[Editor’s Note: This is a republished post from Physician on FIRE, a member of The White Coat Investor Network. The original post ran here, but if you missed it the first time, it’s new to you! It’s a discussion of just how much lower your taxes can be in early retirement compared to your peak earnings years. Enjoy!]
The Taxman Leaveth: Taxes in Early Retirement
During our years of wealth accumulation, a.k.a. working, we pay a pretty penny in taxes. We become accustomed to knowing that after a certain point, we might only see about half of each additional dollar earned. Adding up federal & state income tax and property taxes, many physicians will have annual tax bills exceeding $100,000. If you’ve managed to accumulate a sizable nest egg over 20 years or less, you’ve no doubt contributed at least $1 million to the coffers of the taxman.
Fear not. Much, much lower tax rates are on the horizon for the aspiring early retiree. Let’s crunch some numbers and examine what you might expect to pay when you hang up the stethoscope for the last time.
Take the example of someone like Dr. Benson who was on track to retire with $3 million in about 20 years with $120,000 in annual spending. As you’ll see below, he ended up with $3.3 million. Will he require $120,000 a year in retirement? Of course not. He paid off his $36,000 a year mortgage, he’s no longer contributing to a 529, and his children are off on their own.
To maintain the lifestyle he and his wife have enjoyed, his spending will be closer to $70,000. Since they expect to travel more, let’s give them $80,000 a year for a comfortable retirement. This represents a super-safe 2.4% withdrawal rate. With $100,000 in annual spending, the withdrawal rate would still be a paltry 3%. They can expect to watch their nest egg grow most years in retirement with this level of spending.
Taking a look at how Dr. B arrived here in his early fifties, we see that he wisely has his nest egg spread out among different account types. He maxed out his tax-deferred savings, while contributing to personal and spousal backdoor Roth IRAs. His HSA has grown nicely, and more than a third of his nest egg is in a taxable account. Allow me to display this saving and compounding in a handy little spreadsheet. I do like spreadsheets.
We’re assuming 4% real (inflation adjusted) returns, so spending power is preserved. For the taxable account, I accounted for a half percent tax drag*, so that account has returned 3.5%.
*This tax drag assumes a portfolio of passive index funds with 2% qualified dividends taxed at 25%. The tax on qualified dividends could be as low as 15% if you have no state tax and keep AGI under $250,000, avoiding the 3.8% medicare surcharge. In that best case scenario, the Bensons could have had a 3.7% real return on their taxable account in the working years.
The Bensons, having paid a little over $1 million in federal income tax alone, don’t want to pay that anymore. Like, not at all. Zero. Zilch. Can we get them $80,000 to spend without incurring federal income tax? Sure. Why not aim for $100,000? Plugging some reasonable numbers into Intuit’s TaxCaster using 2015 tax rates gives us the following results.
In this example, the Bensons get their spending money from the following sources:
- They receive $1000 in interest from the emergency account where they keep ready cash.
- They set up the 457(b) to deliver $1500 a month, or $18,000 for the year.
- Since they know that they can remove Roth contributions without penalty, they plan on taking out $11,000 a year for the next 20 years.
- They sold $48,000 worth of index funds which had doubled in value, creating $24,000 in capital gains.
- Their $1.1 million dollar taxable fund distributed $22,000 in qualified dividends.
They owe $0 in federal income tax. In fact, with only $44,400 in taxable income, they could have had a much higher taxable income and still paid no income tax. This could be considered a wasted opportunity. Nice going, Bensons. Way to go.
Maximizing the Tax-Free Income
How much more capital gains could they have taken without owing federal income tax?
The Bensons sold a whopping $109,000 worth of mutual funds that had doubled. Their cost basis being $54,500 meant a long-term capital gain of $54,500. Still no tax. Why? If you have a taxable income of $74,900 or less in 2015, your long-term capital gains and qualified dividends have a 0% tax rate. If you get lazy or goof up and end up with $75,000 in taxable income, don’t worry, you haven’t fallen off a cliff. You won’t owe 15% on all of your capital gains and qualified dividends, you’ll just owe on the portion that exceeds the limit. If you exceed the limit by $100, you owe $15 in taxes.
