Subscribe where ever you listen to Podcasts:
Resources:
This conversation delves into the intricacies of Roth conversions, particularly for individuals without heirs. It explores the benefits of Roth conversions during one's lifetime, the implications of the widow's penalty for married couples, the impact of charitable giving on financial planning, considerations for long-term care expenses, and the influence of state taxes on conversion strategies. The discussion emphasizes that personal finance is not one-size-fits-all and encourages listeners to consider their unique circumstances when planning for retirement.
When leaving a legacy isn’t the goal, the Roth conversion decision changes dramatically.
You’ve spent decades diligently saving into a traditional 401(k) or IRA. You’ve built a substantial nest egg designed to support the retirement you worked hard to create.
But there’s one important difference between your situation and the retirement plans you usually hear about:
You don’t have children or heirs you’re focused on leaving money to.
Your priority is simpler: make sure your money supports you for the rest of your life.
That raises an important question.
If you don’t care about leaving tax-free money to heirs, does doing a Roth conversion still make sense?
The answer isn’t an automatic yes—or no.
Roth conversions can still provide meaningful benefits during your lifetime. But without heirs in the equation, several commonly overlooked factors can completely change the calculation.
Roth Conversions Aren’t Just a Legacy Strategy
Roth conversions are often discussed as a way to transfer wealth more efficiently.
You pay the tax today, move money from a traditional retirement account into a Roth IRA, and potentially create a source of qualified tax-free withdrawals later.
But inheritance is only one part of the equation.
A Roth conversion may also help you manage your own future taxes by reducing the amount remaining in traditional retirement accounts.
That becomes increasingly important once required minimum distributions, or RMDs, begin.
Under current law, RMDs generally begin at age 73 for individuals born from 1951 through 1959 and age 75 for those born in 1960 or later.
Those distributions are generally taxable as ordinary income.
If your traditional retirement accounts have grown substantially, future RMDs could increase your taxable income whether you need the money or not.
Strategic Roth conversions may allow you to recognize some of that income earlier, potentially at more favorable tax rates, while reducing future RMDs.
The key word is strategic.
Converting too much in one year can create entirely new tax problems.
The Hidden Cost Beyond Your Tax Bracket
Many people look at Roth conversions by comparing today's tax rate with their expected future tax rate.
That’s important—but incomplete.
Your modified adjusted gross income can also affect Medicare premiums through the income-related monthly adjustment amount, commonly called IRMAA.
For 2026, the first IRMAA threshold is $109,000 for an individual and $218,000 for married couples filing jointly, according to the transcript.
Medicare generally uses income information from two years earlier when determining these surcharges.
That creates an interesting tradeoff.
A conversion today may reduce RMDs and potentially lower income later. But the conversion itself increases taxable income today and could result in higher Medicare premiums two years later.
There’s another potential issue: the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax.
IRA withdrawals and Roth conversions aren't themselves net investment income. However, increasing your modified adjusted gross income could cause other investment income to become subject to the tax once applicable thresholds are crossed.
This is why Roth planning usually works better as a series of deliberate decisions rather than one enormous conversion.
You’re trying to manage taxes over your lifetime—not simply minimize them in one particular year.
Married With No Children? Your Spouse Changes the Equation
Having no children doesn’t necessarily mean you have no one to protect financially.
If you’re married, Roth conversions may become particularly valuable because of what is sometimes called the widow’s penalty.
While both spouses are alive, a married couple may file jointly and benefit from wider federal income tax brackets.
After one spouse dies, the surviving spouse generally transitions to filing as a single taxpayer after the year of death.
Household income may decline, but not necessarily proportionately.
The smaller Social Security benefit typically disappears, while RMDs and other taxable income may continue.
That can leave the surviving spouse with significant taxable income flowing through narrower tax brackets.
Strategically converting some retirement assets while both spouses are alive may create a tax-free pool of money the survivor can access later.
In that situation, Roth conversions aren’t about what happens to your money after both spouses are gone.
They’re about protecting whichever spouse lives longer.
Roth Money Can Also Buy You Flexibility
Nobody knows exactly what future tax laws will look like.
Congress can change rates, deductions, thresholds, and retirement rules.
If virtually all your retirement savings are held in tax-deferred accounts, future withdrawals generally create taxable income.
Holding money across multiple tax categories can give you more control.
For example, imagine you unexpectedly need $30,000 for a new roof or decide to take an expensive trip.
Taking the entire amount from a traditional IRA could increase taxable income and potentially affect other income-based thresholds.
