Is it adventageous to expedite my wedding before the new year for tax savings?
You are correct. If you get married by December 31, you will file as married for this year (Married Filing Jointly or Married Filing Separately) instead of Single. That could indeed save you some amount of taxes, if your situation is as you described. Some people do plan their date of marriage in such a way to optimize tax savings. Whether your marriage date should be set in such a way is your personal decision. "Yes on taxes. It depends on the other point. As you already see from Ben's comment, if you're both very Western in your culture, you may want to consider Ben's advice because while you will save money, it may not be considered a healthy way to start a relationship.  Western culture tends to see marriage as more of a ""do it for love"" whereas other cultures may view marriage more pragmatically and take economics and finance as a major consideration. For instance, a friend of mine married his spouse and it was 100% pragmatic - considering taxes and laws, driving most of his family insane because ""it doesn't sound very loving"" (these were the exact words).  Unfortunately, this created tension later on because family on both sides kept telling both of them that the other didn't love the partner and they used how their marriage started as proof.  As surprising as it is to me (non-Western), many Americans are horrified at people marrying at the JOP or other pragmatic ways, even if it saves them thousands. Answering questions about relationships is very difficult because often the issue is less about money and more about culture.  If you're both from pragmatic cultures where economics and finance weigh strongly and you don't see possible issues with family (and really be honest on this point), then consider the financial advantages."
"Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and  Am I correctly understanding this as ""anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax""? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:" Congratulations on your engagement, and on your desire to begin your marriage debt free. Your fiancée can give you up to $14,000 per year as a gift without having to pay any gift tax.  Above that, there are lifetime gift/estate tax exclusions that apply.  You, as the recipient of the gift, do not pay any tax on it.  (It is not considered income for you.) Having said that, I would not advise the two of you to have her pay money on your debt before you are married.  The reason is this: You aren't married until you are married.  If something happens between now and then and the wedding is postponed/called off, you do not want to feel like you are in debt to her, and you do not want her to feel that she lost money because of you. Obviously, you do not want or expect that to happen.  So, instead, I recommend that your fiancée saves up her income.  I'm assuming that the two of you don't want to go into debt paying for the wedding/honeymoon, so make sure that you have enough cash to pay for that.  After that is covered, she can save money toward your student loans, but keep the money in a savings account.  Once you are married, the money and the debt both belong to both of you.  The day after the two of you get back from the honeymoon, she can write the check to pay off the debt, and you've got a great start to your future. To your question. Yes. What you propose is typically called the back door Roth. You make the (non-deductible) IRA deposit, and soon after, convert to Roth. As long as you have no other existing IRA, the process is simple, and actually a loophole that's still open.  If you have an existing IRA, the conversion may be partially taxed based on untaxed balance. As comments frequently get overlooked, I'm adding @DilipSarwate excellent warning regarding this - Depending on the value of the existing Traditional IRA and its   pre-existing basis, if any, the backdoor Roth conversion might be    almost completely taxable. Example: Traditional IRA worth $250K with    zero basis. New nondeductible contribution increase value to $255.5K    and basis $5.5K. Converting $5.5K into a Roth IRA leaves $250K in the   Traditional IRA with basis $5381.60. That is, of that $5500    conversion, only $118.40 was nontaxable and so, not only is the    original $5500 taxable income to the OP but he also owes taxes on    $5381.60 of that $5.5K conversion. In short, discussions of backdoor Roth conversions as a great idea should always be tempered with an acknowledgement that it does not work very well if there is any other money in the Traditional IRA. Once that nondeductible contribution enters a Traditional IRA, it does not come out completely until all your Traditional IRA accounts are drained of all money. All your Traditional IRA money is considered by the IRS to be in a single pot, and you can't set up a Traditional    IRA (possibly with a new custodian) via nondeductible contribution, convert just that Traditional IRA account into a    Roth IRA account, and claim that the whole conversion amount is nontaxable because all the tax-deferred money is in the other IRAs that you haven't touched at all. Last - you disclosed that you are depositing to a Roth 401(k) to the match. Which prompts me to ask if this is best. If your marginal rate is 25% or higher, you are missing the opportunity to save 'off the top', at that rate, and 'fill the lower brackets' at retirement, or, via conversion, any year before then when you are in a lower bracket for whatever reason. See my answer for Saving for retirement: How much is enough? which addresses this further.  From new comments - Won't his Roth 401k contributions max out his overall Roth   contributions? No. They are separate numbers, each with own annual limits. Wouldn't this prevent any back-door Roth conversions? The 401(k) has no effect on back door Roth, except for the fact that the 401(k) and high income make the Roth IRA unavailable by normal deposit. Back door is the only door.  