Kids In College
In the first two examples, we assumed the kids were long gone. Not in college, not dependents. But what it that weren’t the case? What if they were in college, considered dependents, and the Bensons paid $4000 out of pocket towards their education?
The American Opportunity Tax Credit (available to married couples with MAGI under $160,000) will match the first $2000 paid toward tuition with a $2000 tax credit (that’s free money, folks) and provide an additional $500 credit for the next $2000. In this case, the Bensons can take a lot more from the 457(b) or do some Roth conversions from the 401(k), provided it is rolled over to a traditional IRA first.
Rather than increasing the 457(b) withdrawal, they could have maintained it at $18,000 and converted $32,000 of traditional IRA (previously 401(k)) money to a Roth IRA. What is the advantage of doing this? Reducing required mandatory distributions (RMDs) which will be enforced at age 70.5, thereby avoiding future taxable income.
Kids at Home
What if the Bensons still had children in junior high when they retired? Say Hello to the child tax credit of $1000 per child. The children must live at home, be under 17 years of age, and taxable income (MAGI) must remain below $110,000 for the married joint filers. Easy enough.
The child tax credit only applies to taxes due, so the Bensons either took more from the 457(b) or did some Roth conversions in December to get their “taxes due” as close to $2000 as possible. Since you most likely will not have the ability to adjust your 457(b) income on an annual basis, it is probably best to use Roth conversions to keep taxable income flexible during early retirement.
Note that in two of these examples, the Bensons had spending money exceeding 4% of their nest egg of $3.3 million (= $132,000). It might be OK for them to do so in a year with good market returns, particularly if they are planning on using a variable withdrawal strategy. The point of this exercise is not to show much they can spend each year without depleting their nest egg, it is to show how much money can be made available without paying federal income tax in early retirement.
The Bottom Line
The take home lessons from this exercise are many:
- You can live well without paying federal income tax in an early retirement scenario.
- It’s important to diversify your retirement dollars among different account types, some of which have already been taxed (Roth, taxable account).
- Roth contributions can be withdrawn without penalty at any age. Growth cannot. Keep track of contributions if you think you might want to access the account prior to age 59.5.
- Keeping taxable income in the 15% bracket makes your long-term capital gains (on equities purchased at least a year ago) and qualified dividends tax free.
- Retiring while your kids are at home or in college will allow you to take advantage of tax credits that are generally not be available to working physicians; they are phased out due to high income.
- We didn’t touch the 401(k) other than for the sake of making Roth conversions. If you feel you will need to access this money before age 59.5, there are a couple ways. One is to retire in the year in which you turn 55 (or 56 – 59). By law, you should have immediate access. Before that age, you can rollover to an IRA and set up Substantial Equal Periodic Payments (SEPP) to access the money without penalty. If you plan well and have monies in other accounts, you probably won’t be touching this money until at least 59.5 or perhaps 70.5 when RMDs become mandatory.
- Social Security never entered the discussion. Again, if you planned like the Bensons, you’re not relying on it and might delay collecting until age 70 to get the maximum dollar benefit.
- If you live in a state with an income tax, expect to pay a few thousand dollars a year in the above scenarios. Tax-Rates.org has a tax calculator that includes state taxes for every state.
- You will not be paying FICA taxes if you have no earned income as was the case with the Bensons.
- There is a net worth above which avoiding federal income tax is no longer possible. You know, Mo Money Mo Problems. It depends on how your dollars are distributed. If you’ve got that much, which I estimate is north of $5 million, paying taxes should be no problem at all. There is also an age at which it becomes unavoidable (70 due to RMDs) unless you’ve managed to convert most or all tax deferred dollars into Roth (or spent it all).
What is the take-home message for you? Do these analyses make you more or less likely to consider an early retirement? How likely is it that the tax code will remain largely intact by the time you will be ready? Comment below!