Qualified Roth withdrawals, on the other hand, generally don't increase taxable income.
That flexibility can be valuable even when leaving an inheritance isn't part of your financial plan.
But this is where the Roth conversion discussion becomes much more interesting.
Because three circumstances can make keeping money in your traditional IRA surprisingly valuable.
What If Your Real Heir Is a Charity?
Suppose you don’t have children and plan to leave whatever remains to your church, university, animal shelter, or another qualified charitable organization.
Aggressively converting your traditional IRA could actually work against that goal.
Why?
Qualified charities generally don't pay income tax on inherited traditional IRA assets.
If you convert those assets to Roth during your lifetime, you pay the conversion tax today to create tax-free money for an organization that may not have owed income tax on the traditional IRA anyway.
You may reduce both your own available assets and the ultimate charitable gift.
Charitably inclined IRA owners may also have another option during their lifetime: qualified charitable distributions, or QCDs.
Once eligible, a QCD allows money to move directly from an IRA to an eligible charity and generally keeps the distribution out of adjusted gross income.
The transcript notes that the 2026 QCD limit is $111,000 per individual.
For someone whose ultimate beneficiary is charity, the traditional IRA can therefore be an unusually efficient asset.
That alone can dramatically alter how much—if anything—you may want to convert.
Long-Term Care Creates Another Roth Conversion Paradox
For someone without children or family members expected to provide care, long-term care costs may deserve an even bigger role in retirement planning.
Professional in-home care, assisted living, or nursing home expenses can become substantial.
It might seem logical to convert your IRA beforehand so future care expenses can be paid with tax-free Roth withdrawals.
But there’s another side to the equation.
Certain qualifying medical and long-term care expenses may be deductible when they exceed applicable adjusted gross income thresholds.
The transcript notes a threshold of 7.5% of adjusted gross income and explains that qualifying nursing home expenses may potentially offset a significant portion of taxable IRA withdrawals used to pay for care.
The offset isn't necessarily dollar-for-dollar, and eligibility depends on the specific expenses and circumstances.
But it creates an important planning consideration.
Imagine converting virtually your entire traditional IRA years earlier and paying taxes on those conversions.
Later, you experience substantial qualifying medical expenses—but have relatively little taxable retirement income against which those deductions may be useful.
You could find yourself with valuable deductions and limited taxable income to offset.
That’s one reason converting 100% of your traditional retirement savings isn't automatically the best objective.
Sometimes the tax-deferred account still has an important job to do.
Your State Could Completely Change the Math
Federal income taxes tend to dominate Roth conversion discussions.
But where you live when you convert can matter significantly.
Suppose you're currently living in a state that taxes IRA distributions but plan to relocate to a state without an individual state income tax.
Converting before the move could mean voluntarily paying state income taxes that might have been avoided by waiting.
The reverse can also happen.
If you currently live somewhere without state income tax but expect to relocate somewhere that taxes retirement distributions, converting before the move may become more attractive.
There’s an important caveat.
State tax rules vary considerably. Some states with income taxes provide exclusions, deductions, or other favorable treatment for retirement income.
Residency rules also matter.
You shouldn't make a Roth conversion decision based simply on a state's headline tax rate.
Your actual retirement-income treatment and legitimate tax residency need to be considered.
So, Should You Convert If You Have No Heirs?
Having no children or heirs does not make Roth conversions irrelevant.
It changes what you're optimizing for.
Instead of asking:
“How much tax-free money can I leave behind?”
The better question becomes:
“What mix of accounts gives me the greatest flexibility and after-tax resources throughout my lifetime?”
That analysis may include:
- Future RMD exposure
- Current versus future tax brackets
- Medicare IRMAA surcharges
- Investment income and other tax thresholds
- Financial protection for a surviving spouse
- Charitable intentions
- Potential long-term care and medical expenses
- Current and future state residency
And that leads to perhaps the most important takeaway.
The right answer usually isn't “convert everything” or “convert nothing.”
It may be converting enough to reduce future tax pressure while deliberately keeping enough money pre-tax to take advantage of charitable strategies, medical deductions, or other opportunities later.
Conclusion: Your Roth Strategy Should Serve You First
When there are no heirs to plan around, retirement planning becomes less about maximizing what remains after your death and more about maximizing your choices while you're alive.
A Roth conversion can potentially reduce future RMDs, create tax diversification, protect a surviving spouse, and provide greater flexibility when unexpected expenses arise.
But converting too aggressively can also mean paying taxes earlier than necessary, reducing assets intended for charity, or giving up valuable opportunities to pair taxable IRA withdrawals with future deductions.
