Why the Roth versus pre-tax decision deserves fresh math
Workers are increasingly faced with a binary choice each year: contribute to a traditional 401(k) and enjoy an immediate tax deduction, or choose the Roth 401(k) and give up the deduction in exchange for tax-free withdrawals decades from now. The conventional wisdom often boils down to a slogan—“pay tax now or pay tax later”—yet this simplification glosses over important details. The tax code allows savers to reinvest pre-tax savings, employer contributions flow into the traditional bucket regardless of your election, and future tax rates depend on both personal income and legislative changes. The Roth vs. Pre-Tax 401(k) Break-Even Calculator pulls those variables together to show how long-term compounding and tax assumptions interact.
The decision is not just about today’s paycheck. Choosing the traditional option boosts net pay because each dollar contributed avoids current tax. Some households spend that windfall; others direct it into brokerage accounts, debt repayment, or emergency savings. The Roth election lowers take-home pay but simplifies future withdrawals, shielding decades of growth from taxation. Many online calculators ignore the behavioral question of what happens to tax savings. Our tool lets users specify how much of the saved tax they actually invest and the rate of return and capital gains tax they expect on that side investment. This information is crucial because reinvested savings can narrow or completely erase the Roth advantage even when future marginal tax rates rise.
Another wrinkle involves employer contributions. Regardless of the employee’s choice, matching dollars go into a traditional account and will be taxed upon withdrawal. Comparing strategies therefore requires treating employer contributions consistently. The calculator does this by modeling the employer match as a traditional bucket that is taxed in both scenarios when money comes out. The break-even rate computed by the tool represents the future marginal tax rate on that traditional bucket (and on the traditional employee contributions) that would equalize total after-tax wealth.
Formulas behind the break-even calculation
The first step is computing how much each account balance will grow before retirement. Assume an employee contributes C dollars at the end of each year for n years. If the investments compound at rate r, the future value of those contributions is
. The same formula applies to employer contributions, which are modeled as a separate stream M. Together they form the total balance in the traditional bucket prior to taxes. Because Roth contributions are made with after-tax dollars, their entire future value is available to spend.
Tax savings from traditional contributions equal , where t is the current marginal tax rate. If a household reinvests a portion p of those savings into a taxable account each year, the deposits form a separate annuity with growth rate rtax. The future value of the taxable account before capital gains taxes is similar: . Because the deposits are made with after-tax dollars, capital gains tax applies only to the growth portion when the account is liquidated. If the capital gains tax rate is g, the after-tax value is the principal plus the gains multiplied by .
Finally, the break-even retirement tax rate emerges by setting the after-tax value of the traditional strategy equal to that of the Roth strategy and solving for the unknown future tax rate tf. Doing the algebra shows that the taxable account is the only extra component on the traditional side because the employer match is treated the same in both cases. The resulting expression is compact: the break-even rate equals the after-tax value of the reinvested tax savings divided by the Roth balance generated by employee contributions. In symbols,
, where V is the after-tax value of the taxable reinvestment and F represents the future value factor . If the taxable account is zero because the saver spends all tax savings, the break-even rate collapses to zero, meaning the Roth only wins when future tax rates exceed zero percent. On the other hand, diligent reinvestors can push the break-even rate surprisingly high.
Worked example: mid-career saver with strong reinvestment discipline
Consider a 40-year-old professional contributing $19,500 annually to a 401(k). Their employer chips in $5,000 per year. The saver pays a 24 percent marginal federal tax rate today and expects to retire in 25 years with a slightly lower 22 percent marginal rate. Investment returns are estimated at 6 percent. Importantly, the saver redirects 75 percent of the immediate tax savings from a traditional contribution into a taxable brokerage account earning 5 percent annually, and they expect to pay 15 percent capital gains tax upon liquidation.
