Let's ignore the legacy concerns for a moment and assume one still wants to optimize Roth conversions, not so much to minimize the chances of running out of money, but rather to minimize expenses post RMD age for the surviving spouse.
The worst case for not doing Roth conversions is when the surviving spouse ends up in a high tax bracket, which includes a high IRMAA. Not necessarily a catastrophic situation, since a high tax bracket means high income too, but not optimal either.
I am thinking the consequence of that is that Roth conversions make sense up to the point that the surviving spouse stays into a reasonable tax bracket that minimizes IRMAA and the overall tax payments. Obviously that point is a function of how much social security and other sources of income are there, including dividends, etc. but still some finite computable figure.
The actionable question here is: is this a good way to plan for Roth conversions, when one does not have a target to Roth convert everything and there is adequate time until the RMD age?
The worst case for not doing Roth conversions is when the surviving spouse ends up in a high tax bracket, which includes a high IRMAA. Not necessarily a catastrophic situation, since a high tax bracket means high income too, but not optimal either.
I am thinking the consequence of that is that Roth conversions make sense up to the point that the surviving spouse stays into a reasonable tax bracket that minimizes IRMAA and the overall tax payments. Obviously that point is a function of how much social security and other sources of income are there, including dividends, etc. but still some finite computable figure.
The actionable question here is: is this a good way to plan for Roth conversions, when one does not have a target to Roth convert everything and there is adequate time until the RMD age?
Statistics: Posted by idc — Wed Jul 17, 2024 3:00 am — Replies 0 — Views 97