At the end are you encouraging him to look for a Traditional 401(k) at   work to max out, then contributing to a Roth? Yes! Read the linked SE article, and consider the annual withdrawal that would get you to 25%. As I wrote, it would take $2M+ to 'fill' the 15% bracket at retirement. Not to pick your words apart, but I'm used to the word laddering as used with CDs or bonds, where one buys a new say, 7 year duration each year with old money coming due and, in effect, is always earning the longer term rate, while still having new funds available each year.  So. The article you link suggests that there's money to be saved by not taking a long term policy on all the insurance you buy. They split $250K 30 year / $1M 20 year. The money saved by going short on the bigger policy is (they say) $11K.  It's an interesting idea. Will you use the $11K saved to buy a new $1M 10 year policy in 20 years, or will you not need the insurance? There are situations where insurance needs drop, e.g. 20 years into my marriage, college fully funded as are retirement accounts. I am semi-retired and if I passed, there's enough money. There are also situations where the need runs longer. The concept in the article works for the former type of circumstance. Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept   and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may   attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000,   you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and   Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end   up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all   the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed.  And a must-have disclaimer:   Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230. Get the worker put it in writing, and deduct it in December under constructive receipt rules. The fact that you're getting the actual cash in January isn't significant as long as you've secured the payment. Verify this with a tax adviser, but that's what I would do. "I would suggest you pay quarterly. Or, if you prefer, do the extra withholding. Don't wait until the end of the year. My experience is that of having a day job with freelance work on the side. I've spent a few years just freelancing, and I paid quarterly as requested to avoid the penalties. Now that I have a good day job again, my freelancing is just a small part of my income, and so I end up with a net return and no longer have to pay quarterly. You shouldn't wait until the end of the year to pay. This is assuming your wife is bringing in a decent income. The only scenario where you would want to wait is if her income is only a small amount (such as my wife's plans for an Etsy store). To the IRS, it doesn't really make a difference whether you withhold extra or pay quarterly. Of those two choices, my preference is to pay quarterly - it's easy to set up calendar reminders on the quarterly payment dates, which are always the same. I did the same as bstpierre when estimating my payments: just take last year's tax (for the business) and divide by 4 (adjusting for any obvious situational differences). That's usually close enough. Paying quarterly instead of via withholding means you get to hold on to your money (on average) for 6 weeks longer. Granted, that doesn't mean much with today's interest rates, but it's something. You may prefer the simpler accounting for withholding, though - you can ""set and forget""." "I am not a lawyer nor a tax accountant, so if such chimes in here I'll gladly defer. But my understanding is:  If you're romantically involved and living together you're considered a ""household"" and thus your finances are deemed shared for tax purposes. Any money your partner gives you toward paying the bills is not considered ""rent"" but ""her contribution to household expenses"". (I don't know the genders but I'll call your partner ""her"" for convenience.) This is not income and is not taxed. On the off chance that the IRS actually investigated your arrangement, don't call any money she gives you ""rent"": call it ""her contribution to living expenses"". If you were two (or more) random people sharing a condo purely for economic reasons, i.e. you are not a family in any sense but each of you would have trouble affording a place on your own, it's common for all the room mates to share the rent or mortgage, utilities, etc, but for one person to collect all the money and write one check to the landlord, etc. Tax law does not see this as the person who writes the check collecting rent from the others, it's just a book-keeping convenience, and so there is no taxable transaction. (Of course the landlord owes taxes on the rental income, but that's not your problem.) In that case it likely would be different if one person outright owned the place and really was charging the others rent. But then he could claim deductions for all the expenses of maintaining it, including depreciation, so if it really was a case of room mates sharing expenses, the taxable income would likely be just about zero anyway. So short answer: If you really are a ""couple"", there are no taxable transactions here. If the IRS should actually question it, don't refer to it as ""collecting rent"" or any other words that imply this is a business arrangement. Describe it as a couple sharing expenses. (People sometimes have created tax problems for themselves by their choice of words in an audit.) But the chance that you would ever be audited over something like this is probably remote. I suppose that if at some point you break up, but you continue to live together for financial reasons (or whatever reasons), that could transform this into a business relationship and that would change my answer."