That’s why Roth conversions should be evaluated as part of your broader retirement tax strategy—not treated as a goal by themselves.
Transcript: Prefer to Read — Click to Open
Danny (00:00.118)
Imagine you’ve worked your entire life diligently saving into a 401k or traditional IRA. You’ve accumulated a fantastic Innesteg. But there’s a catch. You have no children or no heirs you plan to leave your money to. In fact, your only real financial goal is to make sure you never run out of money during your lifetime. When you pass away, whatever is left over is.
Is just left over. You really don’t care. If that sounds like you, you might be wondering: do Roth conversions even matter? It’s a fantastic question. The conventional wisdom in the financial world says that Roth conversions are primarily a legacy play, a way to leave tax-free money to your kids or grandkids so they don’t get hit with a massive tax bill when they inherit your wealth. So
On the surface, if you don’t have airs, it seems like you should just skip the Roth conversion entirely, right? Well, the answer is a resounding maybe. Today we are going to dive deep into this exact scenario. We’re going to cover the standard three levels of Roth conversion value for people with no airs. But make sure you stick around until the end because I’m also going to share.
Three major insights that almost everyone misses when discussing this topic, including how charity, medical expenses, and where you live can completely flip the script on whether a Roth conversion makes sense for you. Let’s jump in. Let’s start with level one: how a Roth conversion benefits you and you alone during your lifetime. If your primary concern is running out of money,
Then basic math dictates that you want to keep as much of your wealth in your own pocket as possible. The less money you surrender to the IRS, the more money you have to fund your lifestyle, pay for travel, or cover medical bills. When you have a massive traditional IRA or 401k, the government eventually forces you to take money out.
Danny (02:24.684)
These are called required minimum distributions or RMDs. Under current law, those begin at age seventy-three if you were born between nineteen fifty-one and nineteen fifty nine. And at age seventy-five, if you were born in nineteen sixty or later. The problem with RMDs is that they are taxed as ordinary income. If your account is large enough, these mandatory withdrawals can push you
Into a much higher tax bracket in your 70s and 80s than you ever anticipated. Imagine doing small strategic Roth conversions every single year throughout your 60s. You voluntarily pay taxes now at a low known rate, say the 12% or 22% bracket. By doing this, you shrink the size of your traditional IRA.
When those mandatory RMDs finally kick in later, they are much smaller. By taking small tax hits early, you can prevent your future self from being pushed into a 24% or 32% tax bracket down the road. More money saved on taxes means more money in your account, which directly insulates you against the fear of running out of cash.
And it’s not just about standard tax brackets. That brings us to the hidden surcharges that retirees face when their incomes spike. The biggest culprit here is Medicare IRMAA, the income-related monthly adjustment amount. When your income crosses certain thresholds, the government adds a surcharge to your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums.
For twenty twenty six, that first threshold sits at one hundred nine thousand dollars for a single filer and two hundred eighteen thousand dollars for a married couple filing jointly. An Irma is a cliff, not a ramp. Going $1 over a threshold triggers the entire surcharge for that tier. At the highest tier, a retiree can pay roughly three times the
Danny (04:49.004)
The standard Part B premium for the exact same coverage. Here’s the part most people miss. IRMAA runs on a two-year look back. Your premiums this year are based on the tax return you filed two years ago. That cuts both ways. It means an RMD you take at 73 shows up as a higher Medicare premium at 75, but it also means a large Roth conversion.
You do today will raise your own Medicare premiums two years from now. Conversions are not a free lunch in the year you do them. The same logic applies to the net investment income tax or NIIT. This is an extra 3.8% tax on investment income once your modified adjusted gross income crosses $200,000 as a single filer.
or two hundred fifty thousand dollars filing jointly thresholds that have never been adjusted for inflation since they were written, which is why more ordinary retirees drift into them every year. Now an IRA withdrawal or a Roth conversion is not itself investment income. So it never gets hit with that 3.8% directly. But it does raise your modified
Adjusted gross income, and that can drag your other investment income, your dividends, your interest, your capital gains over the line and into the tax. So the honest framing is this: doing Roth conversions early in measured amounts helps you smooth out your income so that your later RMDs don’t shove you past these thresholds year after year. But a conversion
That’s too large in any single year can trigger those very same surcharges on itself. The strategy is a series of controlled, deliberate steps, not one dramatic move. Now, let’s move to level two of Roth conversion planning. What if you don’t have heirs, but you are married? This introduces a critically important concept known in the financial planning world.
