Optimal balence of 401K and charitable savings
Two things I would recommend doing:   I would save a minimum of 15% into retirement.  By young I will assume that you are under 30.  15K/year + company match will grow into a sick amount of money by the time you are in your 60s.  So you have a net worth that is north of 5 million.  What kind of charitable giving can you do then?  Answer:  What ever you want!  Also it could be quite a bit more then that. Get a will.  It will cost a little bit of money, but for someone like you it is important to have your wishes known.
"Generally if you need to tap into your retirement for the house - you probably shouldn't buy the house. But that's your call. There are several things you could do. Sue your CPA ""friend"" for malpractice. Especially if there's any actual proof of that stupid suggestion. Check with your 401k administrator about home-purchase loan from the 401k. You'll be borrowing your own money, and repaying yourself back with interest, but it will be tax free and with no penalties. Keep in mind: if you cannot repay the loan, or you leave your employer without repaying it in full - the remaining balance will be considered withdrawal and you'll pay income taxes + 10% penalty on it. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to 10K without penalty if this is your first house (i.e.: you didn't own a house in the last 3 years), and is going to be your primary residence. You'll still pay taxes on the 10K. But, this is not available for 401k plans. You can request equal payments distribution calculated based on your life expectancy (This is the infamous 72(t)(2) distribution, even though many of the exceptions are in the IRC 72(t)(2). This in particular is 72(t)(2)(A)(iv)). Here's the full list of exceptions. Note that even if you're willing to pay the 10% penalty, many 401k plans do not allow distributions as long as you're still employed with the sponsoring employer. If you take a hardship distribution from your 401k (if it even allows it), you'll be prohibited from contributing for 6 months, and your employer will be prohibited from contributing on your behalf as well. I.e.: not only you take out your savings, you'll be barred from saving back. Also, in the same FAQ, it tells you that the hardship distribution can only include the amounts up to the original contributions (less whatever distributions already made), and not earnings or match. I.e.: it may actually be much less than the 40K you're counting on." "The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos.  The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals.  If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home.  A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on.  Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once.  However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs.  Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, ""Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.""  Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had ""fun"" while they were young.  Do you have any remaining debt?  Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.).  Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them.  Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible." A 401k is pretty good, but it's not magic. Personally, I'd consider a 30k salary with a 401k and a 2k employer match less valuable than a 36k salary, let alone a 48k salary. If worried about retirement savings simply set up that IRA and put in the full 5.5k allowance. The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds.  Put it all in immediately.  Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time.  You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk.  People do it all the time.  However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences.  This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal.  The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest.  In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible.  Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory.  If you want to invest all that money, do so now.  If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely.  Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles.  It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer. "John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator.  At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the ""multiple coin toss"" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book.  (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious ""Uncle Fred"": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he   decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick   ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your   employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a   minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as   ""Uncle Fred’s coin toss,"" or simply, the ""coin toss."" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses.  Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time.  Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your   Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss   sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year,   he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a   separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible   outcomes [...]: [...]   Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return   for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full   percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17%   with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your   risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the   mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as   opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...]   If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated   with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes   1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%.   In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well.  Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)." The numbers aside (I'd not assume 12%/yr) there is no limit to the balance. There are 401(k) accounts that have great matching and profit sharing deposits putting the per year limit closer to $45k, combine that with company stock in, say, Apple which has risen 60 fold this past decade, and balances in the tens of millions are possible. "Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things.  ""Better off"" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility.  Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here.  Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call ""the pure mathematical answer.""  The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions.  You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets.   In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters.  You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't." I was thinking to do mix of ELSS and Tax Saving FDs. But is my choice correct? Also what other options I am left with? This depends on individual's choice and risk appetite. Generally at younger age, investment in ELSS / PPF is advisable. Other options are Life Insurance, Retirement Plans by Mutual Funds, NSC, etc