Traditional, Roth, HSA, or taxable account – which maximizes after-tax income and legacy?

Now that I’m mostly retired and have most of our nest egg in traditional tax-deferred accounts, I find myself wondering if I made a mistake.

With Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) looming, will those decades of tax deferral come back to haunt me?

We did maximize our Health Savings Account (HSA), but should I have put less into tax-deferred accounts and more into Roth or taxable instead?

Let’s compare four account types so you can decide which one really wins for you.

What Does Winning Mean Here?

For pre-retirees, here are the criteria I find most important:

1. Flexibility before retirement (e.g., convertibility)
2. After-tax retirement income
3. Maximum amount allowed to be invested, including income limits (if any)
4. Limitations on penalty-free and/or tax-free withdrawals
5. Tax treatment for spousal and non-spousal heirs

As we’ll see below, every account is a trade between tax timing, flexibility, and legacy efficiency. Thus, different account types “win” in different circumstances and by different criteria. 

Meeting Our Contenders and Their Tax Characteristics

Here’s a quick reference guide for the tax characteristics of the different account types.

Next, let’s dig a little deeper into each account type.

Traditional IRAs and 401(k) Plans

Both of these are tax-deferred retirement accounts. The IRA is an individual plan available to anyone with earned income, while the 401(k), along with its cousins, the 403(b) and 457 plans, are employer plans to the benefit of employees.

Since the 403(b) and 457 are limited to employees of state and local governments, religious organizations, public schools, and non-profit organizations, we’ll ignore them here.

Annual Contribution Caps (for 2026)

• IRAs: $7,500, plus $1,100 catch-up for people over age 50.
• 401(k) plans: $24,500 elective salary deferral, plus $8,000 catch-up for employees over age 50. Employers are allowed, but not required to, match employee contributions. However, the overall contribution may not exceed the lower of 100% of the employee’s compensation or $72,000 ($80,000 if over age 50 and $83,250 if aged 60-63).
• Note that these limits are shared with the Roth versions of the same account types.

Income Limit to Contribute

None.

Deductibility Limits (for 2026)

• For IRAs, there is a complex set of deductibility limits, depending on your filing status and whether or not you and/or your spouse have access to an employer retirement plan. For example, if married and filing jointly, and you have access to an employer plan, you can fully deduct up to a Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) of $129,000. For MAGI above $149,000, none of your contributions are tax-deductible. For MAGI between the two numbers, you can deduct a prorated fraction of the contribution. If neither you nor your spouse (if married) can access an employer plan, the deductibility of your contributions isn’t subject to income limits.
• There are no deductibility limits for employee contributions to 401(k) plans (up to the contribution limit). Employer contributions are deductible to the employer, up to 25% of employee compensation.

Withdrawal Rules

• Taxed as ordinary income in the year of the withdrawal.
• With limited exceptions, withdrawals before age 59½ are subject to a 10% penalty in addition to taxes.
• RMDs apply (if not already subject to RMDs, RMDs begin at age 73 for those who turn 73 before 2033; those who turn 73 in 2033 or later will be subject to RMDs from age 75).

Heir Rules

Inheritance rules are different for spouses and non-spouse heirs.

• Spouses:
  • If the original account holder had already started RMDs, their widow(er) can (a) keep the account as an inherited account and delay their distributions until the original account holder would have turned 72; (b) take distributions based on their own life expectancy; or (c) follow the 10-year rule, wherein they must drain the account within 10 years of the original account holder’s death. Alternatively, the widow(er) can roll the account over into their own IRA.
  • If RMDs had not been started, the widow(er) can keep the account as an inherited account and take distributions based on their own life expectancy, or roll it over into their own IRA.
• Non-spousal heirs:
  • If an “eligible designated beneficiary” (for non-spouse, this is a minor child of the original account holder, disabled or chronically ill, or someone who is no more than 10 years younger than the original account holder), can (a) take distributions over the longer of their own life expectancy or the original account holder’s remaining life expectancy, or (b) follow the 10-year rule. 
  • If not an eligible designated beneficiary, must follow the 10-year rule.

Pro for Pre-Retirees

Get tax deductions during peak earning years.

Cons for Pre-Retirees

• RMDs apply.
• Withdrawals get stacked as taxable income on top of wage income and realized short-term capital gains, all subject to the high rates of taxes on regular wages. This may push you high enough to be subject to Medicare Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA).
• Non-spousal heirs must drain the account within 10 years and pay regular wage tax rates on the resulting withdrawals.

Roth IRAs and 401(k) Plans

These are similar to the traditional accounts mentioned above, but instead of getting a tax deduction now and paying taxes later, you contribute after-tax dollars, and withdrawals are tax-free (once the account has been open for five years). 

Annual Contribution Caps (for 2026)

• IRAs: Share limit with traditional IRAs.
• 401(k) plans: Share limits with traditional 401(k) plans.

Income Limit to Contribute

• Complex income limits for Roth IRAs – for example, if married and filing jointly, MAGI up to $236,000 allows Roth contributions. MAGI above $246,000 disallows it. MAGI between those allows a prorated reduction in contribution limits.
• Can convert from traditional to Roth. Note that the IRS uses a pro-rata rule for the total balance of after-tax vs. pre-tax balances across all IRAs when calculating what part of the conversion is not taxable.
• Can make “back-door” contributions by making an after-tax contribution to a traditional IRA, then converting to a Roth. The pro-rata rule applies here too.
• None for 401(k).

Deductibility Limits

Not deductible.

Withdrawal Rules

• Tax-free withdrawals.
• Withdrawal of contributions is allowed, but you cannot later reverse it.
• With limited exceptions, withdrawals of earnings before age 59½ and/or before the account is five years old are subject to a 10% penalty.
• RMDs don’t apply.

Heir Rules

Generally, the same rules as for non-Roth accounts, except that withdrawals are tax-free, However, withdrawals of earnings from accounts that are less than five years old may be subject to income tax. Since the 10-year rule doesn’t require withdrawals in any specific year, the heir can hold off on withdrawals until the Roth account is five years old, and thus avoid such taxation.

Note that heirs’ RMDs from an inherited Roth account are separate from RMDs from Roth accounts not inherited from the same person.

For qualified employer plans, such as a 401(k), there are further rules.