Danny (07:15.54)
As the widow’s penalty. When you are married, you get to file your taxes jointly. The tax brackets for a married couple are roughly double the size of the tax brackets for a single filer. But here is the sad reality of life one spouse is almost certainly going to outlive the other. And when one spouse passes away, the surviving spouse can still file jointly for that year.
But starting the very next tax year, they file as a single taxpayer. Let’s say a husband and wife have a steady income of $100,000 in retirement. As a married couple, that income sits comfortably in a lower tax bracket. When one spouse passes away, the household loses the smaller of the two Social Security checks, so income does drop somewhat. But the bulk of the income
Usually keeps right on coming, especially if most of it is driven by RMDs on pre-tax accounts. So the survivor is left with most of the income being forced through brackets that are roughly half as wide. The result? The surviving spouse pays significantly more in taxes on close to the same amount of income. If you don’t care about kids or heirs,
But you do care about your spouse’s financial security if you pass away first. Roth conversions are a superpower. By doing Roth conversions while you are both alive and filing in those wider married brackets, you are packing money away into a tax-free bucket. When the surviving spouse is left alone, they can draw from that Roth account tax-free, softening the widow’s penalty.
And helping make sure they never run out of money. The final point made in standard Roth planning is flexibility and the removal of uncertainty. We call this tax diversification. Even if we do the math and guess that you’ll be in the 12% or 22% bracket for the rest of your life. The truth is, we don’t know what Congress is going to do. Today’s brackets are permanent.
Danny (09:39.222)
In the sense that there’s no scheduled sunset on the calendar. But permanent in tax law only means it stays that way until the next law changes it. Rates are historically low right now, and a future Congress could raise them to address the national debt. If 100% of your money is in a traditional IRA, you are at the mercy of whatever rate they set.
By doing Roth conversions, you create different buckets of money. You have your pre-tax bucket, your taxable brokerage bucket, and your tax-free Roth bucket. This buys you tax insurance. Let’s say you need a new roof or you want to take a $30,000 dream vacation. If you pull that money from a traditional IRA, it stacks on top of your other income and could push you.
Into a higher bracket for that year. But if you have a Roth IRA, you can pull that $30,000 tax-free. One caveat worth knowing: for a Roth withdrawal to be completely tax free, you generally need to be at least $59.5 and have had a Roth IRA open for at least five years. And each conversion carries its own five-year clock for penalty purposes.
If you’re starting conversions in your late 50s, that timing matters. But once those clocks have run, it puts you in the driver’s seat of your tax bill rather than the IRS. Okay, so far we’ve covered the standard playbook. If you stop here, you have a solid understanding of Roth conversions. But here is where we need to dig deeper. What did the experts miss?
If you have no heirs, where is that money going when you die? For many people without children, the answer is charity. And if your ultimate goal is to leave whatever is left over to charity, then doing a Roth conversion might actually be a costly mistake. Here is why charities do not pay income taxes.
Danny (12:01.044)
If you name a qualified charity as the beneficiary of a million dollar traditional IRA, your church, your alma mater, your local animal shelter, even a private foundation, that organization receives the full $1 million. They don’t pay a single cent of income tax on it. If you do a Roth conversion during your lifetime, you are the one paying the taxes. You are taking money.
out of your own pocket to pay the IRS, just so you can leave a tax-free account to an organization that wouldn’t have owed tax on the pre-tax account anyway. You shrink the gift and you shrink your own balance sheet in the process. Now, if you are also charitably inclined during your lifetime, there’s a tool called a qualified charitable distribution or QCD.
Once you have actually reached age 70 and a half, you can send money directly from your IRA to a qualified charity. It’s excluded from your income entirely. It never shows up in your adjusted gross income. And once you’ve reached your RMD age, it counts toward that year’s required distribution. For 2026, you can give up to $111,000 per person this way.
Or $222,000 for a married couple where each spouse has their own IRA. There are a few rules that trip people up. QCDs can only come from IRAs. You cannot make one from a 401k. So if your money is still sitting in an old employer plan, it would need to be rolled to an IRA first. And while you can name a private foundation or a donor-advised fund.
As a beneficiary at death, neither one is an eligible recipient for a QCD during your lifetime. The QCD has to go to a qualifying public charity. Also, notice the age gap. You can start QCDs at 70 and a half, but RMDs don’t begin until 73 or 75. That gap is a window to start shrinking the IRA before the forced distributions ever begin.
