Hi @hank
Thank you for your added information.
NOTE: this conversation is not fully in line with this post subject,except to the point of current and/or future taxation regarding the tax status of retirement monies, as to how variations exist within state jurisdictions, aside from whatever personal taxable status may exist at the federal level.
A few pieces of info from 2012 regarding the "new pension tax" in Michigan. Hank, the below item 1 is part of what did cause confusion, from wording within the new tax code, with some pertinent wording in bold by me.
--- 1. Payers Subject to the New Withholding Rules, Michigan (note: there was a last minute scramble to provide payers with withholding instructions for the new calendar year 2012, as the Michigan Supreme Court had just ruled on the Constitutional status of taxing pensions for a narrow portion of the population (read, those born between 1946-1952
)
Only those subject to Michigan jurisdiction are required to withhold Michigan income tax under the new rules. Other payers need not withhold, even though the payee resides in Michigan.
The Withholding Guide refers to the pension “administrator” as the person responsible for withholding. If the administrator is registered with Michigan Department of Treasury only for reasons other than withholding, the administrator must register again as a “pension administrator.” It is not entirely clear whether an administrator who administers payments to one person from more than one plan would have to aggregate the payments for withholding purposes. Analogy to federal law would indicate that aggregation is allowed but not required.
Mandatory Use of the MI W-4P
As mentioned above, the State of Michigan's current position is that an administrator must withhold at the prescribed rate unless the participant provides different instructions on a MI W-4P. We understand that a number of payers are disregarding that position and are continuing to use their own version of the W-4P.
Next for item 2, is a short reply to friends and family at the time (2012) asking what the hell is going on with this new pension tax. Do not imply I retain a bias favoring one political party over another. This is not the case. However, at the time; this form of tax legislation was a strange path for a Republican controlled state government. Thus, the words to help identify the pathway of the legislation for those asking the questions of me (as in, who the hell promoted and favored this legislation?).
--- 2.
I had several email exchanges with legislators, including the Lt. Governor and the state Treasurer during the beginning of this process.
The tax came to birth when the Republicans decided to reduce some business taxes.
The overview:
1. Reduce some business taxes and companies will hire more people and/or new companies will move to Michigan.
2. Michigan's budget is required to be balanced.
3. So, if one is reducing business taxes by $1.6 billion dollars, this needs to be offset from some other source.
4. Thus, the tax the pensions came to be as a source to recover the lose revenue to the state.
The legislation was introduced by a Republican, the final passage was supported by enough Republicans, with the exception of a tie vote in the MI senate, with the tie breaking vote being cast by the Lt. Governor and signed by Gov. Snyder.
The legislation was challenged in court as unconstitutional and eventually traveled to the MI Supreme court for a final decision. The court at the time was Republican dominated. The legislation was passed with a 4-3 vote as not violating the constitution.
Summary: many republicans were not in favor of this tax, but enough voted in favor to set up the tie breaking vote by the Lt. Governor and of course, favored by Gov. Snyder.
My main points in email exchanges (my opinions,2011) with legislators from both political parties were:
1. that whatever amounts would be taken away from retirees in tax, would be monies not spent locally to support those businesses.
2. the tax was targeted at a specific group (baby boomers) does violate tax code by age discrimination
3. those voting in favor are targeting their own retired parents and/or grandparents...duh!
4. a number of Michigan residents will indeed retire to a state that does not tax pensions......this has take place to some extent, so the tax money is forever gone from Michigan, as these "snow birds" stay long enough in another state to claim residence in that state as a taxpayer; although they may return to Michigan during the warmer months. (2019 update, this indeed has taken place in larger numbers; so Michigan has lost this tax base from pension monies)
This link takes you to the legislation path:
https://votesmart.org/bill/13363/35098/tax-exemption-and-pension-bill#.XgiijGYyeM_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, Hank; wife and I both receive defined pensions from payers not domiciled in Michigan. We have taxes "only" withheld from 1 pension for federal taxes, so as to not "hit" the federal underpayment penalty box at tax time. No Michigan taxes are withheld from either pension. Generally, we pay the remainder of federal and state taxes owed when filing taxes in the next year, without underpayment penalty. As noted in my previous post, Fidelity only asks; for my IRA RMD, as to whether I choose to have any federal or state tax deducted (tell us how much or none).
Take care,
Catch