Pros for Pre-Retirees

• Tax-free retirement income.
• Heirs receive tax-free.
• If tax rates are lower now than later, can pay lower tax now to avoid higher tax later.
• No RMD

Cons for Pre-Retirees

• No current tax deduction, potentially at a high tax bracket.
• Higher taxes now may mean current cash flow doesn’t allow maxing the contribution limits.
• Conversions cause a taxable income spike, possibly causing IRMAA.

HSAs

These are intended to provide a way to cover qualified healthcare expenses with pre-tax dollars. These accounts enjoy a triple tax benefit:

• Tax deduction for contributions.
• Tax-free growth.
• Tax-free withdrawals (for qualified health-related expenses).

As a result, these can be used as a long-term way to maximize healthcare dollars for retirement.

Annual Contribution Caps (for 2026)

Assuming you have an HSA-compliant high-deductible health plan (HDHP), you can contribute up to $4,400 for an individual or $8,750 for a couple or family.

Income Limit to Contribute

None.

Deductibility Limits

Fully deductible (assuming HSA-compliant health plan).

Withdrawal Rules

• Tax-free withdrawals for qualified health-related expenses.
• After age 65, can use like a traditional IRA for non-health expenses.
• RMDs don’t apply.

Heir Rules

• Spouses: inherit as HSA.
• Non-spousal heirs: taxed for full market value in the year of inheritance. This means, for example, an inherited $200,000 HSA could add $200,000 of taxable income to your child in a single year, potentially pushing them up into an extremely high tax bracket.

Pros for Pre-Retirees

• Current tax deduction.
• Tax-free way to fund healthcare expenses in retirement.
• No RMD

Cons for Pre-Retirees

• Must be enrolled in HDHP.
• Penalties apply for withdrawals not used to cover eligible health-related expenses before age 65.
• Worst tax setup for non-spousal heirs.

Taxable Portfolio

This is the least tax-efficient for you, but more tax-efficient for your heirs than a traditional retirement account, and especially compared to an HSA.

Annual Contribution Caps

None.

Income Limit to Contribute

None.

Deductibility Limits

Not deductible.

Withdrawal Rules

None.

Heir Rules

Heirs enjoy a step-up in basis, which means no taxes are ever due on gains that were unrealized as of the death of the original account owner.

Pros for Pre-Retirees

• When used for retirement income, (long-term) realized capital gains are taxed at the preferred long-term capital gains rates (0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on your taxable income).
• Greatest flexibility.
• Heirs receive with step-up basis.
• No RMD

Cons for Pre-Retirees

• No current tax deduction, potentially at a high tax bracket.
• Dividends and interest are taxed in the current year.
• Mutual funds distribute capital gains annually, increasing current-year taxes.

Head-to-Head Comparisons

Here’s a quick summary of the four account types with their pros and cons.

My Personal Math

Numbers clarify trade-offs better than theory. Here’s how the math worked in our case.

Whenever I had an HDHP, I maxed out our HSA contributions.

Beyond that, I maxed out our traditional, tax-deferred contributions to the best of our ability, given our cash flow each year.

Let’s see how that math works when your contribution is limited by cash flow. Say you can set aside $3,350 a year and pay a total marginal tax rate of 30%. That translates to contributing $5000 into your HSA or traditional retirement account and getting a tax deduction worth $1,500, or putting $3,500 into a Roth or into your taxable account.

• Putting $5,000 in an HSA: Fits within your after-tax cash flow, grows tax-free, and allows tax-free withdrawals for qualified health expenses. Assuming 7% real (inflation-adjusted) return, you’ll have about $10,000 in 10 years, all of which is accessible for use.
• Putting $5,000 into a traditional retirement account: Fits within your after-tax cash flow, grows tax-deferred, and allows penalty-free withdrawals after age 59½ (some exceptions allow earlier penalty-free withdrawals). Assuming 7% real (inflation-adjusted) return, you’ll have about $10,000 in 10 years, but if you’re still paying 30% marginal tax rate, only $7,000 is accessible for use.
• Putting $3,500 into a Roth account: Fits within your after-tax cash flow, grows tax-free, and allows tax-free withdrawals once the account is at least five years old and you’re 59½ (contributions can be withdrawn earlier). Assuming 7% real (inflation-adjusted) return, you’ll also have about $7,000 in 10 years, all of which is accessible for use.
• Putting $3,500 into a taxable account: Fits within your after-tax cash flow, dividends and interest are taxed annually, and capital gains are taxed when realized. Realized long-term capital gains are taxed at preferred rates (0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on your taxable income). Assuming 7% real (inflation-adjusted) return, you’ll have less than $7,000 in 10 years (if you had to pay annual income taxes from dividends and interest income), and the accessible amount is even lower due to taxes on realized capital gains.

Had we not been limited by cash flow, maxing out Roth contributions would have provided more retirement income than traditional retirement accounts. Had we made the contributions to a traditional account and used the tax benefit to fund a taxable investment, the difference would shrink, but not disappear.

From the perspective of eventual heirs, we need to drain our HSA before touching our Roth accounts, and preferably before draining our tax-deferred accounts. Once the HSA is drained, we should drain as much as possible of our tax-deferred accounts before draining our taxable portfolio.

However, I don’t plan to let the bequest tail wag the retirement-income/tax dog. Accordingly, we will use our HSA in years when our taxable income is higher, and when we have little taxable income, we’ll “fill” the 12% federal tax bracket by converting a portion of our tax-deferred balance into a Roth account.

More General Math

Pre-retirees need to balance their priorities and risks. These include:

• Current marginal tax rate (federal, state, and local).
• Expected marginal tax rate in retirement, especially once RMDs hit.
• IRMAA risk, especially once RMDs start growing.
• Estate goals.
• Current liquidity needs.

Your winning option depends on your priorities and which risks most concern you. 

If your top priority is maximizing after-tax retirement income, your winning strategy is maximizing HSA contributions, if you’re eligible, up to the point where your balance is more than you’re likely to spend on qualified healthcare expenses during your lifetime.

Next, if your tax rate in retirement is likely to be equal to or higher than your current rate, Roth accounts win. If not, traditional retirement accounts are better.

If your top priority is managing RMD risk and/or funding healthcare costs, HSAs are once again your top winner, followed by Roth accounts and a taxable portfolio.

For the greatest flexibility, a taxable portfolio is your best bet.

