For Filers With A Single Vehicle: Fill & Download for Free

I have invested in a Roth IRA and still invest in a Roth 401k.A Roth IRA has income limitations and also it has a lower annual contribution limit. The current limit on Roth IRA annual contributions (in 2017) is at $5500 with a catchup contribution of $1000 more for those aged 50 and above. Also you are ineligible to contribute to a Roth IRA if you make more than $135,000 as a single filer or over $199,000 as a joint filer. The contributions start phasing out at even lower income thresholds. There is however a “backdoor contribution” method that can bypass the income limitation on the Roth IRA. In this method, you will contribute to a traditional IRA instead with after-tax money and convert it to Roth before filing taxes. In most cases the conversion process is a simple call to the plan administrator.However, a Roth 401k has an annual contribution limit of $18,000 with no income limitations. Some employer sponsored Roth 401k will provide an after-tax bucket. You can then re-characterize the contributions to this bucket as Roth. Thus you can potentially contribute up to a maximum of $54,000 per annum using your Roth 401k. This is referred to as the “mega-backdoor” contribution. Furthermore, you can loan up to the lesser between 50% of the plan and $50,000. You end up paying back the loan to the account so essentially paying yourself interest. You can not do this with the Roth IRA. The Roth 401k also allows you to make withdrawals for your first home or economic hardship without any penalties which is something Roth IRA does not accommodate.Clearly, the Roth 401k is more advantageous as a retirement investment vehicle than the Roth IRA.As for your other question, your company does not benefit from your contribution to their Roth 401k plan.

Horses for courses…..Ability to destroy depended on several factors.Your own Fire power and type of Ammunition at your disposal in your position or vehicle. Armour piercing or high explosive.Your effective weaponry rangeThe armour thickness and level of protection your tank target has. And your own armour protection, ability t survive long enough to take out the enemy tank.Your own Turret traverse: Gun traverse rate of movement (manual or electric).How well trained your crew is and performance under highly stressful combat conditions. IE How quickly can YOU reload and fire your weapon? (your first attempt might be your last if you fail to use correct ammunition or the round fails to penetrate targets armour. (read true story below in article) .How quickly the enemy spots you and opens fire on you yourself.I will add for good measure here, the ANGLE of the target vehicle tank, is it hull down? sideways on? facing you at an angle or diagonally as it moves? or is it stationary? (sometimes ammunition, even good ammo, can “bounce off” a tank at an angle.The strongest or best tanks of world war two for me areBelow. German Tiger IBelow. German Panther with sloped armour.Below. German Jagd-Panther tank destroyer (again has sloped armour)Soviet Russia’s T 34 (I feel the best all round tank of the entire war). This was what inspired German tank design of the panther and Jagdpanther’s, which copied the Russian designed sloping armour principals.Above. A restored Wartime Soviet T34 tank. The turret was casted, not welded, and the sloping armour very effective. Note the front drivers position hatch.Soviet Josef Stalin heavy tankAbove. Soviet KV I heavy tank.Below. American M4 Sherman (or the Sherman (modified) Firefly version with bigger gun)Britain’s Cromwell tank. Below A Cromwell Tank in Israeli Army Service.Above top Israeli Army Cromwell tank. Above. Cromwell tank in Wartime British service. Note the Division markings.German Panzer IVAbove. Panzer IV fitted with Long 75 MM Gun. Mid to late war variant shown. Earlier Versions were used in the Battle of France and Poland.Personaly I rate the M4 Sherman easiest to destroy, and the hardest, out of the given examples, the Tiger I“THE RONSON “ (TOMMIE COOKER tank).Combat loss rates, by a member of the American Armoured Division Mr Belton y Cooper.The 3rd Armoure’d Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman’s completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired, and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percentCooper served with the 3rd Armoured Division during World War II, and saw action from the Invasion of Normandie in 1944 through the Allied invasion of Germany in 1945.He was tasked with the "recovery, repair, and maintenance" of US tanks during the war. As part of his duties he regularly travelled through "the void", an area ranging from a few miles to as many as 50 miles (80 km) between the front lines and US supply trains, to deliver loss reports to commanders, which were too sensitive to transmit via radioAbove. The cramped over stuffed design and thin inadequate armour protection, of the Sherman tank meant fuel petrol lines were dangerously exposed to enemy fire, and terrible fuel fires and explosions resulted very rapidly when a tank got hit. Sprung escape hatches are useless when you are on fire covered in gasoline….The tank was “cheap” and so too were the lives of its crews so it appears….Note ammunition stowage at the innr sides of the hull.In poor taste, Allied tank crews gave their Sherman tanks the infamous nickname “The Ronson” after the cigarette lighters publicity ”light’s a flame first and every time”.Serious risk of fatal fire and explosion existed due to the layout of the tanks gasoline engine and vulnerable fuel lines; One enemy “hit” and the tanks brewed up horrifically.Sherman tanks were more numerous, cheaper to make, and lighter than panzers. But the crew could NOT be “replaced”……horrific fuel line and gas tank fires claimed many lives.Ammunition being loaded into a Sherman during the Wartime.Down inside the turret.Dry stowage of Ammunitions led to fatal consequences in the Sherman under combat conditions. Wet ammunition stowage improved the situation."Dry" ammunition stowageEarly Sherman tanks had a rather poor method of ammunition stowage, with the rounds being stored high up in the tank's sponsons above the tracks. The bins the rounds were stored in were intially unarmored, and only the 1.5 inch (38 mm) side armor of the Sherman protected them from a hit. Catastrophic flash ammunition fires and explosions were very common on the early tanks; this was, and still widely is, often attributed to the gasoline tanks in the rear of the hull being hit, which is generally untrue. The "burn rate" when a dry stowage Sherman was hit was over 80 percent in some cases. For comparison, the "dry" Panzer IV was just as bad, if not worse, burning even slightly more readily. Wet ammunition stowage decreased the burn rate of Sherman’s to about 10 to 15 percent.The dry stowage M4, M4A2, M4A3, and M4A4 stored their 75 mm ammunition as follows looking at the tank from above. 97 rounds could be carried;15 rounds in an unarmored rack in the front of the left sponson17 rounds in an unarmored rack in the front of the right sponson15 rounds in an unarmored rack in the rear of the right sponson30 rounds in an unarmored rack behind the bow gunner underneath the turret12 rounds arranged on clips around the back of the turret basket8 rounds in an unarmored "ready rack" on the turret basket floor at the loader's feetThe M4A1 reduced the capacity to just 90 rounds of tank ammunition, as the curvature of the cast hull obstructed the left front ammunition rack, reducing its capacity to 8 rounds.The 30-round hull floor rack was below the turret basket floor, and could only be accessed by the bow gunner. This rack was usually used as a "refill" to replenish the sponson ammunition racks. A steel mesh cover around the turret basket with a single exit hole meant that the turret often needed to be turned to allow the loader to retrieve ammunition from the sponson racks.If the turret was turned just right and the turret roof hatch blocked, the crew could be trapped; bad news in a fire. Wet stowage 75 mm Sherman variants dispensed with the mesh altogether.This awkward design could often have near-fatal consequences, it encouraged problems, and delays in combat effective, as was the case with tank commander Lieutenant Raymond Fleig and his battle with a Panther in the Hürtgen Forest. The round that Fleig pre-emptively had loaded in the gun was high-explosive and did no damage. The frightened Panther crew bailed out, but soon re-entered their tank. Realizing his mistake, Fleig's gunner hurriedly turned his turret to allow his loader to retrieve an armor-piercing round from the sponson, and shot the now-alerted and angry Panther in the side (the Panther, like the Sherman, stowed most of its ammunition in the sponsons) A massive explosion resulted, ripping open the side of the Panther and killing the whole crew.In about August of 1943, one inch thick exterior aplique armour plates and 1/4" armour plates and doors for the inside of the ammunition racks were devised and began to be installed at the various tank factories in order to protect the vulnerable ammunition racks of the Sherman. Appliqué plates were also installed in front of the driver's"Wet" ammunition stowage"Wet" stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp." The rounds aren't actually "wet," the rounds are just separated by the small liquid containers. When the ammunition rack was hit, the logic was that the liquid would spill out, quenching any fires, similar to flooding the magazine on a warship.Caught in thee open by a Tiger or even a old panzer iv with a 75 mm gun, and the game was soon over for Sherman tank crews….Above. A burning later model Sherman during the RHINE Offensive.Below.Sherman Armour thickness.Tiger I armour thickness.Josef Stalin Tank Armour ThicknessThe Soviet T 34 had very good armour protection, a Diesel engine, and around 80,000 were produced. Early reliability problems were generally sorted out, though the POMON Engine Air filer was too thick and tended to suffocate the engine. T 34 however suffered around 44,900 losses of all types. But, it also needs to be weighed up and remembered, they had far MORE “enemy tanks” fighting tank to tank than Sherman’s did in Western European front, and far greater distances to travel.Perhaps the most reliable recommendation, for the T 34 coms from its enemies; Germans serving against it. When it was first encountered in 1941, German general Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist called it "the finest tank in the world"and Heinz Guderian affirmed the T-34's "vast superiority" over existing German armour of the period.“As early as July 1941 OKW chief Alfred Jodl noted in his war diary the surprise at this new and thus unknown wunder-armament being unleashed against the German assault divisions.”This NEVER got said of any Sherman tank…