Awesome post (and re-post). It’s not so funny when I hear politicians say high earners need to pay their fair share of taxes, and they don’t realize we pay more in taxes than the average persons yearly earned income. I’m routinely at and above 95k in taxes yearly. This would be another huge advantage to early retirement; to avoid practically throwing away money on taxes. I have three small kids, it’s time I get some financial credits for them too.
After this year, I will have kicked in something close to $1.7 Million in 12 years between state income, federal income, and FICA taxes.
I will have no qualms taking any tax credits or other subsidies that might be available to a “low-income” household as an early retiree. I’d must be getting a tiny sliver of my money back.
Cheers!
-PoF
Interesting to consider in financial planning for younger folks. Determine which type of accounts to fill could impact this planning, especially if one can’t just fill all of the buckets. This helps to think about how much one really needs in early (then normal) retirement years.
We spend a lot each year now, but a huge % of that is debt service. Without loans, and taxes, one could live a very comfortable life.
Indeed. If the bulk of your nest egg is in tax-deferred retirement accounts, you won’t be able to pull off a tax-free retirement. One of the benefits of maximizing income and spending modestly is the ability to build up a sizeable taxable account.
Last year, our taxable account grew to the point of holding more than half of our retirement assets. Update here: http://www.physicianonfire.com/2071q1/
I don’t consider loan debt service to be “spending,” but I get where you’re coming from.
Cheers!
-PoF
80k spending in ret for physicians seems quite paltry
Would think many have vacation homes as well
I pay about 20% of ret income in federal; no state(Fl) and happy to pay it as my IRA is 4.4 million
Most docs will have most of their wealth in Iras and gotta pay the piper eventually
80k paltry? You realize that this level of spending would require a working person to have an earned income well north of 100k right? Also, for most retirees, this 80k is not paying on any debt, because the home and cars are already paid off.
Ken, I realize everyone has their own spending habits, but 80k of spending that does not have to be applied toward debt can go a long way. If you love your job and want to build a larger nest egg, more power to you. But, if you can’t be happy on “just 80k” you have a spending problem, not an income problem
I think one of the greatest pieces of wisdom I have heard is perhaps that the greatest luxury you can purchase for yourself is your time.
I wouldn’t call $80k/yr “paltry” but I wouldn’t call it generous either for subset of docs who retire early, live in HCOL areas, or simply want to enjoy a higher standard of living in retirement.
Let’s assume Doc X wants to leave work at 50-55, has no debt, kids are independent, and doesn’t want to “pinch pennies” in retirement. First off, unless X has a still-working spouse with employer-provided health insurance, he is going to be spending $20k/yr just on medical expenses for the next 10-15 years until he reaches Medicare eligibility. If X’s spouse is significantly younger than him, he will also have years more of paying ~$10k until the spouse reaches 65.
Then he has the fixed and recurring costs associated with home ownership (property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance/repair, HOA) which typically average about 3% of market value per year. If he has a 2nd/vacation home, as many docs do, he has 2 sets of these expenses. Add in other obvious costs like food, clothing, any fed/state tax liability, gifts to the grandkids, automobile expenses, etc and you can easily get to the point where $80k doesn’t leave much left over for leisure spending.
It’s a personal choice of course but I for one wouldn’t feel all that secure on an $80k/yr budget if I were an early retiree. It’s doable of course but I don’t want to do it.
I don’t think people with two homes retire early or retire on $80K very often.
For a doc, retiring early on $80K is a choice. I think POF himself has calculated it out at something like $12K more to spend each year for each additional year working. So, want $120K? 4 more years. $160K, 8 more years. Your choice. But these “$80K guys” are clearly choosing time over additional money to spend.
But insecure? No, $80K without debt isn’t insecure. It’s at least twice the standard of living of the average American household.
Well, I’ll put it this way–I am one of those people I described and I wouldn’t feel good about retiring on an $80k/yr total budget knowing I had 10-15 years of pre-medicare healthcare costs to pay for (and more including my wife who’s 10 years younger than me). That’s of course in addition to the other things I need and WANT to spend money on.