If your priority is ensuring your heirs get the biggest benefit, Roth accounts are the clear winners, followed by traditional retirement accounts.

In short, If all else is equal and used optimally:

1. HSA wins for healthcare dollars.
2. Roth wins for legacy (e.g., $1 million inherited by non-spouse taxed at a total 33% rate in a traditional IRA is worth $670k vs. $1 million in a Roth is worth $1 million) and RMD control.
3. Traditional wins if current tax rate > retirement tax rate.
4. Taxable wins for flexibility.

Interesting Takes from the Pros

I asked several financial advisors for how they advise their clients, and the biggest mistakes they see people making when saving for retirement. Here’s what they had to say.

Alex Bridges, CFP®, ChFC®, RICP®, Wealth Advisor, Tiverton Wealth, says, “Because every financial plan is as unique as a fingerprint, account selection is never a generic exercise; it requires balancing current tax liabilities with future flexibility. I frame this decision for clients through the lens of Tax Diversification. 

“For young professionals just starting, we aggressively favor the Roth side of the equation, Roth IRAs, Roth 401(k)s, and Roth 403(b)s. In lower early-career tax brackets, the upfront tax deduction of a traditional account is less valuable, whereas decades of tax-free compounding growth are incredibly powerful. However, as clients enter their peak earning years, the strategy shifts. We start balancing the need for immediate tax relief via pre-tax deferrals with the necessity of future tax flexibility. 

“For our small-business-owner clients, this often involves layering bespoke retirement plans, like pairing a Safe Harbor 401(k) with a Cash Balance Plan, to maximize their personal tax deductions while simultaneously structuring beneficial retention incentives for their employees. Ultimately, my goal is to ensure a client never reaches retirement with all their eggs in one tax basket. 

“We aim to build a ‘three bucket’ strategy: tax-deferred via traditional 401(k)/IRA, tax-free via Roth accounts, and after-tax in taxable brokerage accounts. A perfect real-world example of this synergy is an employee who contributes their own money to a Roth 401(k), receives their employer’s matching funds in a pre-tax bucket, and systematically funds a taxable brokerage account on the side. This triangulation gives us ultimate control over their tax destiny in retirement. 

“The single most pervasive mistake I see is tax concentration, which is arriving at retirement with entirely one type of tax asset. I often work with highly successful professionals, such as retired attorneys, who accumulated massive wealth. Often, they own their homes outright and have multi-million-dollar balances sitting entirely in pre-tax IRAs. 

“On paper, they are wealthy, but functionally, they are trapped, because every single dollar they withdraw is taxed as ordinary income, so they have zero control over their retirement tax bracket. This lack of tax diversification can trigger a ‘tax torpedo,’ exposing them to massive RMDs, higher taxes on their Social Security benefits, and steep Medicare IRMAA surcharges. 

“Conversely, while many advisors preach that ‘all Roth is perfect,’ overconcentration in Roth accounts presents its own set of challenges, particularly for early retirees. If you want to retire at 50, having 100% of your assets tied up in pre-tax or Roth accounts usually means navigating restrictive IRS rules and potential 10% penalties to access earnings before age 59½. 

“This leads to what I consider the most underrated retirement vehicle: the after-tax taxable brokerage account. There is a lot of noise in the industry dismissing taxable accounts for retirement savings, but I view them as the ultimate ‘bridge account.’ 

“If you have a healthy after-tax portfolio, you can retire at whatever age you choose. There are no age restrictions, no early withdrawal penalties, and the funds are subject to highly favorable long-term capital gains tax rates rather than ordinary income rates. Failing to build this after-tax bridge is the biggest missed opportunity for anyone dreaming of financial independence before age 60.”

Anthony Ferraiolo, CFP®, Partner Advisor at AdvicePeriod, agrees and expands, “As pointed out above, the best account type is really a combination of many. It’s not uncommon for clients to tell me they wish they had more money in their Roth IRAs or HSAs, but Roth IRAs debuted in 1998 and HSAs in 2003. I tell them that if all their money was in Roth accounts, they probably would have missed some tax-arbitrage opportunities during their working years. 

“However, I think HSAs provide some good mental accounting benefits in addition to their tax benefits. It’s a lot easier to stomach a $5K dental bill in retirement when you have a tax-free bucket to tap. 

“During all these conversations, I often feel that the plain old regular taxable account gets the least love but is one of the most flexible tools for your accumulation and retirement years. There are really only two cons to the taxable account: no tax benefit, and taxes on interest and dividends along the way. 

“However, the latter is an overblown concern, and there is a minor tax benefit that may come into place. I say the latter is overblown because with a proper account structure, with the inclusion of municipal bonds or municipal bond funds, most of your bond allocation’s income can be tax-exempt, so there’s little to no carrying cost for bonds. This is important because in most people’s retirement, if they retire before they can claim Social Security benefits, they may tap their taxable portfolio’s bonds for more stable distributions. 

“Next, you have tax-efficient ETFs. Nowadays, you can even find low-to-no-dividend ETFs for your favorite indices or prioritize growth stocks or US stocks, which could have lower yields than their international counterparts. These accounts have the most flexibility, no contribution limits, age limits, penalties, etc., so when ‘life happens’ you don’t need to worry about the tax hit too. 

“The hidden tax benefit is twofold when you invest cash during a high-yield environment vs. keeping it in a high-yield savings account, you can reduce the tax hit from your assets. 

“Similarly, if you need $50k from your portfolio, you may only need to pay capital gains on a fraction of that amount, and in some cases, that can be at the 0% tax bracket. It always depends, but I don’t think the regular taxable account gets enough credit for its Swiss-Army-Knife-like character. 

“The biggest challenge with the taxable account is that it doesn’t, by default, have automations connected to your paycheck, like your 401(k) or HSA, which means it takes intention to build up this account. So, while the tax benefits are attractive compared to the other accounts, the regular taxable account remains a bit underrated in my view.”

Ben Simerly, CFP®, Founder and Financial Advisor of Lakehouse Family Wealth, rounds out the conversation, “First, adding to the 401(k) discussion above, there are technically annual compensation limits to 401k accounts, including pre-tax dollars. This does not factually change the outcome because of the contribution limits themselves, but I have seen it impact those with unique plan contribution percentage rules and higher incomes. 

