So do I. Congratulations on realizing your need and setting out on this journey of learning about your money and how to work with it effectively. There are two basic issues ... one is your income and how to deal with it to make each of those dollars coming in work most effectively. The other is your asset base and how to manage it to make it grow well, working harder for you than for the other guys ... and avoiding having too much of snipped off by the purportedly big-deal managers to slip into their pockets. Better to learn what you're doing, over the years, and become your own manager! Pay yourself those fees that they charge (probably wise to deduct the cost of some of your mistakes, as you learn). In the investment group that I've attended monthly for about 7 years, we call them the tuition fees in the University of Learning How to Manage Your Own Money! I bought some equity-based mutual funds over 20 years ago, charging 2.5% of the value of the current asset value of the account, annually. When you multiply 2.5 by 20+ ... what do you get? 50% of the value of my asset, right? Is that the original asset amount? No - the creeping value of the asset as it grew, over time. I started a thread (I think over on KT) a couple of weeks ago asking whether people had ever seen stock certificates grow like rabbits! Had a person bought 1 share of JNJ at the beginning of 1970 (I'm using this for illustration, not suggesting that you should buy it, or not buy it) about how many shares would they think that they'd own, now? If you go to Yahoo->Finance and put JNJ in the "Get quotes" box at upper left, you'll get a page that shows a lot of info about current situation of the shares, including a chart at lower right of the stock price movements today. Clicking at a long-term period under that chart will show you share prices over your choice of various periods ... plus info about several stock splits - twice 3:1, and 4 times 2:1. What does that produce? 1->3->9->18->36->72->144 ... right? Price in 1970 $180./share (in dollars each of which was "worth" a lot more than each dollar is now). Current price about $63.00. That is, $180. grew to about $9,072. How do you like them apples? Not only that ... I read somewhere a while ago about a numberof stocks which had increased their dividend annually for 25 years ... I think JNJ has increased theirs annually for 40 years, if I'm not mistaken. Which adds some sugar to the applesauce, right? When did you ever hear of a Guaranteed Investment Certificate acting like that? Also wise for you to learn to deal with both income and assets in a tax-effective way. If you can reduce taxes now, often a good idea to do so, if the system at issue is useful in your case. Deferral is frequently a good idea, as well, when available. In Canada, a number of people look at the current rate on a GIC and at the rates paid by a stock, and say they like the interest rate better than the dividend rates usually offered. But when Canadians earn a dividend on a Canadian stock, the tax rate used to be lower, and last year the system of calculation changed to make it even lower again. I can't believe how many Canadians I've run into over the years who didn't know that! Quite often ignorance carries a substantial price. I think that I've said to thousands, over the years, that learning how money works is an interesting hobby ... **that pays well**!! (I've said it so often, around here, that I think that people must be getting sick of hearing it!) Not only that, if you put your dollars into a investment where their numbers are guaranteed not to shrink ... they're almost always guaranteed not to grow either. I bought a stock over 40 years ago for about $4. and change, which at that time paid about a (tax-advantaged) nickel or a dime. Over the years the value of that stock has gone up, down and sideways. I could have sold it last May for about $107. ... and it pays me an annual dividend now of $3.48. There's one catch - it has been doubly involved in the U.S. sub-prime mortgage debacle. The share price dropped to the $80.s, then recovered to near $100., then slipped back into the $80.s ... and in the past few weeks, as the sub-prime issue got more complex, far-reaching and distressng, the share price dropped down through the $70.s, into the $60.s, closing since the first of the year in the $60.s ... and I suspect that the dividend rate will likely be cut. Am I about to sell it? No. I paid $4.20 over 40 years ago, and if I sell now, I deduct the $4.20 amount that I paid from the current $68.20 or so, leaving me with $64.00 capital gain. I divide that by 2, leaving me with $32.00 on which I must pay tax at my usual rate (i.e., added to the top of my other income this year). But it does leave