This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The official IRS document listed at the bottom of this article, Publication 590, Cat. no. 15160x, is titled Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs): For use in preparing 2011 Returns. — Anita5192 ( talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph on the step transaction. The article linked to does not constitute a reliable source, and I cannot find any RS on the internet for this. A reliable source in this case would be, I would say, a major financial firm like Fidelity or Vanguard, or a personal finance section of a website/newspaper like CNN or USA Today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand this well enough to edit, but editors here should be aware of this piece which criticizes this article, towards the end of page 1: [1] -- JFH ( talk) 18:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The Disadvantages section is not well written. Being tax-deductable and reducing AGI are exactly the same thing; it is redundant and misleading to mention it twice under different bullets. Comparing Roth IRAs to 401(k)s is not a good comparison; the advantages/disadvantages of Roth IRAs should be to traditional IRAs, not 401(k)s. Also, some employer-sponsored retirement plans have the option for Roth-style investing, which makes the comparison even less valid.
I propose that the advantages/disadvantages be presented in a table so that each characteristic can be seen side-by-side and can be easily compared.
Contracts clause aside not helpful. If the United States breaches a promise in the tax code, there is precedent for money damages under the Winstar cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.114.122 ( talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the income limits do not appear to be updated for the current tax year, which start at $112,000 for single filers. 70.39.231.44 ( talk) 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the only place I've ever seen it called an "arrangement". Individual Retirement Arrangement redirects to Account. Google gets almost 27 million results for "account", compared to nearly two million for "arrangement". Admittedly the IRS uses "Arrangement", but almost everyone else ( including Wikipedia) doesn't. Ignatz mice• talk 03:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph under Advantages is incorrect:
"Distributions from a Roth IRA do not increase Adjusted Gross Income. This is important because it means that these distributions are income tax free (as noted immediately above), but it also has the important, additional advantage of not increasing a taxpayer's marginal income tax bracket. Distributions from a traditional IRA are not only taxable, but because they are income, they can also cause other income to be taxed in a higher marginal tax bracket."
Marginal income that falls wholy or partly in a higher tax bracket does not cause other income to be taxed in a higher backet. The way marginal tax rates (brackets) work is correctly described in other Wikipedia arsticles, for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
Thus the "additional advantage of not increasing a taxpayers marginal tax rate" (as comparted to distributions from a traditional IRA) does not exist. Tseanes ( talk) 20:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)tseanes
I'll be working on a criticism section of the Roth IRA. Here are some sources I plan on using:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)Critics of the proposal say that making it easier to convert to Roth IRAs simply means increasing tax losses in the future, because money that is sheltered in a Roth is tax-free, and passes to heirs tax-free. Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D., Neb.), argues that the proposal is an accounting gimmick that benefits primarily the wealthiest Americans.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Lugevas ( talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find any ref to IRAs in the IRS section mentioned. So should this passage be deleted?
Ps. I went ahead and deleted some texts (unsourced!) that in my humble opinion appeared to have arbitrary proRoth bias. “Be Bold”. JdelaF ( talk) 09:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC) JdelaF ( talk) 09:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The official IRS document listed at the bottom of this article, Publication 590, Cat. no. 15160x, is titled Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs): For use in preparing 2011 Returns. — Anita5192 ( talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph on the step transaction. The article linked to does not constitute a reliable source, and I cannot find any RS on the internet for this. A reliable source in this case would be, I would say, a major financial firm like Fidelity or Vanguard, or a personal finance section of a website/newspaper like CNN or USA Today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand this well enough to edit, but editors here should be aware of this piece which criticizes this article, towards the end of page 1: [1] -- JFH ( talk) 18:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The Disadvantages section is not well written. Being tax-deductable and reducing AGI are exactly the same thing; it is redundant and misleading to mention it twice under different bullets. Comparing Roth IRAs to 401(k)s is not a good comparison; the advantages/disadvantages of Roth IRAs should be to traditional IRAs, not 401(k)s. Also, some employer-sponsored retirement plans have the option for Roth-style investing, which makes the comparison even less valid.
I propose that the advantages/disadvantages be presented in a table so that each characteristic can be seen side-by-side and can be easily compared.
Contracts clause aside not helpful. If the United States breaches a promise in the tax code, there is precedent for money damages under the Winstar cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.114.122 ( talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the income limits do not appear to be updated for the current tax year, which start at $112,000 for single filers. 70.39.231.44 ( talk) 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the only place I've ever seen it called an "arrangement". Individual Retirement Arrangement redirects to Account. Google gets almost 27 million results for "account", compared to nearly two million for "arrangement". Admittedly the IRS uses "Arrangement", but almost everyone else ( including Wikipedia) doesn't. Ignatz mice• talk 03:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph under Advantages is incorrect:
"Distributions from a Roth IRA do not increase Adjusted Gross Income. This is important because it means that these distributions are income tax free (as noted immediately above), but it also has the important, additional advantage of not increasing a taxpayer's marginal income tax bracket. Distributions from a traditional IRA are not only taxable, but because they are income, they can also cause other income to be taxed in a higher marginal tax bracket."
Marginal income that falls wholy or partly in a higher tax bracket does not cause other income to be taxed in a higher backet. The way marginal tax rates (brackets) work is correctly described in other Wikipedia arsticles, for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
Thus the "additional advantage of not increasing a taxpayers marginal tax rate" (as comparted to distributions from a traditional IRA) does not exist. Tseanes ( talk) 20:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)tseanes
I'll be working on a criticism section of the Roth IRA. Here are some sources I plan on using:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)Critics of the proposal say that making it easier to convert to Roth IRAs simply means increasing tax losses in the future, because money that is sheltered in a Roth is tax-free, and passes to heirs tax-free. Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D., Neb.), argues that the proposal is an accounting gimmick that benefits primarily the wealthiest Americans.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Lugevas ( talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find any ref to IRAs in the IRS section mentioned. So should this passage be deleted?
Ps. I went ahead and deleted some texts (unsourced!) that in my humble opinion appeared to have arbitrary proRoth bias. “Be Bold”. JdelaF ( talk) 09:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC) JdelaF ( talk) 09:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
References