Can I contribute to an IRA from investment income?
"Your contributions must come from ""compensation"". Quoting IRS Publication 590 on IRAs, ""Generally, compensation is what you earn from working."" So it is unlikely that your stock sale proceeds, if they're your sole source of income, can be used to fund your IRA. If you do have W-2 income, or self employment income, you can use the proceeds of a stock sale to fund an IRA. The IRS doesn't care where the exact dollars that go into the IRA come from, only that you earned (from working) at least as much as you contributed." Traditional IRA contributions can be made if you  have compensation and the amount of the contribution is limited to the smaller of your compensation and $5500 ($6000 if age 50 or more). Note that compensation (which generally means earnings form working) is not just what appears on a W-2 form as salary or wages; it can be  earnings from self-employment too, as well as commissions, alimony etc (but not earnings from property, pensions and annuities, certain types of partnership income) You must also not have attained age 70.5 in the year for which the contribution is made.  Even if you don't have any compensation of your own, you can nonetheless make a Traditional IRA contribution if your spouse has compensation as long as you are filing a joint tax return with your spouse. For spouses filing a joint return, the  limits are still the same $5500/$6000 for each spouse, and the sum total of Traditional IRA contributions for both spouses also must not exceed the sum total of earned income of both spouses. The age limits etc are all still applicable. Note that none of this says anything about whether the contributions are deductible.  Everyone meeting the above requirements is eligible to make contributions to a Traditional IRA; whether the contributions can be deducted from current income depends on the income:  those with high enough incomes cannot deduct the contribution. This is different from Roth IRAs to which people with high incomes are not permitted to make a contribution at all. Finally, the source of the cash you contribute to the IRA can be the proceeds of the stock sale if you like; you are not required to prove that the cash received from compensation is what you sent to the IRA custodian. Read Publication 590 (available on the IRS website www.irs.gov) if you need an authoritative reference.
Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA?  They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other.  Which is relevant to your question because you said  the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k).   This is only true if you max out your contribution limits.  If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick.   Start with $10,000 to invest.  With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000.  With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it.  Let's assume a tax rate of 25%.  So invest $7500.   Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right).  So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000.   Now you withdraw them.  For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year.  It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year.  With the Roth, you have $120,000.  With the traditional, you have to pay tax.  Again, let's assume 25%.  So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional.  That is the same amount as the Roth!   So it would make sense to  If you can max out both, great.  You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it.  If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match.  That's free money.  Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k.   Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA.  Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax.  Alternate source.   Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement.  It may change other things.  For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes.  And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly.  You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are.  They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job).   If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution.  This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits.  Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth. "Summary: It's because you are effectively contributing more money in the second case, so you have more money at the end.  The effect of being covered by an employer retirement plan (in the case of a 401(k), that means either you or your employer contributed to it during the year) is that it prevents you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is below a very low level (for Single filing status, it phases out at an MAGI of between $62k and $72k). Since you are unable to deduct the Traditional IRA contribution, but you entered that you are still making the full $5500 contribution every year, that means you are making a non-deductible contribution of $5500 every year instead of a deductible contribution. Nondeductible contributions are ""after-tax"", whereas deductible contributions are ""pre-tax"" (because your taxable income is reduced by the amount of the contribution, so you effectively don't pay income tax on the income you used to contribute). $1 of pre-tax money is not the same as $1 of after-tax money. If your marginal tax rate is 25%, then $1 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $0.75 of after-tax money. However, since in both cases you are putting in the same nominal amount of contribution ($5500), but one is pre-tax and one is after-tax, in the after-tax case you are effectively contributing more money, i.e. more money is taken out from your bank account that year. The $5500 pre-tax contribution is equivalent to only $5500 * 0.75 = $4125 after-tax, i.e. you are only short $4125 from your bank account at the end of the year after making a $5500 deductible contribution, whereas you are short $5500 after making a $5500 non-deductible contribution, so it's not a fair comparison. The non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions are not taxed when withdrawn (though the earnings earned from those contributions are still taxed), so that's why you are left with a greater amount. This is a similar situation to what happens when you try to compare a $5500 deductible Traditional IRA contribution to a $5500 Roth IRA contribution -- it will look like the Roth IRA case leaves you with much more money, but that's again because you are effectively contributing more money, because the Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, so it's not a fair comparison. (The Roth IRA case will produce a much greater ""advantage"" than the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution case, because for a Roth IRA, both the contributions and earnings will not be taxed at withdrawal.)" There's a lot going on here. I'd be making the maximum ($5500 for a single person under 50) contribution to the Roth IRA each year. Not too late to put in for 2014 before Wednesday, 4/15.  Not out of your income, but from the T Rowe Price account. As long as you have earned income, you can make an IRA deposit up to the limit, 5500, or up to that income. The money itself can come from other funds. Just explain to Dad, you're turning the money into a long term retirement account. I doubt that will trouble him.  Aside from that, too much will change when you are out of school. At 18, it's a matter of learning to budget, save what you can, don't get into debt for stupid things. (Stupid, not as I would judge, but as the 25 year old you will judge.) Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA. The contribution limits for an IRA extend across both traditional and Roth IRAs.  If you have both a Traditional and Roth, you are limited to $5000 in contributions to both ($2500 in each, $5000 in one and $0 in the other, etc).  Opening another IRA in this case wouldn't really help you out. I've always heard the conventional wisdom to be: "So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing   is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just   putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or   something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never ""taxed""). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the ""earnings"" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the ""earnings"" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is ""earnings"" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the ""earnings"" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 ""earnings"" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a ""backdoor Roth IRA contribution"". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level." You're ignoring the fact that you still had the taxes from the $5500 (so $1375) left over when making the traditional IRA contribution.  So yes, the Roth IRA grew without further taxing more than the Traditional IRA did; but you could've just as easily invested that $1375 in the same investments. While you'd owe taxes on them, true, you'd still earn a boatload of money.  That's another $10,607 you've earned, not tax-free, but with gains at the 15% CGR is still $9170.  So you now have $60,627 in the Roth, available tax-free, or you have $60,627 available at a 10% or so average rate (12% if you like, though I think you'll find it's more like 10%).   Say $53351, plus $9170 from the not-sheltered income after taxes, for $62,521 after taxes. So you make about $2000 more by using the traditional IRA for $5500 and then just investing the rest in a long term account.  The math might be slightly worse if you invest in something that has regular dividend taxes due, but if you're careful to use tax-favored investments you should be okay, and even if you don't you'll still end up ahead in the end if you make the same exact investment as your tax-sheltered account. Ultimately the question is: are you paying more in taxes now, or later, comparing now marginal rate to later average rate.  If you are paying more in taxes now, then traditional IRA plus invest the rest unsheltered.  If you're paying more later, then Roth IRA. Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.