Anonymous wrote:Echoing that parents need to understand the rules around Roth IRAs for their kids. A couple of important points that I'm not sure come across in the thread so far:
1) Kids have to have earned income. You can't just start a Roth IRA for them and fund it with gifted money if the kid hasn't earned income that year. That doesn't have to be a formal job with a paycheck -- it can be babysitting or lawnmowing money -- but it's a good idea to have the kid keep a record of money they've earned.
2) You can't exceed what the child has earned in a year. So "matching" only works if the kid is earning the full amount contributed but has kept some of it. So kid earns $1000, they can put $500 in and you can put $500 in, but they can't earn $250 and you put $500 in.
Here's a reader-friendly version of the rules, but always consult the IRS or an outside professional with any questions. You may think you're doing your kids a favor by bending or breaking these rules, but they're the ones who will have to deal with any messes you made by funding their Roth IRAs with contributions in excess of what they actually earned if they get flagged.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For those who are matching, remember that the total contributed to the Roth cannot exceed the kid's actual earnings that year.
Yeah, a lot of people are skirting the rules around ROTH and IRAs. The reason they are provided with the tax benefits they have is that you are supposed to be earning the money and putting a portion of your own money in. And you certainly shouldn't be putting in more than the kid is making, which it sounds like some of you are. I feel like these people should be setting up an annuity or something instead of cheating at a ROTH contribution.
I don't think they are. Why do you think that? When people say "matching", i read that as fully funding up to 100% of earned income. Not x2 of earned income.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For those who are matching, remember that the total contributed to the Roth cannot exceed the kid's actual earnings that year.
Yeah, a lot of people are skirting the rules around ROTH and IRAs. The reason they are provided with the tax benefits they have is that you are supposed to be earning the money and putting a portion of your own money in. And you certainly shouldn't be putting in more than the kid is making, which it sounds like some of you are. I feel like these people should be setting up an annuity or something instead of cheating at a ROTH contribution.
I don't think they are. Why do you think that? When people say "matching", i read that as fully funding up to 100% of earned income. Not x2 of earned income.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For those who are matching, remember that the total contributed to the Roth cannot exceed the kid's actual earnings that year.
Yeah, a lot of people are skirting the rules around ROTH and IRAs. The reason they are provided with the tax benefits they have is that you are supposed to be earning the money and putting a portion of your own money in. And you certainly shouldn't be putting in more than the kid is making, which it sounds like some of you are. I feel like these people should be setting up an annuity or something instead of cheating at a ROTH contribution.
Anonymous wrote:For those who are matching, remember that the total contributed to the Roth cannot exceed the kid's actual earnings that year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We started Roth IRAs for each kid at 15, as soon as they had earned income.
Same. We also funded them and let our teen keep the money he earned. I imagine we will continue to do so for a while.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. If this money isn't taxable (and I cannot see how a $15-year-old's summer salary is), what benefit is a Roth at this point? Why not put it in a no or low fee index fund? There's nothing to lose, and then the money is available to them as young adults to help with a down payment, student loans, etc. I cannot believe any real financial advisor would advise this--only if they're getting a commission on that IRA. Truly, makes no sense to me.
+1 if a teen makes $500-1000 babysitting in cash just keep the cash. In order to do a Roth you’d have to file a tax return for that small amount of money. Seems like overkill.
This is not correct
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is great for those of you who can swing it - but also, matching money or saving for them so they can keep their earnings as spending money isn't really teaching them about money, though it's certainly setting them up to not have to worry about it in the future.
We need our kids to help pay for car insurance, gas, etc. and also to save for college with their earnings. With our household parental income (which must be much less than a lot of you), I don't think we'll also be able to start retirement accounts at 13.
IDK. 49 yo holder of 30-yr IRA here. Matching absolutely does teach the value of taking advantage of an available match (something so difficult for people to get that 401k rules have changed to make opt-outs required vs opt-ins for this reason).
More than that, though, success managing money is behavioral. What can be taught by providing the money for the investment is: “You are going to do this every year from now on, no matter what.” And that is what I learned and did, through some pretty high water—I kept putting away the $2k, then the $6k, in years when my personal income from all sources was under $25k annually.
My parents’ HHI was never over $125k in early 2000s dollars. They have never “gifted” money for cars, houses, private school education, any of that. Our HHI has never been over $200k. The IRA is now worth more than $1m.
Of course, as the PP said—no mandates. But this is a specific form of teaching that I will prioritize even if that other stuff seems completely out of reach (as it does to us as well).
I’m the pp arguing this doesn’t teach kids about money. It teaches them that parents will give them more money through tax vehicles. Your point about matching is useless if you never get a match. We’re in our 50s and neither of us have ever had one and we’ve both moved around.
When your kid gets a job, it’s just as easy to say, “hey Larla, if your co offers matching that means it’s free money.” That is teaching versus, showing them a statement where you have matched their salary, while they spent all their money.
Sure, any given person may not (statistically speaking, likely will not) get a job with a match. But in that case having formed the habit of retirement saving and the sense of identity around it—that this is just a thing that person does year in and year out, one of the first priorities in the budget and not what happens to “extra money” if there is any—is proportionally even more important. That’s the behavioral part.
