I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about whether it is numerically or more financially wise to max out 401Ks and IRAs in the early years vs. throwing all the money at debt? It would seem that with the tax advantages that may be a dollar wise scenario? I fully understand the psychological imperative to kill the debt.
The reason I ask this is I have a daughter who is in the situation you were in with about 70K in SLs.
Would it be wiser for her to max out the tax sheltered stuff first and with whatever is left over do the loans? The interest rates are low as I understand. She could probably reduce her taxes by 3K per year.
I'll speak to that. The big "unknown" is how well a given investment will do over the next several years/decades. However, when I ran my own analysis with SO's student loans (at 6.55%) the results came out very favorably towards maxing out her 403(b) before paying anything additional towards the SL. Three things seemed to affect the equation
1) by taking advantage of tax-deferment, she was able to invest about $1,100 more/year than she otherwise could by paying down the SL (we could afford an extra $600/month towards either SL repayment or 403(b) contributions. The 403(b) contributions reduced the tax bill by $1100)
2) paying the minimum on her SL maximized the interest deduction she could take. However, this plus her other deductions only exceeded her standard deduction in years 1-3 of repayment.
3) the expected real-return on her 403(b), which was an SP500 index fund with a 0.2% fee.
I ran different scenarios and discovered that even at 5% real-adjusted returns investing in the 403(b) had slightly better results.
Note: I did not try to factor in taxes upon withdraw for two reasons; 1) guessing the tax code 20+ years from now is a fools' errand, and 2) we expect to utilize a back-door ROTH. Actually, since she is now back in school with no earned income, we are using that strategy now :-)
Also, I did not factor in the effects of tax-free growth, which can be substantial once the 403(b) account becomes large enough. For this reason alone I suspect an annualized return of ~4% might still beat paying off a SL of 6.55% early when you consider the tax consequences over 20+ years. Such a calculation starts to be towards the limit of what I can do - I'll let others try to figure that out for their own situation if they like.