Which is a better investment: Roth IRA or a traditional IRA?

A new analysis reveals that savers who make the maximum IRA contribution each year will always net more after-tax retirement dollars with a Roth IRA than they will with a traditional IRA, regardless of their current and future tax rates.

Kelsey Walling/Missourian/AP/File
Elizabeth Kennedy, pets her dog, Dolly, in her living room at TigerPlace, a retirement community in Columbia, Mo.

Paper or plastic? Mac or PC? Roth IRA or traditional IRA?

The first two choices are largely matters of personal preference, the third strictly of taxes — or so you’ve probably been told. But a new NerdWallet analysis reveals that savers who make the maximum IRA contribution each year will always net more after-tax retirement dollars with a Roth IRA than they will with a traditional IRA, regardless of their current and future tax rates.

The Roth advantage is not trivial: In several tax scenarios, the after-tax value of the Roth stands six figures ahead of the value of the traditional IRA. One scenario shows a $184,364 Roth IRA advantage.

Rethinking old assumptions on IRAs

The general advice on IRAs goes this way: If your tax rate is lower now than you expect it to be in retirement, a Roth IRA — which offers no immediate tax deduction, but allows tax-free distributions in retirement — is the right choice for you, provided you don’t exceed the income limits for a Roth. If you expect your tax rate to drop in retirement, standard advice says to go with a traditional IRA, which offers a tax deduction on contributions now in exchange for taxed distributions later.

In the U.S., 25% of households have a traditional IRA, while only 17% have a Roth, according to 2016 data from the Investment Company Institute. Those numbers include all income levels; but at incomes that are currently eligible for participation in a Roth, the traditional IRA still leads by a significant margin.

The NerdWallet analysis shows that, for savers who make the maximum IRA contribution each year ($5,500, or $6,500 if you’re 50 or older), the Roth will always yield more after-tax value than a traditional IRA.

Taxes now versus taxes later

Why does the Roth win? It relates to the value of a dollar in a Roth IRA compared to the value of a dollar in a traditional IRA. A dollar is a dollar, right? Not when that dollar is being taxed.

When you put money into a Roth IRA, you are depositing after-tax dollars, which means the contribution costs you more upfront: the amount of the contribution plus the taxes owed on those dollars.

With a traditional IRA, your money is going in pretax, which means your cost is only the amount of the contribution. That makes it seem like the traditional IRA is a better deal, and in the short run, it is.

But when looking at the value of each account at retirement, you have to compare the Roth IRA balance to the after-tax balance of the traditional IRA.

When you pull $30,000 out of a traditional IRA in retirement, the IRS gets a little piece of that pie — how little depends on your future tax rate, but several thousand dollars, to be sure. When you pull that $30,000 out of a Roth IRA, you’re putting $30,000 into your pocket free and clear.

How investing tax savings can help traditional IRAs

To account for that tax burden in retirement, a traditional IRA needs a larger balance to equal the value of a Roth IRA. And since the contribution limit on these accounts is the same — that $5,500 is a combined limit between the two — the only way to build that larger balance is to supplement it by also contributing to a separate investment account.

To do that, you would need to take the tax savings netted by the traditional IRA contribution each year and put it in a brokerage account, choosing investments that mirror what’s in your IRA. At a 25% current effective tax rate and the maximum $5,500 contribution, that would mean investing $1,375 in tax savings from that tax deduction.

Investing 100% of the taxes saved makes the traditional IRA a more valuable option than the Roth IRA in some, but not all, tax scenarios — primarily at expected retirement tax rates of 20% or below. (For more details across tax rates, see the full NerdWallet study.)

If, on the other hand, you take that tax savings and absorb it into your budget — either because it simply reduces your tax bill come filing time, so you never actually get your hands on it, or because you didn’t know the importance of investing it — you would end up short of what you could have accumulated in a Roth IRA, no matter what your tax bracket.

Again, the figures in the analysis assume the saver is making maximum annual contributions. Savers who make less than the maximum contribution each year may find traditional IRAs more competitive for their tax scenario — or they may not. (NerdWallet’s Roth IRA vs. traditional IRA calculator can help you compare account values at your preferred contributions levels and expected tax rate.)

Another possible Roth upside: Roth IRA rules don’t require minimum distributions — mandatory withdrawals set forth by the IRS — but a traditional IRA owner must begin withdrawals at age 70½. That’s worth weighing if you want to pass money on to heirs.

The key issue for traditional IRA savers

According to the National Retail Federation, less than half of the people who expect to receive a tax refund in 2017 plan to save it. Statistics like this, combined with the nation’s meager 5.5% personal savings rate, suggest that many people who max out a traditional IRA may not also invest the tax savings they receive from that contribution.

So if you’re committed to making annual contributions to your IRA, the choice between a Roth or traditional IRA requires an analysis of your own saving habits. If you choose a traditional IRA over a Roth IRA, you need to commit to saving that tax deduction each year to have a chance of coming out ahead.

Some very disciplined savers will be able to do that. But for the many others, the Roth IRA is the better choice.

Arielle O’Shea is a staff writer at NerdWallet, a personal finance website. Email:aoshea@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @arioshea. Jonathan Todd is a data analyst at NerdWallet. Email: jonathan.todd@nerdwallet.com.

This story originally appeared on NerdWallet.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.