me with the other $32.00 realized free of tax. However, I'm getting close to 80 years of age (79 next Wed.) and my current tax bracket is lower that will be the case if I leave all of those assets intact till I kick the bucket - for then some of them will be taxed at lower rates, but after that's used, others will be taxed at higher rates until they get to the top rate, and my executor will have to pay that on some of those realized capital gains, then. Also ... since I have no spouse (to which the tax-deferred retirement account could be transferred, tax-free at the moment, to be added to her assets, to provide her with income and on her death to have the residue added to her income and taxed then, at whatever rate) they'll be added to my income in that year, as well. Likely taxed at top rate. I've thought of selling some of the stocks that I've held for years, in order to have the taxable portion of the capital gain taxed now, at my usual lower rate ... ... but if I do that, I have fewer dollars to re-invest, to go on not only growing, but adding to earnings in those years, until my demise. As it is, I add those $3,000. or so that I'm required to withdraw from my tax-deferred retirement account annually to my annual income. Do you think that I should follow the advice of some hot-shot financial advisors who tell how to get that payment out tax-free? Borrow $50,000. to invest it in a variety of stocks, using well over $100,000. (I wish!) of stock certificates as collateral, making it a fully secured line of credit, at interest of 6%, i.e $3,000. per year, using my $3,000. annual payout from my retirement account to pay the interest. My deal with the lender is that I pay interest only on the loan. As the loan is used for investment, the interest is deductible. As an old fart that doesn't want to take heavy risks, I invest in some quality Canadian stocks - paying about 3% interest, and as they are taxed at low rate, I have about 2.5% after-tax income, which in other circumstances I would use to help pay the interest on the loan. Suppose I'd borrowed that money 15 years ago, paying interest only through those years. If my Dad died and left me $50,000. as a legacy, and I took it to the bank to pay off the loan, how much would I owe them? That'd be $50,000., right? That would have bought a lot of good things, 15 years ago ... much more than now. I gained from inflation. Suppose you'd put $50,000. into the bank, 15 years ago, and the bank paid you the agreed upon rent on your money, in the years between ... and you went to collect the value of your GIC today ... how much would the bank give you? Right! Exactly $50,000. That would have bought a couple of good cars, 15 years ago ... not now. I gained from inflation ... you lost. Such strategies should be used with discretion, taking into account various possible scenarios, some of them quite unattractive, with the operator able to deal with them without serious inconvenience. I never want to see my friends get margin calls on such loans, unless they're able to meet the shortfall, whether with other assets ... or immediate cash. Good wishes for using both your income and assets increasingly skillfully! As you have further questions, feel free to ask. If some of them seem a bit too private for you to feel comfortable with discussing in this public place, I'm sure that several of us who have responded here would be pleased to offer you our opinions should you contact us privately. ole joyful

I do not think you can reduce the amounts of your required minimum distributions by listing your grandchild as a beneficiary. In order to avoid "market timing" in taking your distributions, try to make them "neutral" with respect to the market performance. You can do that my planning in advance to take equal distributions of 1/4 of the total amount to be distritubed each quarter of 2009 -- say, March, June, Sept, and Dec. If you are fortunate enough that you do not need the money from your distribution for living expenses, you can just transfer the money to a taxable account and put it in a similar investment that it was in in the tax deferred account -- or you could take the opportunity to consider a different investment. One more thing: If you made any IRA contributions and paid taxes on them because your income was above the limit for taking a tax deduction, your required minimum distribution should deduct those taxed contribitutions, or you would be paying taxes on that money twice. I'm sure there an IRS information sheet that explains that whole situation. It makes excellent reading if you have insomnia. Look up tax form 8606. That's the one you should be using when you file your return to report your cumulated taxed IRA contributions. Have fun.