“Also, since these conversations often affect families looking into trusts, you should note that the above-mentioned rules can be significantly affected by the use of trusts, both for the owner of the assets, and those inheriting them. 

“Account type questions are some of the most common ones we receive. There are two sets of answers. The first is technical: what fits the client according to the math? The second set of answers addresses the emotional aspect. What helps the client feel most comfortable? 

“More often than not, it’s the client’s comfort level with a given path that helps find the answer that’s best for them. From a math perspective, the biggest mistake we see is looking at the account-type choice based on current tax return savings. Choosing a pre-tax 401(k), for example, may reduce current taxable income. But what’s the effect of choosing a pre-tax 401(k) vs. a Roth or after-tax 401k sub-account on lifetime taxation and lifetime income from investments? 

“Often, a significant decrease in current taxes can create a significant decrease in retirement income. The other major factor on the math side is legacy. If an account type being considered will be primarily used for legacy to children or non-profit donations, it can completely change the math of the situation. 

“From the emotional perspective, the number one question is this: would you rather pay taxes later when you are unsure of your ability to work or make up the difference? Or would you rather pay the taxes now while you’re able to work, likely have more control over your life and ability to work, and a choice over your investments? 

“Once someone nears retirement, choices decrease. Once someone retires, they decrease further. Whether it’s from IRMAA bracket considerations, RMDs, or a potential future disability, we may not always have the same choices in the future that we have now. 

“More often than not, our clients choose to focus on Roth, or after-tax, contributions to pay more of the taxes now while they have more control. We love the benefits of Roth accounts and the after-tax growth. Especially with the length of modern retirements. But taxation relative to ability to work decides more cases than any other single factor we’ve encountered.”

The Bottom Line

So, did I make a mistake that will come back to haunt me?

Tentatively, my answer is that I didn’t.

True, having such a concentrated bet on tax-deferred accounts does reduce our flexibility in any specific year. For example, anytime we have an especially high spend in retirement, we’ll need to account for the higher taxes we’ll be hit with.

However, while I didn’t dig in deeply enough ahead of time to make the most informed choices, overall, I don’t regret what we did because it ended up allowing us to make the most of what our cash flow allowed us to set aside.

More generally, what I learned is that there is no perfect account type. There is only a tax structure that fits your stage of life, and managing your tax brackets over time. And the earlier you understand the trade-offs, the fewer regrets you’ll suffer. 

However, always keep in mind that the US tax code changes often, sometimes dramatically, and all the above assumes things will mostly stay as they currently are. But that’s the best we can do without a functioning crystal ball.

In the end, the real winner isn’t one account type, but rather tax diversification across the account types that fit your priorities. 

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only, and should not be considered financial advice. You should consult a financial professional before making any major financial decisions.

About the Author

Opher Ganel, Ph.D.

My career has had many unpredictable twists and turns. A MSc in theoretical physics, PhD in experimental high-energy physics, postdoc in particle detector R&D, research position in experimental cosmic-ray physics (including a couple of visits to Antarctica), a brief stint at a small engineering services company supporting NASA, followed by starting my own small consulting practice supporting NASA projects and programs. Along the way, I started other micro businesses and helped my wife start and grow her own Marriage and Family Therapy practice. Now, I use all these experiences to also offer financial strategy services to help independent professionals achieve their personal and business finance goals. Connect with me on my own site: OpherGanel.com and/or follow my Medium publication: medium.com/financial-strategy/.

Learn More About Opher

It used to be employers’ problem. 

Now it’s ours…

Until the start of the 401(k) plan, in the 1980s, most American workers relied on three things for retirement:

• Social Security, funded jointly by employees and employers, each paying in an amount that started at 1% of employee wages in the 1930s, and is now 6.2% each.
• Defined benefit pensions, funded by employers, with payouts based on employees’ length of employment with the specific employer, and their final salary.
• Private savings, funded by employees to the extent that they choose to save and invest some of the money they earn, rather than spend it all.

But employers didn’t love the pension system. 

A CNBC article quotes Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, “The risk is all on the employer or the pension fund. The pension fund or the employer has to figure out how many years on average the people in the pension fund are going to live and has to tie the benefits to projected earnings.”

The employer’s pension fund is on the hook for those benefits, whether or not they manage to bring in market returns high enough to bridge the gap between employer contributions and employee benefits.

The 401(k), however, changed all that.

Now, our retirement “stool” has only two legs:

• Social Security.
• Private savings, including 401(k) plans.

We didn’t just change retirement plans; we changed who carries the risk.

As a “defined contribution” plan, a 401(k) plan puts the employer on the hook only for the current contributions they choose to make. Not for investing well or ensuring the resulting balance provides enough retirement income for the retiree’s lifespan.

In short, employers shifting from defined benefit to defined contribution plans moved longevity risk, market risk, and behavioral risk from corporations to individuals, and most people didn’t notice until it was too late.

Worse, most individuals were never trained to manage those risks.

Understandably, most people are unhappy about it.

According to the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), “A national opinion poll finds that working age Americans are increasingly worried about retirement, and they see a return to pensions as a way to restore the American Dream of retirement. Eighty-three percent of respondents say that all workers should have a pension so they can be independent and self-reliant in retirement, and more than three-fourths of Americans agree that those with pensions are more likely to have a secure retirement.”

How Well Are We Doing in Funding Our Retirement?

According to the Investment Company Institute, at the end of the third quarter of 2025, US retirement assets topped $48 trillion, including:

• $18.9 trillion in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) – private savings
• $13.9 trillion in defined contribution plans like 401(k), as well as the less common 403(b) and 457 plans – private savings again
• $12.6 trillion in defined benefit plans (private and government) – pensions 
• $2.6 trillion in annuity reserves – a form of private savings

Those look like big numbers, but let’s break them down by household to see what people actually get to retire on.

According to Federal Reserve data, the average American household where the “reference person” is aged 65-74 has about $609k in retirement funds. For those aged 75 or older, that number is significantly lower, at $462k.

But that’s the average, which is skewed by the very wealthy.

A more informative measure is the median, the value at which half the group is above, and half below. 

There, the numbers are significantly lower, at $200k for those aged 65-74 and $130k for those 75 or older.

Americans have other financial assets (e.g., savings accounts, taxable portfolio, etc.) that can also be tapped in retirement, where the averages are $897k and $826k for the two age groups, respectively; and the median is again much lower, at $120k and $50k, respectively.

