<prompt> Human: Maybe Im thinking about this all wrong, but I dont understand a situation where traditional contributions would be better than Roth.Well assume someone is in the 25 tax bracket. Lets say you contribute 10k to a Roth IRA and 30 years down the road it turns into 100k. You would only have paid 2500 in taxes and will pay no more taxes on any of the withdrawals. However, if you contribute that same 10k to a traditional IRA and it grows to 100k you wont pay any taxes on it now, but even if youre in the 10 tax bracket youre going to pay 10k in taxes on the same amount of money that you contributed.What am I missing here?EDIT: I appreciate everyones replies. It makes a lot more sense now.  <response>: Youre not taking into account the extra money you can afford to invest if you go with traditional.Scenario 1: You invest 7500 in Roth, and pay 2500 taxes. Your investments grow 10 times, so you end up with 75k post-tax.Scenario 2: You invest 10000 in traditional, and pay 0 taxes. Your investments grow 10 times, to a pre-tax value of 100k. If you somehow end up paying 25 on every dollar, then you still end up with 75k post-tax. 