The calculator reveals that both strategies accumulate sizable balances. The future value factor for the 6 percent 401(k) growth over 25 years is approximately 54.3. The traditional account balance before tax reaches about $1.31 million, while the Roth account (employee contribution only) reaches roughly $1.06 million. The taxable side account fed by reinvested savings grows to nearly $290,000 before capital gains tax. After applying the 15 percent capital gains tax to the gains portion, the taxable account contributes about $258,000 of spendable money at retirement.
When the expected 22 percent retirement tax rate is applied to the traditional bucket, the after-tax value of the traditional path becomes about $1.29 million, edging out the Roth path at $1.25 million (the Roth contributions plus the after-tax employer match). The difference is modest—around $40,000—but it demonstrates that disciplined reinvestment can keep the traditional strategy competitive even if future tax rates are not lower. The break-even future tax rate computed by the tool lands near 24.4 percent. In other words, if the saver ends up in a retirement bracket below 24.4 percent, the traditional strategy with reinvestment wins; if tax rates rise above that threshold, the Roth strategy becomes superior.
The scenario table generated by the tool further clarifies the stakes. A “lower bracket” scenario modeling a 17 percent retirement marginal rate shows the traditional path pulling ahead by more than $120,000, mostly because the reinvested tax savings face no additional drag. The “baseline” scenario at 22 percent keeps the difference tight. A “higher bracket” scenario at 27 percent finally hands the advantage to the Roth, producing about $50,000 more after taxes. These comparisons give savers a tangible feel for how sensitive the decision is to future tax expectations and how reinvestment behavior influences the outcomes.
Comparison of contribution strategies
Beyond the headline numbers, the calculator encourages thoughtful planning by presenting a structured comparison table. Each row represents a plausible future tax environment. The columns show the assumed future tax rate, the after-tax value of the traditional strategy (including reinvested savings), the after-tax value of the Roth strategy, and the dollar advantage for traditional contributions. Positive values mean the traditional path wins; negative values signify a Roth advantage. Users can download the table as CSV and adapt it in spreadsheets to add state tax assumptions, Social Security taxation effects, or required minimum distributions.
| Scenario | Traditional after-tax | Roth after-tax | Traditional advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bracket (17%) | $1,356,000 | $1,196,000 | $160,000 |
| Baseline (22%) | $1,291,000 | $1,251,000 | $40,000 |
| Higher bracket (27%) | $1,226,000 | $1,306,000 | -$80,000 |
The comparison underscores that there is no universally superior answer. Instead, the optimal choice depends on expectations about future income sources, legislative risk, and personal savings behavior. Someone who spends every dollar of tax savings immediately has a much lower break-even rate and may prefer Roth contributions even if they expect modestly lower retirement income. A saver who aggressively reinvests tax savings and accumulates taxable assets hedges against future bracket increases and may find traditional contributions advantageous even in uncertain policy environments.
Limitations and assumptions
Like any projection, the calculator’s results hinge on inputs. Investment returns are volatile, and actual 401(k) contributions often happen throughout the year rather than as a single annual deposit. The tool assumes end-of-year contributions for simplicity. Employer matches can vest on different schedules, and some plans apply matching formulas that vary with pay period contributions; users should adjust the annual match input to reflect realistic expectations. The calculator also ignores required minimum distributions, Social Security taxation, Medicare surcharges, and potential state income taxes. These factors could shift effective future tax rates, especially for retirees in high-tax states or those with substantial pensions.
The reinvestment model treats the taxable account as a disciplined annuity. In reality, investors might face dividend taxation, capital gains triggered by rebalancing, or behavioral lapses that reduce contributions. Users can approximate these drags by lowering the taxable return input or the reinvestment percentage. Conversely, some savers might have access to after-tax 401(k) contributions or backdoor Roth conversions, which introduce additional strategic layers not covered here. Despite these limitations, the calculator offers a robust framework. By quantifying the break-even tax rate and showing how reinvestment shifts the balance, it empowers households to tailor contribution elections to their unique financial trajectories rather than relying on one-size-fits-all slogans.