A basic principle of taxation in the USA is every dollar is taxed once and only once. (Qualifying Roth IRA withdrawals can be an exception.) Your contributions to the Roth IRA should not be taxed again by the IRS because you already paid taxes on those contributions when you put them into the Roth IRA. The earnings on the Roth IRA may or may not be taxable depending on your circumstances. For example, how old are you, how long were the funds in the IRA, were there any circumstances that existed in your life that would qualify you for an exception to the 10% penalty for early withdrawal? Page 58 of the pub linked to below should help you answer your questions. In my 12 years of preparing taxes, one of my favorite things to do is prove the IRS wrong when they assess additional taxes. Good luck. Here is a link that might be useful: IRS Pub 590

I had seen an article on this subject in the WSJ, so I needed to do a search to pull it up again. Here's the pros and cons: WSJournal Investing, November 2, 2008 IRAs May Be Ripe For Shift to Roth One of the simplest ways to take advantage of the continuing market turmoil: Convert your battered investments from a traditional individual retirement account to a Roth IRA. When you convert traditional IRA assets to a Roth, you have to pay the income taxes upfront on the account's value -- and in some cases, those values may be next to nothing at the moment. With a Roth IRA, there are generally no taxes on withdrawals or any future earnings, unlike with traditional IRAs. There's also no mandatory distribution schedule -- again in contrast with traditional IRAs, from which account holders must begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the year following the year they turn 70 years old. Plus, you can leave a Roth account intact for your heirs. (Heirs other than your spouse would have to take required withdrawals each year, but they generally wouldn't owe any tax on them.) To be eligible to convert traditional IRA assets to a Roth, your income must be $100,000 or less. So any hit that your paycheck has taken from the economic downturn might help you do a Roth conversion. (Starting in 2010, there is no longer an income limit for Roth conversions.) Neither a required IRA distribution nor the converted amount would count against the $100,000 income limit. If you are 70½ or older, you have to take this year's required distribution before converting any traditional IRA assets to a Roth. Withdrawal Rules Many IRA holders get tangled up in the "five-year" rule when they convert IRA assets to a Roth IRA: You have to hold those assets in a Roth for five years or until you turn 59½, whichever comes first, to make penalty-free withdrawals of converted amounts. Each conversion has its own five-year clock. But if you have already reached age 59½ and you convert traditional IRA assets to a Roth, you can withdraw the actual assets you convert at any time without worrying about a five-year deadline or penalties. It's a different story with any earnings on those assets: Again, you must have held a Roth account for five years to withdraw any earnings tax-free. But you don't need to worry about separating the converted funds from the earnings; that's because the withdrawal rules for Roth IRAs say that any distributions first come from contributions, then from conversions, and finally from earnings, says Ed Slott, an IRA consultant in Rockville Centre, N.Y. Chuck Bauer, a 62-year-old manager in Pittsburgh for Aker Solutions, an engineering and construction company, has a combination of market losses and lower-than-normal income this year. So he is taking the advice of a local financial planner, Bud Kahn, and converting his IRA to a Roth, he says. Mr. Bauer will have to pay about $29,000 in income tax on the conversion, but "we think the account has gone down about $32,000," says Mr. Kahn. "When the account recoups its losses, he will have made up the taxes that he paid. And then that recoupment is never going to be taxed again." Changing Your Mind What if you converted traditional IRA assets to a Roth earlier this year, and those assets have declined in value? In that case, you may want to "recharacterize" the Roth as a traditional IRA. It's a way, says Mr. Slott, to "erase the taxes" on value that has since disappeared. Frank Russo, a 66-year-old Verizon Communications retiree in Port Washington, N.Y., recharacterized IRA investments that he had converted to a Roth after watching their value fall at least 15%. "I don't have to pay tax on an amount that no longer exists," he says. To do a recharacterization,you have to use a "trustee-to-trustee" transfer, also called a direct rollover or direct transfer, to move the contribution from one IRA to another. Don't touch the money yourself, and make sure no checks get made out directly to you or deposited in your bank account. The assets are treated as if they never left the traditional IRA, Mr. Slott says. If you recharacterize your Roth as a traditional IRA by Nov. 30, you could then convert the lower-value assets to a Roth again as soon as Jan. 1, he adds. See IRS Publication 590, at www.irs.gov, for information about traditional and Roth IRAs.