptions we make, looking at 1980-2000 and extrapolating from there. Not pretty. In 2000, I remarked that the near 20%/yr couldn't continue. Understatement of my life. I expected a return to normalcy, maybe 8-10%/yr, and got zero." Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23.  I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so.  I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so.   Another consideration:  Is your companies program a good one?  if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match.  Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there.  The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year.  Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year.  Otherwise you may miss out on your company match.  It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not.  It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future.  On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth. Don't forget to also build up an emergency fund - retirement saving is important, but you don't want to be caught in a situation where you need money for an emergency (lose your job, get hit by a bus, etc.) and it's all locked away in your 401(k).
401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you. In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement. "Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that.  (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet -  We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred.  EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme -  In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal.  The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 ""zero bracket"" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate).  Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between.  In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc.  Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income." "401(k) doesn't have a ""return rate"", because 401(k) is not a type of investment -- it is a vehicle for investment, with certain tax treatments. Just like your money that's not in a 401(k), you can invest it in either the bank, a CD, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc., you can similarly (depending on the options given to you by your 401(k) plan) invest the money in the 401(k) in a cash account, buy stocks, mutual funds, etc. Your return is dependent on how you invest your money, not whether it's in a 401(k) or not. Whether it's in a (Roth or Traditional) 401(k) simply affects when and how it gets taxed. (It is true that most 401(k) plans offer little variety in types of investments you can choose; however, this is not a big deal, as chances are that in a few years, you will leave your company, at which point you are able to rollover the 401(k) into an IRA, at which point you will have many, many options for how to invest it.) To make a valid comparison, you should be comparing the same type of investment in both cases. That means, you should assume the same return for both the money outside the 401(k), and the money inside the 401(k), and only consider the taxes and penalties (if you plan to withdraw early)." Please note that if you are self employed, then the profit sharing limit for both the SEP and Solo 401(k) is 20% of compensation, not 25%. There is no need for a SEP-IRA in this case.  In addition to the 401(k) at work, you have a solo-401(k) for your consulting business.  You can contribute $18,000 on the employee side across the two 401(k) plans however you wish.  You can also contribute profit sharing up to 20% of compensation in your solo 401(k) plan.  However, the profit sharing limit aggregates across all plans for your consulting business.  If you max that out in your solo 401(k), then you cannot contribute to the SEP IRA. In other words, the solo 401(k) dominates the SEP IRA in terms of contributions and shares a limit on the profit-sharing contribution.  If you have a solo 401(k), there is never a reason to have a SEP for the same company. Example reference: Can I Contribute to a solo 401(k) and SEP for the same company? "You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now.  First off you are going to have a ""boat load"" of money.  Like probably a multi-millionaire.  Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest.  For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds.   So fast forward to retirement time.  You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties.  For one your expenses are much lower.  You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt.  Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well.   You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans.  This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments.  You can also draw social security income.  For most of us social security will provide sustenance living.  Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc.  Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K.   Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw.  Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary.  Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation.  With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it.   In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash.  Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates.  (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year.  Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice:  Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car.  It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not." "The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten   million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error.  The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is ""The whole myth of savings is gone."" And the article itself, ""10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014"" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation ""Our 401(k) have failed us."" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income.  To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead." I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved.  $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you   are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can   tell  you  whether  your  retirement  plan  is  qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.