Advertisement

Future of 401ks

1. Would you go to a "major media outlet" forum for hunting advice? (CNN, NBC, USA Today, CBS, etc.)

2. Would you go hunting forum for financial advice?
Like anything on the internet everything you read needs to be vetted, but I personally have received some excellent financial advice on this forum.

I think there are lots of guys on here who are top grade folks in whatever profession they chose. I’ve been amazed at the mechanical advice, construction advice, legal input, and a host of other things.

You might need to hang around for a decade or so to decide which people to listen to, but I would put the collective wisdom of HuntTalk posters pretty high up there as far as Internet forums go.
 
I’m not sure on that. I don’t do much with SEP plans. It doesn’t sound like it though.

View attachment 316797
Thank you. This sounds like it's referring to both SEP and 401k being offered by the same company. It was my understanding you could work for a company as a W2 employee and max out their 401k and then if you have a separate business (sole-proprietor) on the side (that has no legal overlap or affiliated relationship) you could also max out a SEP IRA if you have enough income. I have a TPA friend I'll run it by. Thanks for your help.

I had a wealth management firm send me this a couple years ago when I had questions on the subject.

 
Last edited:
Like anything on the internet everything you read needs to be vetted, but I personally have received some excellent financial advice on this forum.

I think there are lots of guys on here who are top grade folks in whatever profession they chose. I’ve been amazed at the mechanical advice, construction advice, legal input, and a host of other things.

You might need to hang around for a decade or so to decide which people to listen to, but I would put the collective wisdom of HuntTalk posters pretty high up there as far as Internet forums go.

Here’s just a small sample of experts on HT.

I’ve got good advice on construction, electrical work, auto mechanics, taxes, and a host of other topics from experts on this forum. I don’t know of a more diverse source of good info anywhere.
 
Thank you. This sounds like it's referring to both SEP and 401k being offered by the same company. It was my understanding you could work for a company as a W2 employee and max out their 401k and then if you have a separate business (sole-proprietor) on the side (that has no legal overlap or affiliated relationship) you could also max out a SEP IRA if you have enough income. I have a TPA friend I'll run it by. Thanks for your help.

I had a wealth management firm send me this a couple years ago when I had questions on the subject.


I know that you can't contribute double to a 401k if you are working for a different company. That is pretty clear.

I just don't have much experience with the SEP plans since they don't need an audit and I'm an auditor and not a tax guy.

Here's what I found google searching.

Your contributions to each employee's SEP-IRA for a year cannot exceed the lesser of 25 percent of the employee's compensation for the year or a dollar amount that is subject to cost-of-living adjustments. The dollar amount is $61,000 for 2022 and $66,000 for 2023. These limits apply to your total contributions to this plan and any other defined contribution plans (other SEP, 401(k), 403(b), profit sharing, or money purchase plans) you have.

From this link - https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/a...ons/sep-retirement-plans-for-small-businesses
 

Here’s just a small sample of experts on HT.

I’ve got good advice on construction, electrical work, auto mechanics, taxes, and a host of other topics from experts on this forum. I don’t know of a more diverse source of good info anywhere.
That thread is a good idea, just easy to get sidetracked and folks are generally not going to toot their own horn about what they are experts in. Or don't want to so they get bombarded with people asking them for advice. It's fun to give advice in something you know a lot about but I wouldn't want to get everyone asking me questions. I've joked before that people pay me to give an opinion which is exactly what I do as a financial statement auditor. Give them an opinion on whether the financial statements are materially correct or not.

I remember that thread and seeing @TOGIE saying that he knows Colorado water rights and have thought about reaching out to him with some questions on my property in Colorado. I read enough to know that the water rights are insane in that state and I may want to claim ignorance if something ever comes up. I looked into something as simple as setting up some water guzzlers for wildlife and that actually seems like it may not be legal in Colorado if you use larger than 2 - 55 gallon barrels as a catchment device. And they were really proud of getting that law passed recently to actually allow you to catch 2 - 55 buckets worth of runoff.
 
Thanks for your expertise @npaden! I appreciate your help.
Not a problem. I'm at work this morning distracting myself from doing some work that I really need to do.

Also, don't take my word for it on this. I know enough to be dangerous on the SEP plans. There could be a loophole somewhere that allows it.
 
I remember that thread and seeing @TOGIE saying that he knows Colorado water rights and have thought about reaching out to him with some questions on my property in Colorado. I read enough to know that the water rights are insane in that state and I may want to claim ignorance if something ever comes up. I looked into something as simple as setting up some water guzzlers for wildlife and that actually seems like it may not be legal in Colorado if you use larger than 2 - 55 gallon barrels as a catchment device. And they were really proud of getting that law passed recently to actually allow you to catch 2 - 55 buckets worth of runoff.

and to think that rain barrel catchment legalization is less than 10 years old. crazy. but the hurdles it faced in the legislature were significant and for good reasons when you really boil it all down.

but... what the water commissioner don't know don't hurt em ;)
 
and to think that rain barrel catchment legalization is less than 10 years old. crazy. but the hurdles it faced in the legislature were significant and for good reasons when you really boil it all down.

but... what the water commissioner don't know don't hurt em ;)
To go completely off tangent and down the rabbit hole...

So if you have 35+ acres you can legally drill a well. That's why they have all these parcels broken up into 36 to 40 acre tracts.

If you have a well you can legally catch more than the 110 gallons of rainwater. (I think).

So if you own 35+ acres but don't have a well, can you legally catch more than 110 gallons of rainwater?

Or is that a whole can of worms?
 
To go completely off tangent and down the rabbit hole...

So if you have 35+ acres you can legally drill a well. That's why they have all these parcels broken up into 36 to 40 acre tracts.

If you have a well you can legally catch more than the 110 gallons of rainwater. (I think).