Summing the two types of accounts, the average for 65-74 year olds is just under $1.6 million, but the more illustrative median is only $320k (Table 1).

Table 1. Average retirement funds and total financial assets look substantial, but the median, which isn’t skewed by the small percentage of the uber-wealthy, is far from enough.

A $320,000 nest egg may sound substantial, but spread across a 25- or 30-year retirement, it offers a safe monthly draw of just $1000 to $1500.

That’s closer to a supplement than a solution, barely covering the average rent or mortgage payment, let alone groceries, utilities, and healthcare expenses.

That’s not retirement comfort.

That’s retirement fragility.

So maybe Social Security closes the gap?

Can Social Security Save Us?

That depends.

Mostly, it depends on your income, since Social Security is progressive by design. Its Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) replaces a larger fraction of lower incomes and a smaller fraction of higher incomes.

The PIA formula is a sum of three amounts relating to your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME, Table 2), which for 2026 are:

• For the first $1,286 of your AIME, your benefits replace 90%.
• For the portion between $1,286 and $7,749, your benefits replace 32%.
• For anything above $7,749, your benefits replace 15%.

All this ignores the looming exhaustion of the Social Security Trust Fund, now projected to happen in 2032. If no changes are enacted to address the issue before then, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), benefits would have to be cut by about 24%.

If implemented across all three PIA components, such a cut would change PIA to (in 2026 dollars, Table 2):

• For the first $1,286 of your AIME, 68.4%.
• For the portion between $1,286 and $7,749, 24.3%.
• For anything above $7,749, 11.4%.

Table 2. What Social Security retirement benefits replace now, and once the trust fund runs out (likely in 2032), if benefits are cut. Note that a 24% cut would address only the immediate shortfall. As the years go by, that shortfall is expected to worsen. 

The CRFB states, “We estimate that this would be equal to an $18,100 annual benefit cut for a dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 – shortly after trust fund insolvency. At the same time, those retirees might experience reduced access to health care due to an 11 percent cut in Medicare Hospital Insurance payments. The cuts would grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues.”

How Confident Are Middle-Income Americans About Retirement?

With the above in mind, it’s little wonder that a CNO Financial Group survey found that, “Among middle-income Americans ages 50 to 85, one in three (32%) say they feel less confident in their retirement plans than they did a year ago, and two in five (41%) doubt they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement—including nearly half (49%) of pre-retirees.”

They find that the top concerns are inflation, outliving savings, and cuts to Social Security benefits.

The NIRS survey agrees with CNO, “When asked if the nation faces a retirement crisis, 79 percent of Americans agree there indeed is a retirement crisis, up from 67 percent in 2020. More than half of Americans (55 percent) are concerned that they cannot achieve financial security in retirement. When it comes to inflation, 73 percent of respondents said recent inflation has them more concerned about retirement.”

There are some obvious reasons why these issues hit middle-income Americans especially hard.

In a Yale Tobin Center for Economic Policy report, the authors find that “in two-thirds of plans, employer contributions exacerbate pay inequity. Employer contributions are highly concentrated, with 44% of dollars accruing to the top 20% of earners.” 

This isn’t surprising, since the highest earners have a higher employer matching contribution cap (which is usually a percentage of income), plus, these high earners are typically better able to contribute a larger fraction of their income to their retirement plan.

Tax incentives are similarly skewed toward higher-income earners, since retirement savings tax deductions impact taxpayers’ marginal tax brackets, which, in our progressive tax system, are higher for high earners. 

For example, if you earn enough to reach the 24% tax bracket and live in a state where your state and local income tax is another 8%, and don’t itemize, every dollar you contribute to a tax-deferred retirement plan reduces your take-home pay by $0.68. If, on the other hand, your marginal federal tax rate is 12%, with the same state and local tax rate, every dollar you contribute to your retirement plan reduces your take-home pay by $0.80.

As a result of all the above, middle-income Americans feel increasingly stretched thin, being “too rich for help, but too poor for comfort and security.”

Financial Challenges Facing Middle-Income Americans

Retirement insecurity is no longer just a low-income problem. It is increasingly a middle-income margin problem. Multiple financial challenges impact middle-income Americans:

• Liquidity constraints driven by higher prices.
• Tax incentives skewed toward higher-income earners.
• Employer retirement plan matching contributions benefiting high-earning employees.
• Historically high real estate costs, along with mortgage rates that are more than double what they were a few years ago.
• Social Security benefits replace a small fraction of even middle-income earnings, especially if those benefits get cut as a result of the trust fund running out.
• Healthcare costs rising faster than overall inflation.

With all these, it’s especially difficult to not just save enough for a comfortable retirement, but even more so to build in a sufficient margin of safety or even know how much is “enough.”

Asking the Pros

I asked several financial advisors to weigh in on the topic. Here’s what they have to say.

Q. Many middle-income households appear “fine” on paper but have very little margin of safety. In your experience, how common is this, and what does it look like in real life?

A. Omar Morillo, Senior Wealth Advisor, Imperio Wealth Advisors, answers, “It’s extremely common to see middle-income households pass a static replacement-rate test on paper but collapse under stress testing. They may have a decent projected income in retirement, but with minimal emergency savings, high discretionary spending, and no buffer for market downturns or healthcare shocks. The slightest deviation from assumptions turns ‘fine’ into fragile.”

Alex Bridges, Wealth Advisor & Founder of Tiverton Wealth, agrees, “It’s very common. I regularly meet people with solid incomes, nice homes, and good careers who look financially stable from the outside. But when we review the numbers, there is little to no savings and no real investing happening. Often, they tell me they can’t free up anything each month. More often than not, it comes down to lifestyle creep. Income rises, spending rises with it, and the safety margin never gets built.”

Claire Thornton, Founder & Financial Planner at Hyla Financial, says, “It’s a confusing place for people to find themselves. Among six-figure earners (especially young families juggling childcare on top of everything else), I often hear the same refrain: ‘We feel broke.’ More often than not, that feeling is a signal that spending and values have drifted out of alignment. It’s time to go back to basics and measure goals against how money is being spent.”

Q. Since the shift from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)-style plans, individuals now bear longevity, market, and behavioral risk. Which of these risks do you see creating the most problems for middle-income retirees?

