Is 401k as good as it sounds given the way it is taxed?
Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth).  For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off.  For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you.  For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest. There are 3 options (option 2 may not be available to you) When you invest 18,000 in a Traditional 401k, you don't pay taxes on the 18k the year you invest, but you pay taxes as you withdraw.  There's a Required Minimum Distribution required after age 70.  If your income is low enough, you won't pay taxes on your withdrawals.  Otherwise, you pay as if it is income.  However, you don't pay payroll tax (Social Security / Medicare) on the withdrawals.  You pay no tax until you withdraw. When you invest 18,000 in a Roth 401k, you pay income tax on the 18,000 in the year it's invested, but you pay nothing after that. When you invest 18,000 in a taxable investment account, you pay income tax on that 18,000 in the year it's invested, you pay tax on dividends (even if they're re-invested), and then you pay capital gains tax when you withdraw. But remember, tax rules and tax rates are only good so long as Congress doesn't change the applicable laws. "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." When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement.  You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year.  In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement?  In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement.  After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less. "when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money).  growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for  by the growth in the deferred portion.  that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed.  this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account.  the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire.  also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the ""wash sale"" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers.  even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty." If you put it in a normal account it is (1) taxed as ordinary income now and then (2) any growth is taxed again at the capital gains rate.  Additionally, (3) any dividends will be taxed each year.  If you put it in a 401(k), you will only be taxed once, at the ordinary income rate.   Mathematically, if you start with X and have a regular tax rate of t and capital gains rate of g and your investments return r and there are n years to retirement, then your total wealth if you put it in a mutual fund (ignoring annual taxes on dividends) will be While if you used a 401(k) it would simply be The whole g term (along with any annual taxes on dividends) is gone in the second case and that's potentially a lot of taxes.  The 401(k) is much better in terms of total wealth unless tax rates dramatically rise between now and when you retire so that the t in the second case is much higher than in the first. This is virtually never the case for people retiring now.  Of course, what tax rates the future holds, we do not know. "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." Don't forget inflation.   With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains.  You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it).   With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount.  And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real.  So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice.  Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains.  I'll give an example later.   With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount.  You pay taxes on the distributed amount.  That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice.  All the taxes are paid at distribution time.   Here's a semirealistic example.  This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off.  They could happen.  I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math.   So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings.   Roth:  $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad):  $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA):  $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%.  Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past.  That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case.  Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases.  Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240.   Balances after one year:   Roth:  $12,960 Trad:  $17,280 TIA:  $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases.  And by $480 in the Trad case.   Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative):   Roth:  $5354 Trad:  $7138 TIA:  $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth:  $25,907 Trad:  $34,543 TIA:  $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power):   Roth:  $20,554 Trad:  $27,405 TIA:  $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes.  That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes.  In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000.   Do that for five years and the new balances are  Roth:  $9931 Trad:  $13,241 TIA:  $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year.  The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year.   So to summarize.  The Traditional IRA initially grows the most.  The TIA grows the least.  The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first.  The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included.   Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k.  That would help both those options.  I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions.  It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA.  I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period.  If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse.   Inflation could be higher or lower.  As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation. Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money.  So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option. "This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K.  Yes, you pay taxes upfront.  All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules).  This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever.  Contributions can be funded past age 70.5.  Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties.  All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties.  For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions.  This is like getting paid for retirement saving.  These funds are ""locked"" up until age 59.5, with exceptions.  All contributed funds and all earnings are ""untaxed"" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars.  The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity." "If you pay 20% tax now and none later or if you pay no tax now and 20% later, it doesn't make a difference.  Mathematically, it's the same. You have to guess about which tax rate (now vs later) will be higher for you in order for you to make the best choice.  Predicting tax rates 40 years in advance is hard.  Everybody pretends like they can do this accurately. I would suggest going half and half. If you have 20k and put half in pre-tax (10k in) and half in post-tax (only 8k in) you end up with 18k total in which is right in the middle of where you would be if you went with the whole 20k in either extreme.  It would also leave you owing 2k in tax rather than the possible 4k in tax if you had gone with all pre-tax. When you split down the middle, you are guaranteed to have 50% in the ""right"" side, the side with the best outcome. Being guaranteed to be 50% on the right side is pretty good compared to maybe being 100% on the wrong side."
You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA;  Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits. While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail.  I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options.   That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA.  I commend you for that.   As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it. "While I can appreciate you're coming from a strongly held philosophy, I disagree strongly with it.  I do not have any 401k or IRA I don't like that you need to rely on government and keep the money there forever. A 401k and an IRA allows you to work within the IRS rules to allow your gains to grow tax free. Additionally, traditional 401ks and IRAs allow you to deduct income from your taxes, meaning you pay less taxes. Missing out on these benefits because the rules that established them were created by the IRS is very very misguided. Do you refuse to drive a car because you philosophically disagree with speed limits?  I am planning on spending 20k on a new car (paying cash) Paying cash for a new car when you can very likely finance it for under 2% means you are loosing the opportunity to invest that money which can conservatively expect 4% returns annually if invested. Additionally, using dealership financing can often be additional leverage to negotiate a lower purchase price.  If for some reason, you have bad credit or are unable to secure a loan for under 4%, paying cash might be reasonable.  The best thing you have going for you is your low monthly expenses. That is commendable.  If early retirement is your goal, you should consider housing expenses as a part of your overall plan, but I would strongly suggest you start investing that money in stocks instead of a single house, especially when you can rent for such a low rate. A 3 fund portfolio is a classic and simple way to get a diverse portfolio that should see returns in good years and stability in bad years. You can read more about them here: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio You should never invest in individual stocks. People make lots of money to professionally guess what stocks will do better than others, and they are still very often wrong. You should purchase what are sometimes called ""stocks"" but are really very large funds that contain an assortment of stocks blended together. You should also purchase ""bonds"", which again are not individual bonds, but a blend of the entire bond market.  If you want to be very aggressive in your portfolio, go with 100-80% Stocks, the remainder in Bonds. If you are nearing retirement, you should be the inverse, 100-80% bonds, the remainder stocks.  The rule of thumb is that you need 25 times your yearly expenses (including taxes, but minus pension or social security income) invested before you can retire. Since you'll be retiring before age 65, you wont be getting social security, and will need to provide your own health insurance." "Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) ""What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan"" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) ""Consider stopping the 401k contribution"" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) ""You lose compound interest"" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future." The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement.  If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions. "As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad.  The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase.  I am on the side of ""don't do it"" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more.  Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA." Depends. What are the options available for the 401k? If they are low expense ratio options, that can be a great start. Otherwise, just do your own tax deductible IRA  At 40, with no retirement savings other than one 401k, you're likely behind. Its time to get serious; no reason you can't with that income.  Look into an IRA at Vanguard to start for up to 5500 a year per person if the 401(k) is no good. I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments.  Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal.  You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose.  You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils.   The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice.  My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster.