1. You can each open a Roth IRA if your modified AGI is less than $160,000. If your modified AGI is between $150,000 and $160,000, you can contribute a reduced amount. 2. You have until April 17, 2007 to contribute to a Roth or traditional IRA for 2006. 3. The maximum contribution to IRA's for 2006 for anyone who is over the age of 50 is $5,000 ($4,000 in regular contributions and $1,000 in "catch up" contributions). You cannot contribute more than your earned income between your and your husband's IRA's. Hope this helps. Here is a link that might be useful: IRS info on Roth IRA's

Hi Christine, I know Dave is a well respected advisor on these boards, but I have to say I have always been told to steer clear of anything other than Term Life. Thanks... uhh, I think? Hopefully I'm not losing any respect from the lack of financial planning experience from whoever 'always' told you to steer clear of anything other than Term Life. Many people here have also "always" been told to pay off their mortgage as fast as possible, "period," regardless of the risks & harm it can create too. What many have "always" heard is not always so valid. Dave perhaps you could clarify why Universal Life is a good option in general and also specifically in this case? I have been on this site off and on for a very long time, however, I have not read that many posts on this particilar board to know your general philosophy on this. Sure. FIRST off, it is most likely the case that "everyone" who "always" advised you to avoid anything but "term" was specifically talking about buying life insurance for the purpose of the insurance DEATH benefits... not the financial planning features available within certain types of it. For the best death benefits "bang for the buck"... Term life premiums are state regulated, so for the most part you pay for the benefit coverage you get, and nothing more, regardless of the carrier (which is GOOD if what you want is a payoff at death.) Differences in term life premiums are generally quite small, and when one carrier appears to be "cheaper" per $1,000 of benefit than another (i.e. if you Google for 'cheapest term insurance' etc.) its generally because that carrier has less capital reserves to protect its policy-holders, thus less costs... and is thus more at risk of being illiquid... *OR* it fights harder NOT to pay all of the benefits expected when its policies mature, and thereby it has less costs of fulfillment. There are OTHER very important financial benefits to life insurance contracts, however, OTHER than the ultimate payoff of a death benefit at policy maturity. Congress has written legal "tax-shelter" features into the IRS code such that cash values sheltered within properly structured life insurance contracts grow and are harvestable UN-TAXED. Universal Life *IS* a term life policy (underwritten through age 100,) that offers a SEPERATE (un-comingled) cash accumulation account with the unique tax sheltered benefits only available inside cash-value life contracts. (NOTE that this is distictively different from old-fashioned "whole life" contracts that inseperably comingle insurance costs with their cash-values.) For FINANCIAL PLANNING purposes we want the maximum shelter benefits with the LEAST actual insurance coverage we can get away with (since, for this particular purpose, we don't care about death benefits.) The cash account within a Universal policy is allowed to grow tax free (no annual capital gains nor income taxes,) and is allowed to be accessed for spending tax free (via zero-interest policy "loans" which have no repayment requirement until the policy "matures"... aka when the insured dies.) Our OP is concerned about college tuition fund planning. The general strategy with college funding is to take advantage of *ALL* external funding resources (public assistance, grants, loans, and public/private scholarships) *BEFORE* dipping into the family-accumulated funds. THe catch-22 is that *MANY* external funding sources are "means tested." This means that they look at the student's fmaily's financial profile 1st... and if the family has funds in reserves, the external sources DEDUCT those from the support calculations (in essence saying "you guys drain your OWN accounts before we'll offer you any support!") Of course, this is completely contrary to the idea of rewarding those who are responsible... which is the whole point of using Universal Life insurance contracts to accumulate college tuition (and subsequently retirement funding for the parents.) Universal Life policies can also be "owned" by someone other than the person that the policy is insuring (the "insured.") The owner can be grandparents, uncles/aunts, god-parents, seperate trusts, or simply trusted friends. Because the ownership of this accumulation asset can be legally seperated from the student's family balance sheet, the student's family does NOT have to drain all of their own reserves before taking advantage of external educational support resources. PERSONALLY (and professionally,) in regards to actual death benefits... I would probably almost "always" harmonize with whoever else was "always" telling you to avoid anything other than term life. For death benefits (replacement of a parent's income for family support, most commonly,) term is generally the best way to go. For FINANCIAL PLANNING, however... age-100 term life coupled with cash values (in the form of Universal Life,) can be a very sharp strategy from both the tax-shelter perspective, and the avoidance of means-testing punishment of the more financially responsbile. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

You will have to pay taxes on whatever amount you convert to the ROTH. The traditional IRA's permit a tax deduction for the amount contributed in a year, with a ROTH the contribution is after tax money. I guess how much you opt to convert would depend on your tax bracket and your ability to pay the taxes on it and how soon after your retirement you plan to begin withdrawing the funds. . I converted the entirety of my IRA money back when you were first permitted to do so. If I remember correctly, I had between 3 and 4 years to pay the taxes on it. I'm glad I did it then. Now the money grows TAX FREE and there is no minimum age at which I must begin withdrawing the money.