A. Morillo again, “All three risks matter, but behavioral risk is the silent killer for middle-income retirees. People underestimate how emotions distort savings behavior and withdrawal timing. You can have good longevity assumptions and decent market returns, but if someone stops contributing too early, chases returns, or panics in downturns, the outcome is materially worse.”

Bridges agrees again, “Behavioral risk, without question. Markets go up and down, and people are living longer. Those are realities. But what hurts most people is procrastination, under-saving, and emotional decision-making. I have many retired clients who only ever had 401(k) plans and are doing just fine. The difference is that they were disciplined. They consistently contributed, often maxed out their plans, and stayed invested.”

Thornton sees another risk as the most important, “The risk I see creating the most problems for middle-income retirees isn’t market volatility, it’s distribution management. A single additional dollar of income can trigger meaningful downstream consequences. Crossing an IRMAA [Medicare’s Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount] threshold can lead to higher Medicare premiums two years later, while poor income-tax coordination can shift Social Security from 50% taxable to 85% taxable or push capital gains from the 0% into the 15% bracket. For many middle-income retirees, the challenge isn’t how much they’ve saved, but how (and when) they draw from pre-tax, Roth, and taxable accounts. Thoughtful distribution sequencing can materially improve outcomes!”

Q. If Social Security benefits were reduced by roughly 20–25% in the next decade, how would that affect middle-income retirees differently from higher-income retirees?

A. Bridges says, “Middle-income retirees would feel it more. They tend to rely on Social Security for a larger portion of their retirement income. Higher earners usually have more diversified income sources and larger investment portfolios to cushion the impact. For many middle-income households, a reduction of that size would require real spending adjustments or a delay in retirement.”

Morillo totally agrees, “A substantial reduction in Social Security isn’t just a cut in income. It erodes the floor of retirement security. Middle-income retirees depend on Social Security for a larger share of their essential spending than high-income retirees, who have diversified income sources. Reducing benefits by 20–25% would push many from ‘just managing’ into outright shortfalls.”

Q. If a middle-income household wants to increase its retirement “safety margin” over the next 5–10 years, what is the single most impactful change you would recommend?

A. Bridges suggests, “Increase savings and be disciplined about investing. If you have 10 years, that’s a meaningful length of time. Max out retirement contributions, cut unnecessary spending, and stay consistent. And just as important, work with a fee-only advisor who specializes in retirement planning. Transparent advice with no product incentives can make a significant difference in the final stretch before retirement.”

Morillo expands, “The single most impactful change is prioritizing savings earlier and consistently, even at the expense of current lifestyle. Speeding up contributions when you’re earning income leverages compound growth and creates a vital safety margin that can absorb longevity risk, market volatility, and unexpected needs.”

The Bottom Line

The retirement trap is no longer just poverty.

It’s having little if any safety margin. Having too much to qualify for help, but not enough to feel safe.

The most important question then becomes, what can you do to increase your retirement safety margin?

The main things under our individual control include the following:

• Increase your retirement margin by resisting lifestyle inflation in housing. Just because the bank will lend you more doesn’t make it wise to borrow every dollar they offer.
• Only buy a car (or two) if you need it (or them). If you do buy, buying a new, reliable car and driving it for at least 10 years proves to be less expensive than buying used cars.
• Find ways to increase your income. This can be achieved by learning skills your employer values, taking on tasks that make your supervisor’s job easier, and/or monetizing existing or new skills through a side gig.
• Each time your income grows, dedicate at least half and up to two-thirds of the increase to retirement investments. Use the remaining half or third to enhance your enjoyment of life in the present. This makes it easier to stay the course.
• Try to keep your fixed costs as low as possible as a fraction of your overall budget, especially in retirement. The flexibility this gives you allows higher safe draws in retirement.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only, and should not be considered financial advice. You should consult a financial professional before making any major financial decisions.

About the Author

Opher Ganel, Ph.D.

My career has had many unpredictable twists and turns. A MSc in theoretical physics, PhD in experimental high-energy physics, postdoc in particle detector R&D, research position in experimental cosmic-ray physics (including a couple of visits to Antarctica), a brief stint at a small engineering services company supporting NASA, followed by starting my own small consulting practice supporting NASA projects and programs. Along the way, I started other micro businesses and helped my wife start and grow her own Marriage and Family Therapy practice. Now, I use all these experiences to also offer financial strategy services to help independent professionals achieve their personal and business finance goals. Connect with me on my own site: OpherGanel.com and/or follow my Medium publication: medium.com/financial-strategy/.

Learn More About Opher

A few years before retiring, I realized something troubling.

Nearly all of my portfolio sat in tax-deferred accounts. That meant that once Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) began, my taxable income, and thus my taxes, would spike, whether I needed the money or not.

I asked our accounting firm, which offered annual tax strategy meetings, whether Roth conversions made sense for us, and if so, how much and when.

Their answer was both surprising and disappointing. They said it was outside the scope of their expertise.

Really? Roth conversions, outside the scope of tax strategists?

It turned out to be a case of, “If you want it done right, do it yourself.”

So, I turned to the huge spreadsheet I developed to project our income, expenses, taxes, and net worth for the next several decades, and added two new pieces:

• Estimated annual taxes
• Adjustable annual Roth conversion amounts for the 10 years I had until RMDs hit

I’d have loved to tell you the results led to a clear and inescapable conclusion.

Unfortunately, that would be a lie.

The projected results were nuanced: 

• In the years we’d run the conversions, our taxes would naturally increase, significantly reducing our projected net worth by the time we had to start RMDs. 
• Then, gradually, our net worth would recover and climb back to breakeven in my mid-80s. 
• To really benefit, we’d need to survive into our 90s or beyond. 
• Even then, the difference would have amounted to just a couple of percentage points of our net worth at that point.

In short, I’d need to voluntarily write large tax checks in my 60s and 70s and then wait decades to benefit, with only a one-in-seven chance of reaching my 90s, a famously changeable tax code, and projections far less precise than 2%. 

All of that made Roth conversions feel like an expensive bet on a future I might not even see.

So, is the logical conclusion that there’s no point in converting, ever?

Not so fast.

Now that I’m retired, I added another tweak to my spreadsheet, optimizing the source of money we’d draw to cover expenses, how much we’d take each year from our relatively small taxable accounts vs. tax-deferred ones.