Having a mortgage primarily “for tax reasons” is not a good strategy. Given your income and the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it is unlikely that you are receiving any tax benefit at all from deducting mortgage interest. I would be surprised if you had enough deductions to justify itemizing on Schedule A.The tax benefit from deductions accrues only to the extent that their total exceeds the available standard deduction. With the new tax law, the standard deduction is now $24,000 for a married couple filing jointly, or $12,000 for a single filer. You would choose the greater of your available itemized deductions (including mortgage interest) or the standard deduction when filing your tax return.When you are able to deduct interest and thereby reduce your tax liability, you are simply getting a subsidy for the interest you pay in the form of a reduction in your taxes. It means that the effective rate of the interest you pay is lower—but you are still paying interest.The more important part of the question is whether paying off a mortgage aggressively ahead of schedule is a good strategy. Others have weighed in here with some very good answers, and I concur with them. My friend Jay H. Link wrote a particularly good response. The question you’d want to answer for yourself is whether there are other places you can put your discretionary funds besides your mortgage. Paying off debt is an investment. The rate of return is the cost of the debt you are paying off. So you’d want to determine first whether you have other debt at a higher rate than that of the mortgage. Pay that off first. Having done that, decide whether you have other financial vehicles that you are comfortable with that provide a higher rate of return than the cost of your mortgage. If you have not fully funded your retirement fund, look into doing that first. If you will have children in college, think about funding that expense as well to avoid incurring debt later on.You should also keep in mind that equity in your home is essentially illiquid. The only way to get it out is to sell or refinance—and either one of those options could be problematic if you found yourself with a need for cash at some point.Having a free and clear home is a laudable goal—but it is an emotional matter more than a financial one. Only you can decide whether the feeling of owning a home with no mortgage is preferable to investing your money in other ways. After all—if you have a $200,000 mortgage balance and $200,000 in other producing, more liquid assets, you do have the equivalent of a free and clear home, since you could pay it off at any time.I hope this is helpful.