Danny (14:27.21)
And QCDs got relatively more valuable starting this year. Under a change that took effect in 2026, taxpayers who itemize can only deduct charitable gifts above a floor of one half of 1% of adjusted gross income. And taxpayers who take the standard deduction now get a new above-the-line deduction of up to $1,000 or $2,000.
Filing jointly. A QCD sidesteps all of that because it isn’t a deduction at all. It’s an exclusion from income. Excluding income has always been better than deducting against it. And that’s even more true now. So if charity is your ultimate plan, think hard before converting. Keep the money pre-tax, use QCDs during your life.
And name the charity as the beneficiary when you pass. Here is the second insight that usually gets skipped long-term care and the medical expense deduction. A major fear for people without heirs is who is going to take care of me when I age without family to rely on? You will likely need to pay for assisted living, a nursing home, or professional in home care.
And long term care is expensive. It can easily run $100,000 to $150,000 a year. So you might be thinking if I have to pull that much out of my IRA to pay for care, the taxes will destroy me. Not necessarily. The IRS allows you to deduct qualifying medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.
Nursing home costs generally qualify in full when the primary reason for being there is medical care. Assisted living is more nuanced. The care portion typically qualifies, and room and board can qualify too, but usually only when a licensed practitioner has certified the resident as chronically ill, and the care is provided under a plan of care. So the deduction is real, but the details matter.
Danny (16:53.708)
Here’s how it plays out. If you pull $150,000 from your traditional IRA to pay a nursing home, that withdrawal is taxable income. But the money you paid the nursing home is a deductible medical expense and it can absorb most of the tax on that withdrawal. I want to be precise though, because you’ll hear people claim the two cancel out perfectly and they don’t.
Only the expenses above seven and a half percent of your adjusted gross income count, and the withdrawal itself raises your adjusted gross income, which raises that floor. It’s an itemized deduction, so you give up the standard deduction to claim it, and a large withdrawal like that will phase you out of the temporary bonus deduction available to taxpayers 65 and older.
So the right way to say it is that the deduction offsets a large share of the tax, not all of it. Even so, the planning point holds. If you had aggressively converted everything to a Roth earlier in life, you would have paid tax on those conversions in your 60s. Then in your 80s, you’d pull from the Roth tax-free to pay for care. And you’d be sitting on an enormous medical deduction with very little.
Taxable income to apply it against. That’s a wasted deduction. Leaving some money in the pre-tax bucket keeps a source of income available to soak that deduction up. This is one of the strongest arguments against converting 100% of your pre-tax money, especially for someone with no family safety net. The final missing piece of the puzzle is state taxes.
Where you live now versus where you plan to live later can completely change the Roth conversion math. Let’s say you live in California or New York today, high-tax states. If you convert now, you pay federal tax plus that state income tax. But if you plan to relocate to Florida, Texas, or Nevada, which have no state income tax, waiting until after
Danny (19:20.364)
You’ve genuinely established residency, there can save you 5%, 8%, or even more on the same dollars. Conversely, if you already live in a state with no income tax, but you plan to move to a high-tax state later in life, maybe to be near a specific healthcare facility or to be closer to a community you trust, then converting now while you’re paying zero at the state level.
Is very attractive. Two cautions here. First, don’t assume a high-tax state taxes retirement income heavily. Several states with meaningful income taxes exempt retirement distributions entirely or offer substantial credits. So you have to check the actual treatment of IRA income in that specific state, not just the top marginal rate.
Changing your tax residency is a factual question, not a matter of preference. High tax states audit this aggressively, and simply buying a place somewhere warm is not enough. Either way, look at your geographic timeline. Don’t just look at the federal brackets. State taxes can make or break the efficiency of a conversion. So, do Roth conversions matter if you have no heirs? Yes, they can.
They can protect you from bracket jumps, help you steer around Medicare surcharges, protect a surviving spouse from the widow’s penalty, and give you flexibility when life throws a curveball. But as we discussed, it’s not a one size fits all strategy. If you plan to leave your money to charity, if you foresee significant long-term care costs, or if you’re moving across state lines, a conversion might work against you.
And in most real plans, the answer isn’t all or nothing. It’s converting some and deliberately leaving some behind. Personal finance is exactly that personal. If this video helped you look at your retirement plan in a new light, please hit the like button and subscribe to the channel so you never miss out on these advanced strategies. And let me know in the comments below.
Danny (21:47.787)
Are you planning to do Roth conversions or are you holding off? I’d love to hear your reasoning. Thanks for watching, and I’ll see you in the next video.
Back to All Episodes