Most people can’t, and if you don’t want to for whatever reason that’s your call too. I am just saying that having it done for me did not teach me that my parents were going to give me more money thru various tax-protected vehicles—because they haven’t, which was part of the conversation at the time about opening the IRA.
This makes no logical sense. They haven't formed a habit of retirement savings because they haven't saved the money. The parents gifted it to them. The behavior is the action taken by the parents.
Sure, it's nice to see a big account that your parents gave you, but don't mistake what it is. A gift.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is great for those of you who can swing it - but also, matching money or saving for them so they can keep their earnings as spending money isn't really teaching them about money, though it's certainly setting them up to not have to worry about it in the future.
We need our kids to help pay for car insurance, gas, etc. and also to save for college with their earnings. With our household parental income (which must be much less than a lot of you), I don't think we'll also be able to start retirement accounts at 13.
IDK. 49 yo holder of 30-yr IRA here. Matching absolutely does teach the value of taking advantage of an available match (something so difficult for people to get that 401k rules have changed to make opt-outs required vs opt-ins for this reason).
More than that, though, success managing money is behavioral. What can be taught by providing the money for the investment is: “You are going to do this every year from now on, no matter what.” And that is what I learned and did, through some pretty high water—I kept putting away the $2k, then the $6k, in years when my personal income from all sources was under $25k annually.
My parents’ HHI was never over $125k in early 2000s dollars. They have never “gifted” money for cars, houses, private school education, any of that. Our HHI has never been over $200k. The IRA is now worth more than $1m.
Of course, as the PP said—no mandates. But this is a specific form of teaching that I will prioritize even if that other stuff seems completely out of reach (as it does to us as well).
I’m the pp arguing this doesn’t teach kids about money. It teaches them that parents will give them more money through tax vehicles. Your point about matching is useless if you never get a match. We’re in our 50s and neither of us have ever had one and we’ve both moved around.
When your kid gets a job, it’s just as easy to say, “hey Larla, if your co offers matching that means it’s free money.” That is teaching versus, showing them a statement where you have matched their salary, while they spent all their money.
Sure, any given person may not (statistically speaking, likely will not) get a job with a match. But in that case having formed the habit of retirement saving and the sense of identity around it—that this is just a thing that person does year in and year out, one of the first priorities in the budget and not what happens to “extra money” if there is any—is proportionally even more important. That’s the behavioral part.
Most people can’t, and if you don’t want to for whatever reason that’s your call too. I am just saying that having it done for me did not teach me that my parents were going to give me more money thru various tax-protected vehicles—because they haven’t, which was part of the conversation at the time about opening the IRA.
This makes no logical sense. They haven't formed a habit of retirement savings because they haven't saved the money. The parents gifted it to them. The behavior is the action taken by the parents.
Sure, it's nice to see a big account that your parents gave you, but don't mistake what it is. A gift.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is great for those of you who can swing it - but also, matching money or saving for them so they can keep their earnings as spending money isn't really teaching them about money, though it's certainly setting them up to not have to worry about it in the future.
We need our kids to help pay for car insurance, gas, etc. and also to save for college with their earnings. With our household parental income (which must be much less than a lot of you), I don't think we'll also be able to start retirement accounts at 13.
IDK. 49 yo holder of 30-yr IRA here. Matching absolutely does teach the value of taking advantage of an available match (something so difficult for people to get that 401k rules have changed to make opt-outs required vs opt-ins for this reason).
More than that, though, success managing money is behavioral. What can be taught by providing the money for the investment is: “You are going to do this every year from now on, no matter what.” And that is what I learned and did, through some pretty high water—I kept putting away the $2k, then the $6k, in years when my personal income from all sources was under $25k annually.
My parents’ HHI was never over $125k in early 2000s dollars. They have never “gifted” money for cars, houses, private school education, any of that. Our HHI has never been over $200k. The IRA is now worth more than $1m.
Of course, as the PP said—no mandates. But this is a specific form of teaching that I will prioritize even if that other stuff seems completely out of reach (as it does to us as well).
I’m the pp arguing this doesn’t teach kids about money. It teaches them that parents will give them more money through tax vehicles. Your point about matching is useless if you never get a match. We’re in our 50s and neither of us have ever had one and we’ve both moved around.
When your kid gets a job, it’s just as easy to say, “hey Larla, if your co offers matching that means it’s free money.” That is teaching versus, showing them a statement where you have matched their salary, while they spent all their money.
Sure, any given person may not (statistically speaking, likely will not) get a job with a match. But in that case having formed the habit of retirement saving and the sense of identity around it—that this is just a thing that person does year in and year out, one of the first priorities in the budget and not what happens to “extra money” if there is any—is proportionally even more important. That’s the behavioral part.
Most people can’t, and if you don’t want to for whatever reason that’s your call too. I am just saying that having it done for me did not teach me that my parents were going to give me more money thru various tax-protected vehicles—because they haven’t, which was part of the conversation at the time about opening the IRA.
Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. If this money isn't taxable (and I cannot see how a $15-year-old's summer salary is), what benefit is a Roth at this point? Why not put it in a no or low fee index fund? There's nothing to lose, and then the money is available to them as young adults to help with a down payment, student loans, etc. I cannot believe any real financial advisor would advise this--only if they're getting a commission on that IRA. Truly, makes no sense to me.