Could I sell my 2nd/vacation house? Sure. But I don’t want to. I love it there and use it often. I plan to spend months at a time there continuously when retired.
Could I downsize my primary house? Sure. But I don’t want to do that either…not yet anyway.
I realize these are purely personal choices and I’m more comfortable with them then I am with the prospect of retiring a little earlier and regretting it later when I find my savings can’t fully support my desired lifestyle.
And I live in an area I’d call “upper-middle” in terms of COL. It’s certainly not cheap like rural or small-town life would be but it’s hardly Miami, NYC, or coastal California either. You don’t need a 2nd home to feel squeezed in places like those. $80k/yr in the Bay Area, for instance, is barely middle-class.
Hey man, I’m with you. I like spending more than $80K too. That’s one reason I’m still working. Don’t take it as a criticism. But to really put things in perspective, you need to look at how truly middle class people live. And the data doesn’t lie. The average household income in this country is $55K. That’s before taxes and debt service. $80K with minimal taxes and no debt to service is lots better.
Can you explain the tax side of the spreadsheet in more detail? For example in the first scenario, how did you produce the numbers for income, taxable income, deductions, exemptions etc? I know turbo tax produced the numbers, but I would be curious to know a little more about the assumptions.
I just ran it through the latest version of Turbotax TaxCaster (https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/taxcaster/) although I preferred the old version and got the same result of 0 tax owed.
Inputs as follows:
married filing jointly, no children
$0 earned income
$1,000 interest incoome
$22,000 qualified dividends
$24,000 long term capital gains
I’m an MD, not a CPA. I just plug in the scenarios and see how much “spending money” I can create for the ficitional Dr. Benson without creating a tax liability.
Cheers!
-PoF
Good idea to tally up all your expenses before retiring
Living in the NE is not cheap
RE taxes, health and all insurances, utilities, travel, food, clothes, entertainment, home maintenance, vacation home, etc etc etc
We have! $62,000 last year, but we don’t live in the Northeast. http://www.physicianonfire.com/62000-spent-heres-where-it-went/
We do have the vacation home, though.
Cheers!
-PoF
Would bet 50% of docs LEASE CARS!!!!
Based off of what?
The tax tables that I’m looking at show mfj at $75,000 taxable income paying 15% over income of $18,650 = $10,317. For 2017, any mfj over $18,650 pays _ SOME_ income tax .
Don’t forget that qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are basically tax-free at those income levels.
Those tables don’t factor in the standard deduction, exemptions, child tax credits of $1,000 apiece to offset tax owed, etc… When you plug the numbers into TaxCaster, you’ll see just how much you can have and still get away with no tax bill.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/taxcaster/
Cheers!
-PoF
https://www.eitc.irs.gov/publications/p17/ar02.html#en_US_2016_publink10008635
IRS tables on line 43 ( taxable income) at $75,000 is $10,000+.
Is TaxCaster using AGA ? or line 43?
mfj column
Do you understand the difference between gross income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income?
Not to mention the best kind of income- the kind that doesn’t even show up in gross income.
Basically, it looks like this:
Spendable income – non-taxable income like Roth IRA withdrawals, savings, basis, and muni bond interest = gross income
Gross income – above the line deductions = adjusted gross income
Adjusted gross income – exemptions and either the standard or itemized deductions = taxable income
Taxable income is figured using both the standard tables and the lower qualified dividends/long term capital gains tables depending on the type of income.
Then you add credits back in.
Those standard tables only apply to taxable income, which can obviously be dramatically less than your spendable income.
This post is showing that the tax rate on your spendable income can be pretty darn close to zero on a lot of spendable income.
Yes, I do understand the difference between line 22, line 37, line 43, and spending money.
PoFIRE’s table, ( column 4, line 4) includes taxable incomes of $75,000 with no income tax due. This is not consistent with the IRS taxable income ( line 43) tables.