This showed me that there will be some years when our taxable income will be low enough that our marginal federal tax rate will be 12%.

When that happens, Roth conversions can make sense.

But how can you decide whether to do a Roth conversion, and if so, when and how much, without building a monster spreadsheet?

That’s what this article is all about.

The Immediate Tax Impact of Roth Conversions

When you convert money from a tax-deferred account to a Roth, the converted amount is treated as taxable income that year. That increases your current-year tax bill. 

If the conversion pushes your income high enough, you may land in a higher marginal bracket and even have to pay Medicare surcharges (more on that later). That can be an expensive mistake.

But what if you convert from a post-tax traditional IRA?

If you hold both pre-tax and post-tax funds across your traditional IRAs, the IRS applies the pro-rata rule. Each dollar converted is treated as a proportional mix of both.

For example, if you have $495,000 in pre-tax IRA funds and $5,000 in post-tax contributions, then 99% of any conversion would be taxable income.

Another important note is that, if you’re younger than 59½, withdrawing converted funds less than five years post-conversion gives rise to a 10% penalty on top of the tax hit.

A possible workaround is to roll pre-tax IRA funds into a tax-deferred 401(k), if your plan allows it, reducing your pre-tax IRA balance to zero before converting the post-tax portion. That can work in certain situations, but it is beyond the scope of this article.

The key point here is simple. Roth conversions usually create an immediate tax cost, driving people to look for a “window” when that tax impact would be lowest.

Roth “Windows” – Helpful, But Not Definitive

Several scenarios are often mentioned as ideal times to convert.

• When you expect tax rates to increase in the future. 
• After a market crash, when you can convert assets at temporarily depressed prices.
• During a temporary income dip, such as following a job loss, a no-bonus year, etc.
• When you’re still filing married filing jointly, before your widow(er) must file as single.
• If you plan to move from a high-tax state to a state with lower (or no) state income tax, converting after the move offers more value.
• In early retirement, before RMDs begin, when taxable income may be lower.

The first requires a functioning crystal ball. (If you have one, I have some questions about the future.)

The second and third can work, but require you to pay higher taxes when you can least afford it.

The fourth and fifth are valid reasons to consider converting when other factors align, but they don’t stop it from being a bad idea if the brackets don’t support it.

The sixth is the most persuasive. You retire. Your taxable income drops. Your marginal tax rate falls. Thus, it must be the best time to convert aggressively.

That logic sounds airtight.

And in some cases, it’s exactly right.

The problem is that in many other cases, it’s incomplete.

A lower tax rate today doesn’t automatically improve your long-term outcome. The benefit depends on how long you live, future tax brackets, RMD size, and taxable income flexibility.

That is why a generic “window” narrative can be misleading.

Roth conversions aren’t about following a generic rule. They’re about managing your marginal tax brackets over many years.

The danger isn’t because Roth conversions are necessarily bad. It’s in converting aggressively out of fear, rather than clarity.

For some retirees, conversions can make sense, and emphatically so.

For others, the benefit may be modest, delayed, and/or dependent on assumptions that may never materialize.

Which brings us back to the core problem: How do you decide, without building a massive projection model, whether converting makes sense for you?

Roth Conversion Strategy – a Three-Legged Stool

Detailed projections are the best way to assess if, when, and how much to convert.

This can be using a spreadsheet, if you have a good grasp of all the relevant factors, or you can ask your financial advisor to run the numbers, including Monte Carlo simulations of market returns.

If you don’t want to build such a spreadsheet and don’t have (and don’t want to hire) a financial advisor, three straightforward considerations offer a framework to identify if Roth conversions are likely to work out well.

1. Tax Rate Difference
2. Time Until RMDs
3. Income Flexibility

If one leg is weak, the stool wobbles. If more legs are weak, let alone missing, it collapses.

Let’s dive a bit deeper into these legs.

Leg #1: Tax Rate Difference

For any specific year in which you’re considering a conversion, how does your current marginal tax rate compare to your likely rate once RMDs hit? 

This includes state and local income tax and surcharges such as Medicare’s Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA). For 2026, the IRMAA Part B surcharge ranges from $974 to $5,844 annually, on top of the base premium. That’s a significant concern for those whose taxable income gets pushed too high.

Vanguard makes a compelling case that how you pay for conversion-related taxes may significantly impact the math: “… the tax payment source can shift the break-even point in meaningful ways. For example, when conversion taxes are paid from a taxable account — particularly one holding tax-inefficient assets or cash — the BETR [break-even tax rate] drops well below the investor’s current marginal tax rate. Likewise, basis in a traditional IRA or the potential for future backdoor Roth contributions can shift the math in favor of converting. This creates a wider ‘conversion zone,’ where even modestly lower future tax rates can still justify a Roth conversion.”

BETR takes into account the current marginal ordinary income tax rate, the basis of assets sold to fund tax payment for the conversion, investment time horizon, annual investment return, and dividend yields. Under Vanguard’s assumptions, someone in a 35% bracket who pays conversion taxes from idle cash could see the break-even tax rate drop to 14%!

The larger and more certain the spread between tax rates (or BETR and future rates), the stronger this leg of the stool.

If your current marginal federal rate is 12% and you expect RMDs to push you into the 24% bracket, or even the 22% bracket, that makes for a compelling conversion case. 

If your current rate is 22% and RMDs aren’t likely to push you any higher than 24%, paying much more in taxes now to possibly save 2% in 10+ years is far less compelling. 

This is what my own assessment was before I retired, and stays the same for most years now that I am retired. 

But not for all years.

Clearly, none of us (not even those in Congress) can guess how the US tax code will change over the coming years or decades. What I do here is assume the rates will stay the same, with the brackets adjusting for inflation. This isn’t intended to be accurate, just a best guess for how an uncertain future will unfold in at least this one regard.

Leg #2: Time Until RMDs

How long do you have until RMDs hit?

RMDs now start at age 73, but if you don’t have to start before January 1, 2033, that will be pushed further out, to age 75.

Does that give you five years? Ten? Fifteen?

The longer your runway, the less certain the calculus.

• More time for the tax code to change.
• More time for investments to grow tax-deferred (or tax-free if converted).
• More time for your spending habits to change. 
• More time during which you could die.