So if you own 35+ acres but don't have a well, can you legally catch more than 110 gallons of rainwater?

Or is that a whole can of worms?

Bit of a can of worms.

It has to come off a roof top no matter what and you’re right it hinges on exempt well permits which 35 acres is a magic number there and it has to be used for the same uses identified in the permit. Exempts are usually domestic and domestic usually means household and lawn irrigation uses

Start here


I can try to provide more info once this lil bugger of mine is napping
 
To go completely off tangent and down the rabbit hole...

So if you have 35+ acres you can legally drill a well. That's why they have all these parcels broken up into 36 to 40 acre tracts.

If you have a well you can legally catch more than the 110 gallons of rainwater. (I think).

So if you own 35+ acres but don't have a well, can you legally catch more than 110 gallons of rainwater?

Or is that a whole can of worms?

re reading this this morning, after basically not actually reading it last time.

35 acres is basically only a magic number on the uses allowed under an exempt well. exceeding 35 brings in uses like livestock watering, but i believe the flow rate is capped at 15 gpm no matter what. under 35 gets you an exempt well but only for household uses.

so i believe yes you can catch more than 110 on an exempt well, i'd need to re research that, or maybe it's only more than 110 on a >35 acre permit, but i believe no matter what it has to come off a rooftop and i'm not sure you've built on your property right?

so the crux of the matter is, you only need to qualify for an exempt well for the rain barrel catchment (and this was actually made legal in '09 i believe, and then traditional suburban household catchment became legal in '16) and do not need actually drill a well, but without a roof to catch the rain it's not legal, i'm pretty sure.
 
I try not to post things in haste, but this idea seems to have gained traction on both sides lately. A couple of links below for those that want to dive deeper (The Bloomberg Opinion might have paywall, although I tried gift it). I generally think this is a bad idea.

In summary, one side wants to tax your income now and put it into the Social Security system (questionable idea), and the other side wants to tax your income to reduce deficits, because the worker isn't taxed enough apparently.

"There has been a brewing intellectual movement to get rid of the 401(k) for several years, with scholars on both the right and left questioning its value. And as the federal government gets increasingly desperate for new sources of revenue, the tax treatment of 401(k)s is a likely target. There are good policy reasons to end it, but the question remains: Will Americans still save for retirement?"

Don't worry, there isn't a lot of support laid out in the opinion except wonky economic theory with guesses on impacts. Given this is an election year, this is something you might want to add to the list of things to check a candidate on.


Just wanted to circle back and thank @SAJ-99 for starting this thread.

Meeting with our 401k Plan provider today to sign an amendment to our 401k plan to allow In-Plan Roth Conversions that will allow us to do the mega backdoor Roth 401k that I mentioned earlier in this thread - https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/future-of-401ks.323555/post-3737055

Pretty straightforward with just a little plan amendment and they even have it setup to where you can automatically convert after tax contributions to Roth accounts each time you make an after tax contribution. So instead of having to save up and make a big payment into the account after tax we can just set it up semi-monthly after tax contributions that then convert to Roth automatically.

Pretty cool feature.
 
Well darn....

Just got off the phone with our 401k provider.

The “Mega Back Door” Roth IRA Contribution

Roth IRAs are subject to relatively low contribution limits, based on the income of the taxpayer. Rollovers from a 401(k) plan into a Roth IRA are a different story – they have no dollar or income restrictions. As such, these rollovers are often called a “back door” Roth IRA contribution.
Given the very high contribution limits attributable to voluntary contributions, their rollover has been coined a “mega back door” Roth IRA contribution.

Nondiscrimination Testing Can Severely Limit Voluntary 401(k) Contributions

Voluntary contributions are rarely viable in 401(k) plans that benefit both Highly Compensated Employees (HCEs) and non-Highly Compensated Employees (non-HCEs) due to their impact on the Average Contribution Percentage (ACP) test.
The ACP test compares the average contribution rate for plan HCEs to the non-HCE average. This test fails when the HCE average exceeds the non-HCE average by more than the legal limit. In a traditional (non-safe harbor) 401(k) plan, both employer matching and voluntary contributions are tested. In a safe harbor 401(k) plan, just voluntary contributions are (usually) tested.
Regardless of whether your plan meets the safe harbor provision or not, voluntary contributions are almost always included in nondiscrimination testing. Essentially, voluntary contributions negate the “free pass” you would otherwise receive in the ACP test, meaning your HCEs would very likely be significantly limited in their ability to do “mega back door” Roth IRA contributions.
Additionally, safe harbor 401(k) plans lose their top heavy test “free pass” when voluntary contributions are made. That could make additional top heavy minimum contributions to “non-key” employees necessary.
As such, voluntary contributions are rarely worth the trouble when a 401(k) plan covers non-HCEs due to their impact to annual IRS nondiscrimination testing.

We would end up failing our ACP test so we can't do the voluntary contributions.

Sounds like the mega back door is mostly hype and that's why you don't hear of people doing it very much.

Our plan is a safe harbor plan but that doesn't count when you are doing additional voluntary contributions.

Oh well.
 
I’m putting money into a traditional IRA that is not deductible. Once it is in the traditional IRA I’m rolling it into a Roth IRA. It is very simple. I know Fidelity walks you right through the process.

You get a 1099 for the amount you transfer but you only have to pay tax on any earnings it had before you got it transferred.

I make too much to deduct my contribution and my wife doesn’t have any earned income but we can both do the back door Roth.

The hardest part is figuring out how to get it in the tax software correctly.

Absolutely, managing IRAs can be straightforward with the right guidance. Also, gold ira is worth considering for diversification and hedge against inflation.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,694
Messages
2,029,955
Members
36,286
Latest member
Paraclete
Back
Top