Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am a Fed and so have access to the Thrift Savings Plan. So far our retirement savings have been going mostly into the Thirft Savings Plan (lower cost), but of course that puts the retirement investments mostly in my name.
Obviously this means we are not maxing out retirement potential (arguably that's a mistake). But that factor aside, is it important to make sure there are retirement assets in DH's name? Or would he easily inherit the same pot of money if I die in a car crash? I've been assuming that all would be fine, but I'm not sure that I fully understand the implications.
I am pretty sure the TSP will not release a married account holder's funds to anyone other than the account holder's spouse. Go poke around the TSP website.
Anonymous wrote:I am a Fed and so have access to the Thrift Savings Plan. So far our retirement savings have been going mostly into the Thirft Savings Plan (lower cost), but of course that puts the retirement investments mostly in my name.
Obviously this means we are not maxing out retirement potential (arguably that's a mistake). But that factor aside, is it important to make sure there are retirement assets in DH's name? Or would he easily inherit the same pot of money if I die in a car crash? I've been assuming that all would be fine, but I'm not sure that I fully understand the implications.
Anonymous wrote:I would think that if you can only afford as a family to save X amount of money for retirement each year, that you should contribute that money equally through each person's retirement account. Doing it this way will mean that each person gets whatever the company match is, and it also seems more fair to me.
If one person maxes out social security each year, however, and another doesn't, it actually makes more sense for the lower earned to contribute more to retirement and the higher earner not to.
For example:
Spouse 1 makes 200K a year
Spouse 2 makes 75K a year.
If they only contribute 15K a year to 401Ks, then spouse 2 should contribute the entire 15K as it will reduce the social security taxes paid on the 15K that is contributed. For spouse 1, since they maxed out social security already, it doesn't save any extra tax money.
Anonymous wrote:I would think that if you can only afford as a family to save X amount of money for retirement each year, that you should contribute that money equally through each person's retirement account. Doing it this way will mean that each person gets whatever the company match is, and it also seems more fair to me.
If one person maxes out social security each year, however, and another doesn't, it actually makes more sense for the lower earned to contribute more to retirement and the higher earner not to.
For example:
Spouse 1 makes 200K a year
Spouse 2 makes 75K a year.
If they only contribute 15K a year to 401Ks, then spouse 2 should contribute the entire 15K as it will reduce the social security taxes paid on the 15K that is contributed. For spouse 1, since they maxed out social security already, it doesn't save any extra tax money.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, he's the beneficiary. It sounds like I am correct in assuming there are no real drawbacks to holding one account? Our default plan was to max out potential contribution to the Thrift account, then move over to second.
If he works and his company matches contributions your thought process is not correct. He should at least contribute enough to get the max.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, he's the beneficiary. It sounds like I am correct in assuming there are no real drawbacks to holding one account? Our default plan was to max out potential contribution to the Thrift account, then move over to second.