I'm a teacher too, and I can give you some advice on some of these topics. I am 100% sure we're not in the same state because you make more money than I do (though I have 24 years experience). - First, you sound like you're doing very well for your age. You should pat yourself on the back for realizing the importance of saving and thinking about retirement well before most people your age. - I'll second the point about talking to your potential fiancée about finances ahead of time. Do not just assume it'll all work out. - Buying a house is a sound investment. I assume you'll sell your current paid-for house, so you'll have about 120K to put down on a new one -- excellent. Even if she brings little to the table for this project, the two of you should be able to knock out the borrowed 100K within five years (even if you have a baby soon). With no mortgage, you'll be amazed at how much easier it is to live comfortably and still save! - Do you have a savings account for a new car? Since yours is paid for, I suggest you begin paying a car payment into a savings account. Once you get yourself "a car ahead" (meaning that you're ready to buy a new car when you need it, so that you're not wasting money on interest), it's easy to STAY "a car ahead". - I have the impression she's a teacher too? If the two of you work at the same school, consider becoming a one-car family. We did it for several years (until I started teaching, and our schedules were completely incompatible), and it was a MONUMENTAL money saver for us. It was the single biggest thing that allowed us to get off to a good financial start in our 20s. - If you hate your job (I do at times, really, I do) but want to stay in the pension system, could you do something else within the school system? Could you be the tech guy? the athletic director? could you do something different as a state employee -- a possibility, if your pension systems are linked? - I don't think you need to think about life insurance at this moment. Not to be crass, but if you died today, would anyone be worse off financially? With no wife or children, probably not. Once you're married, you probably won't need it yet. If you were to die, your wife could use your pension pay-out and your other investments to pay off the modest house payment you anticipate taking out, and she'd still have her job to sustain her. You WILL need life insurance once you have a child. If you were to die and leave your wife with a toddler, she'd have years ahead of her in which she'd be a single parent, and although her salary would be enough to put food on the table and clothes on their backs, your life insurance would be there to educate the child in the future. The life insurance would also assure you that your wife would be able to take some time off work, and that she'd be able to put aside a good chunk for retirement. Remember, she too will need life insurance. If she left you with the toddler, you'd need the same help. - The two of you probably need disability insurance more than you need life insurance. Statistically, you are more likely to be disabled than to die young. And becoming disabled is the real nightmare scenario (from a financial standpoint). Consider: You're in an accident or you become sick. You cannot work, so your household income's slashed in half. Yet your medical bills are sky-high. Your wife is still working, but she's also doing ALL the housework and ALL the childcare AND is trying to help you with your physical therapy. She's burning through her sick days taking you to the doctor. THIS is the nightmare scenario: She's overworked, AND she can't take advantage of your life insurance. Avoid it by signing on for disability insurance. - Another thing you should do after you marry is to write wills. As a teacher, you probably have access to your an employee's credit union? They probably offer such services for a low price. - About your pension: Do you know the details for the pension in your state? In my state you're fully vested at 10 years (so, yeah, you'd be a fool to leave at 9.5 years), and you can collect a full pension at any age once you've put in 30 years. You can collect a reduced pension at 20 or 25 years, though the dollar amount is reduced, and you can't begin collecting until 65 (65?) if you don't put in the full 30 years. Once you find out the details for your own state, you can "run the numbers" and see when it makes sense for you to leave teaching. It might be sensible for you to aim for 20 years, then do something else -- but you have to get the facts, then do your homework. - How secure is your state's pension? This is public knowledge, so look into it. You do not want to put all your eggs into the "staying in teaching" basket, if your state's weak in the pension department. As the people in Detroit! - In my state the pension program (defined benefit program) is being exchanged for a defined contribution program. This has its pros and cons, but overall it means that the new, younger teachers aren't going to get a pension. Why does this matter to you? Because if you ever leave, then return to teaching, you'll come in under those new rules! - An above poster mentioned Social Security. In my state, teachers DO pay into SS, so I will collect an SS check one day. You seem rather financially savvy, so I assume you know whether you've been paying into this or not. - I disagree with the above poster who says you're essentially screwed if you choose to have children AND want to retire at a reasonable age. The key is that you have to choose to live FRUGALLY. My husband and I are 48 and 51, and we have two college students. When we married, we had between us $200, college degrees and jobs, one car, and a brand-new mortgage. We chose to be frugal from the very beginning: We maxed out our 401Ks, even though it meant we couldn't afford vacations. We built an emergency fund, then started a savings account, putting away 1/4 of our after-taxes paychecks, even thought it meant we rarely ate out or bought new clothes. When our savings account grew, we started investing, even though it meant we had to remain a one-car family. Today we live in a house that's paid for, have significant investments, and are easily able to pay for our two college students' expenses -- they will graduate debt-free. My same-aged friends who wail that they can't afford their kids' college tuition don't like to hear that we buy used clothing, drive an 8-year old car, etc. The key is knowing the difference between needs and wants -- and being self-disciplined enough to stick to a budget. - Finally, I think you're off to a good start. If you and your wife are both about 10 years into teaching, then 20 years from now the two of you can expect the following: 1. You'll be about 55 years old, and as a person who can "see 55 from where she's standing", it's not "old" -- at 48, my knees hurt sometimes, but I can still hike all day and can pretty much still do whatever I want. 2. You'll live in a house that's paid for. 3. You'll have two teacher pensions. 4. You'll have teacher health insurance in retirement. 5. You'll have two Social Security checks. 6. You'll have the investments you've already begun. 7. If you have a child soon after your marriage, that child will be finishing college (and beginning to support himself) about the time you retire. You'll be able to have all these benefits AND you can work part-time (or seasonally) so you can avoid dipping into your investments too early. Though you're not earning big bucks now (or ever), you'll be well prepared for retirement. If the two of you put in a total of 60 years of teaching to earn these benefits, you'll have WORKED for every penny, but you'll have a comfortable retirement.