I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's not likely for most.
The RMD on an IRA worth $2.5M still places one in the 25% (or 3rd lowest) tax bracket.
Agree on possible, I began investing when I made much less than 30k and was under age 30. Agree on not likely for most. Many cannot keep their hands off retirement savings or feel like playing casino with it.
not so much response to you, Elan, but generally to the crowd:
The RMD thing is just a little weird to me -- if people fear the RMD so much, the taxation, that is, move money out before the RMD. There is a solid decade in which to do so, from 59.5 to December of The Year In Which One Turns 70.5. If it's so heinous to pay taxes on RMD, then do it as Roth conversion ahead of time instead.
I'm not sure what everyone else has planned, but I'm living off of my nest eggs. Having to take more out than I need is not a bad thing, especially if one has had the tax shelter over 50 years! The piper has to be paid sometime, no tax shelter is forever.
I don't know what the tax brackets will be, have not ever bothered to care what they are currently, and won't care at retirement. I plan to enjoy retirement and pay what I owe, when I owe and not be upset about having too much coming out of IRA. I live life, taxes fall where they may.
I can always do in-kind right over to taxable portfolio, stepping up the cost basis and keeping the companies I like and letting the divvies continue to roll. It's all good, considering the decades of untaxed growth I get to benefit from, even on employer money. Yeah, earnings on free money growing for decades and I have to eventually pay tax on it? It will take a lot more than that for me to be upset about cracking it out of shelter. Even 90% tax rate on free money sitting there for 30 years ... I can't even find the short end of the stick... the math is very very good to me even if crazy tax rates visit.
I get that I'm in the minority on this, but to me it is a success tax. I wouldn't be paying it if the dough wasn't the 3-4% calc'd RMD of assets at 12/31. Wouldn't taking out more than you wanted allow plenty of room to pay the tax out of it and have remainder for whatever purpose? I have never turned down a raise at work because it meant I would pay more in taxes. It's difficult for me to understand how more from IRA to my pocket is not better, even tho the more may have a larger tax obligation. Still there is remainder from the dollar taxed higher than the previous dollar taxed lower. There won't be more bottom line $ in tax than there is $ removed from account.
What is the big problem I seem to be missing? Why are people so freaked out about tax brackets? Why is the first dollar over the line to be so avoided?