My spreadsheet projected a breakeven point in my mid-80s. To benefit meaningfully, I’d need to live into my 90s, which is less likely than not.

This does not make conversions useless. It means the payoff is distant and uncertain, while the cost is immediate and guaranteed.

You’d have to prepay taxes today for a benefit that may not arrive for 20-plus years, if ever. That’s a serious trade-off, not a casual decision.

The longer you need to wait for an eventual benefit, the more cautious you should be. 

One caveat to that is that if you’re considering a Roth conversion as an estate management tool, that will, by definition, benefit your heirs no matter how long you live.

Leg #3: Income Flexibility (Source and/or Amount)

This is one that many people overlook.

How flexible is your taxable income?

This could be because you can choose how to cover expenses, from taxable (ordinary income rate or long-term capital gains rate), tax-free, or tax-deferred money. It can also be because a large fraction of your budget is discretionary, allowing you to reduce spending in years when the tax impact is greatest.

This lets you deliberately lower your taxable income some years to make a Roth conversion more beneficial, while pushing higher taxable income into other years.

This is what I’m planning to do, now that I’m retired.

In years when I sell a property held for more than a year, I’ll owe taxes on any appreciation and/or depreciation recapture at lower long-term capital gains tax rates. However, this won’t push me into a higher marginal tax bracket.

The proceeds from such a sale may allow me to cover expenses without needing to draw tax-deferred money that triggers ordinary income taxes. This will allow me to make a highly beneficial Roth conversion, paying no more than 12% federal income tax, far lower than the brackets I’ll be in once RMDs hit.

If you have little flexibility here, your case for conversion becomes that much shakier.

When the Conversion Stool Is Most Stable

This is when a Roth conversion is most beneficial to you:

• Your current marginal tax rate is meaningfully lower than it will be once RMDs start.
• You have a long runway to time conversions strategically and for the converted funds to grow tax-free in a Roth account.
• You can deliberately manage your budget and how you fund it.

When the Conversion Stool Is Most Wobbly

This is when a Roth conversion is least likely to benefit you:

• Your current tax rate isn’t meaningfully lower (or even higher) than what it will be when RMDs kick in.
• Your breakeven point is decades away.
• Future benefits depend on optimistic assumptions.
• You have little to no flexibility in controlling your taxable income through lowering spending and/or funding at least some of it from taxable, low-tax, or tax-free sources.

In such cases, you may still benefit, but the margin of safety is thin and the upside uncertain. The potentially small eventual benefit likely won’t justify the immediate cost.

If you prefer a quick diagnostic instead of a spreadsheet, here’s how the three legs work:

What the Pros Say

I asked financial advisors for their thoughts on Roth conversions. Some of what they say may not be surprising, but some goes beyond conventional wisdom.

Jeffrey J Smith, Founder and Managing Partner of OWL Private Wealth Advisors, says, “To quote Ed Slott, ‘Your IRA is an IOU to the IRS.’ It may make sense to rip the band-aid off and accelerate the conversions to keep the marginal tax rate and Medicare IRMAA increase to only a few years early on in retirement, preferably more than two years before turning 65. If you have non-qualified funds to pay the taxes due, this can significantly increase the overall results, not only for the IRA owner but ultimately their beneficiaries. Like the tax code itself, a decision to convert or not isn’t a black or white answer for most, but we all know the saying that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. With a Roth conversion, you can decide when to pay the taxes, at a tax rate you know now, versus not knowing where you will fall in future years. That second part is out of your control.”

Mike Hunsberger, Owner, Next Mission Financial Planning, agrees, “The biggest factor [affecting the benefit of a Roth conversion]is future tax rates. It’s hard to know what those will be.” He adds several more important things,“Another big impact is whether you’ll actually use the converted dollars or if they will be passed on to your heirs. If the latter, it’s important to consider theirlikely tax rates when they inherit. Finally, it’s always useful to understand what happens when the first member of the couple dies, and the remaining spouse reverts to single tax rates. The important thing to remember is not to over-convert. If you don’t have other projected income, keeping some tax-deferred money can help you fill up the lower tax brackets in retirement, possibly in a lower tax bracket than what you converted at.”

Stephen Mazer, Senior Wealth Advisor and Principal, Rational Wealth Solutions, points out how the decision is deeply dependent on your personal situation, “There are NO rules for who should or shouldn’t proceed with a Roth conversion, or when to do it. Solutions should be considered based on many factors. One of Thomas Sowell’s famous quotes, ‘There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs,’ applies here. Did you know you may not have to pay the taxes owed out of your own current accounts? Did you know there are ways to keep full market volatility/risk and other ways to negate much, if not all, of the market downside/risk during the conversion period? Talking with someone familiar with these strategies and who understands your goals will shine a light on what might be appropriate for your situation, bringing clarity to the process.”

The Bottom Line

At its core, a Roth conversion is a trade-off, paying guaranteed costs today for a likely benefit tomorrow that may be worth the cost and the wait.

Roth conversions are not about generic “windows” or rules.

They’re a bet that depends on three factors: (1) your tax-rate spread, (2) your time horizon until RMDs and your lifespan, and (3) your taxable income flexibility. When all three align, you’re most likely to gain a significant advantage from a conversion.

When one or more is weak, your benefit is less certain and likely smaller.

Conversions reduce your tax uncertainty, but at a cost you need to be willing to pay.

You don’t have to have an advisor (though a good one offers a lot of value).

You don’t need a monster spreadsheet.

You don’t need certainty about the future. 

You just need a solid decision framework that clarifies your trade-offs.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only, and should not be considered financial advice. You should consult a financial professional before making any major financial decisions.

About the Author

Opher Ganel, Ph.D.

My career has had many unpredictable twists and turns. A MSc in theoretical physics, PhD in experimental high-energy physics, postdoc in particle detector R&D, research position in experimental cosmic-ray physics (including a couple of visits to Antarctica), a brief stint at a small engineering services company supporting NASA, followed by starting my own small consulting practice supporting NASA projects and programs. Along the way, I started other micro businesses and helped my wife start and grow her own Marriage and Family Therapy practice. Now, I use all these experiences to also offer financial strategy services to help independent professionals achieve their personal and business finance goals. Connect with me on my own site: OpherGanel.com and/or follow my Medium publication: medium.com/financial-strategy/.

Learn More About Opher