If that entire $75K was taxable at ordinary interest rates, then yes, he’d owe $10,300 or so in tax. But since much of it is tax-free because it is taxed at 0% (qualified dividends/LTCGs) the tax due is much lower, around $2K. Which gets wiped out by the child tax credit.
Does that help?
Very late to this post, so I hope you will still answer my question…. and I apologize for this very simplistic question, but I am confused.
If Dr. B has ~$44k of taxable income, why doesn’t he owe any taxes? I realize this is likely obvious to almost everyone, but I am new to this and confused. I would think at that taxable income rate his tax rate should be 25% (for 2017). I see how you got to 65k income — 22k+24k+1K+18K. I get the deductions being used (for the year this was posted). But, when left with ~44k of taxable income after the deductions, why isn’t this total taxed??
It’s been years. And I didn’t write the post originally. But it looks like all of that $44K is qualified dividends and LTCGs and that particular hypothetical retiree is in the 0% qualified dividend/LTCG bracket.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Turbotax does a bit of a disservice by using the term “taxable income” to mean something different than the 1040 line 43, which is also labeled as “taxable income.”
They do give a disclaimer of sorts in their definition of taxable income that says some of it may not be taxable.
“Your income after subtracting deductions and exemptions. The amount on which your taxes are calculated. Note: certain taxable income (e.g. qualified dividends, long-term capital gains… ) could be taxed at a different rate than standard tax table.”
In the case of our examples, much of the “taxable income” (Turbotax definition) is actually not taxed as long as you stay within the 15% tax bracket.
Cheers!
-PoF
These are naive calculations. Most any physician will be getting $2,500 – 2,000 a month in SS and the wife/husband at least $1,000 after 67yo. Add $40,000 a year to all the above calculations and see how much is tax free…….Gordon
Read the title of the post:
Taxes in EARLY RETIREMENT
i.e. before you can collect Social Security.
But your observation is correct once SS starts coming in.
I’m familiar with the impact of Social Security, having recently written all about the two bend points and creating a Social Security calculator with the early retiree in mind: http://www.physicianonfire.com/ssa2017/
I’m writing for the financially independent physician who could potentially have a couple decades between retirement and taking Social Security somewhere between 62 and 70.
Cheers!
-PoF
The post is interesting and a different take on what many people might do in those early retirement years which would be Roth conversions to maximize tax free retirement accounts – of course that means paying taxes, but “hopefully” at lower tax rate than when working or during RMD years. And I realize that the article is about not paying taxes within the income bracket that was shown, but the value of having a Roth account that can be allowed to grow tax-free and either used in the future, inherited, or given to charity, might make paying some taxes during these early retirement years of great benefit.
Exactly. A tax-free retirement is one of those things you can do, but probably shouldn’t! But the point is you can have a MUCH lower tax burden during early retirement than during your peak earnings years, especially as a high-income professional. For example, my marginal tax rate right now is 46%. But if I retired right now, I could spend about $70K a year tax-free using a combination of Roth, tax-deferred, and taxable accounts.
I’m excited to test out this theory in the coming decade. It’s hard to project tax rates and rules of course, but my husband and I are on track to be a perfect case study of a tax free early retirement. My plan is to retire when we are in our 40s and withdraw $120k per year from taxable investments for 15 years until we can tap our Traditional retirement funds (at which point we’ll need even less because our home and rental mortgages will be paid off).
We have Roth accounts too we can access if we get unlucky with sequence of returns and the taxable account drains early (or we could always sell a rental property too), but otherwise the plan is to leave those accounts alone – except to convert as much as we can from Traditional to Roth IRAs each year while still staying in the 0% tax bracket. Zero would be ideal, but we could bump into the 15% bracket if rental cash flow is good or dividend and interest rates rise substantially.
I agree an $80K budget is doable, but that would leave out lots of luxuries we’d rather work a bit longer to enjoy over the long haul – and to leave a cushion in the budget for unexpected medical costs and periodic larger items like replacing a vehicle or a bucket list vacation.
Bear in mind that just because you can have a tax-free early retirement doesn’t mean you should. The right thing to do for many people between retirement and taking Social Security is to do Roth conversions. With these you purposely pay tax using your taxable account while converting tax-deferred money to tax-free money. You may be able to lower your overall lifetime tax burden by doing that.
Also, you seem unaware that you can get to your tax-deferred accounts prior to age 59 1/2 if you want to:
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/how-to-get-to-your-money-before-age-59-12/
I originally read this post on POFs blog site. I just read these comments today. Really good comments. The biggest risk in all of this is tax reform. The 0% bracket for dividends and capital gains could be eliminated. My taxable account throws off too much money to get in the 0% bracket. I know this is a first world problem. Also if the numbers are not inflation indexed then more people will have enough income to have to pay the tax. I am happy to pay just 15% on the cap gains and dividends which is still a HUGE decrease. It is hard to “game” the system for long periods because the IRS has a way of figuring this out as well. Strategies change over time. No matter how old you are or how much money you have you can still pick up pearls now and then on tax law.
There is a continuous push and pull between the tax system becoming more progressive and less progressive. But the long-term trend to me seems to be one of becoming more progressive. Just look at how the Republican health insurance reform bill is being portrayed in the media- a gift to the rich. Thus, if you can live on anything close to the median household income, you should expect very favorable tax treatment.
Agreed. I have seen large changes in the treatment of capital gains and dividends in my working life. I think you have to recognize that if you base an early retirement on a 0% bracket that it might not last. Even if I completely retire from medicine soon I will keep reading this blog because I recognize that some aspects of tax law and investing can radically change in a brief period of time.
For sure. In fact, I don’t even think a 0% LTCG bracket is fair or even good policy. But it is the law and I would take advantage of it if I could and I know no better predictor of future tax law than current tax law.
Agreed. I would take advantage of it if I could too!
Surprising how many people just ignore taxes. They ignore it when planning their retirement goals and they ignore it when considering their investment returns. It can make a HUGE difference and really shouldn’t be ignored. Thanks for sharing on this topic.
POF:
can you comment on a similar scenario in which Dr Benson does not have access to a 457(b) ?
I can only contribute to a IRA and 401k, all excess to taxable. Many of us do not have access to other plans or even HSA’s
I don’t know if he’ll see this or not, but you can always substitute a taxable account.
What WCI said is true. The 457(b) actually makes it tougher to stay in a tax-free bracket, because withdrawals from there are fully taxable (although not FICA taxed). If you had the money in taxable instead, you’d have access to even more tax-free money.
Best,
-PoF
A scenario that many on here might want to know about is the physician who has continuously invested in a variable universal life (VUL) insurance policy as well as maxing out all of his other accounts. While those reading this website will quickly learn to avoid those products, many who purchased them were naïve when they purchased it and had already sunk a decade or so of costs into it, at which point sticking with it is probably the best course of action. This isn’t a post about the wisdom of VUL avoidance, but rather about how to make the best of your situation, especially for a higher income physician.
If you have a VUL at retirement you have a great mechanism for getting a lot of spending money, but not paying any taxes. If you had also converted all of your tax deferred accounts into a roth IRA, then your only sources of taxable income are your taxable account and social security. Imagine having yearly spending money of $250,000 and still paying $0 in taxes.
The issue with using cash value life insurance for retirement spending is it is tax-free but not interest-free, just like borrowing against your house or your car. So yes, if your goal is to minimize taxes it can help, but if your goal is to get the maximum amount of money after tax for you and your heirs, it’s the right move for a much smaller percentage of people. You can get to $250K in yearly spending with a $0 tax bill even without using it.
I suspect for those who bought a VUL before they knew better, for whom it is a good idea to keep the policy, they’d be better off a lot of the time using it for their legacy. But if they’re going to use it as a retirement account, they’d probably be best off continually decreasing the amount of insurance as they borrow cash value out, which decreases the insurance costs. Sure adds a lot of complexity and is difficult to model to know the best move, as discussed in this post:https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/variable-universal-life-insurance-as-a-retirement-account/
At any rate, for sure not doing unless you’re maxing everything else out.