Thanks @Catch22 - Apparently T Rowe is interpreting Michigan’s law more conservatively. However, one wonders than what the purpose of the Michigan W-4P opt-out form is if funds and their shareholders aren’t required to observe the mandatory withholding regulation. I’m not doubting your word. I’ve spoke to other funds’ personnel who also seem to interpret the law more loosely than Price does. Different cultures. Different legal professionals I assume.
Here’s form W-4P https://www.michigan.gov/documents/taxes/4924_365368_7.pdf
Here’s a clarification of Michigan's law. Note that it specifically notes that IRAs are treated the same as “pensions” within the purview of the law. What are retirement and pension benefits? - https://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-43513-397990--,00.html

“ undesired withholding done by the custodian, without them communicating with us?”
Depends on the definition of “communicate.” With T. Rowe when withdrawing tax-sheltered funds online a pop-up appears stating that Michigan requires “mandatory withholding” and that a specified percentage will be withheld. Unlike Federal withholding, you do not have the option to “decline” at that time.
That’s the “default” option. However, Michigan also allows taxpayers to “opt-out” of mandatory withholding in advance by submitting form W-4P to the custodian ahead of time. I send in a new one every January 1 to custodians where I expect to take IRA withdrawals during the year. Doing that, I’ve had no trouble taking distributions free of withholding. As a safeguard, I first deposit the proceeds into a non-retirement account with the same custodian. This, I believe, would make any later corrections, if needed, easier to transact. Don’t put too much faith in what the custodian says over the phone beforehand. The knowledge level varies greatly. It’s best to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s in advance.
Re Roth Conversions. My best recollection is that all 4 firms where I did in-house conversions (Traditional to Roth) had a check-off box in the paperwork allowing one to decline Federal withholding on the amount being converted. There were no problems.
I’ll be forever grateful to the front office folks at D&C and Oakmark. I phoned both on Friday March 6, 2009 to inquire about a Roth conversion. The stock market was plummeting - as it had been for over a year. Both advised me to download the paperwork, which I completed over the weekend, and provided instruction. I called the PO and was informed the documents could be delivered on March 10 if I got them to the post office by 1:00 Monday the 9th. On the 9th a terrible snowstorm hit our area in the early morning hours. I remember driving 10 miles over barely passable roads to get the documents to the nearest post office by 1:00. But it worked. Both firms received the documents on Tuesday, March 9 and effected the Roth conversion at that day’s close. As it turned out, the market bottomed Monday, the 9th. Tuesday the Dow bounced around 300 points. So my conversion missed the absolute market bottom by 1 day. :)
(Note: I tend to think of those 2 conversions a being just 1, as they occurred together on the same date. And I’ve long since co-mingled / transferred those accounts.)

@John - why would you stop the Roth and start a SEP-IRA?

...small business owner, tax reasons...save much more in tax long term since we contribute upward of 60s K [both of us] ...
You can have 401k /sepIRA /pensions at same time as long as we don't contribute more than certain amount per yr
About 15s year til retirement probably best route to go w sep IRA in our situations

Still not clear. Having self-employed income explains why one would start a small business retirement plan such as as SEP. But it doesn't explain why one wouldn't continue funding a Roth IRA.
The only requirements for contributing to a Roth are that you have compensation and that your MAGI does not exceed certain values. A SEP reduces your MAGI (see #5 in this Kiplinger piece). So if you met the MAGI requirement before starting the SEP, you should be able to meet the MAGI requirement now; the SEP just makes it easier.
The other requirement is that you have compensation. The SEP limits your contributions to 25% of your business' profits (that's 20% after counting the SEP contribution as a profit-reducing expense). So you've still got 80% of the business profits as income. That income could be used to contribute to the Roth.
Hence the confusion. Why stop contributing to a Roth IRA?

Thanks for the input john. The new muni fund would be a small part of my portfolio. I have a large CG from AKREX in my taxable account that I plan to capture next year and buy the muni fund with that CG. I have set up my retirement to use saved cash to supplement my SS for a couple of years. I plan to be in the 0% tax bracket. This muni fund may be used to extend the cash allowing me to do some Roth conversions.

@_mark hi sir...small business owner, tax reasons...save much more in tax long term since we contribute upward of 60s K [both of us] annually...we were looking at defined benefits bit it was not worth or unless you and woife contribute >200 300k per year
..we talked w our advisor and several persons who known each uchnabout tax before starting
You can have 401k /sepIRA /pensions at same time as long as we don't contribute more than certain amount per yr
About 15s year til retirement probably best route to go w sep IRA in our situations

From the IRS:
https://irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-iras-rollovers-and-roth-conversions

I'm not clear on the income/tax situation: "If she doesn't make enough money from which to deduct IRA contributions."
So let's start with the mechanics. First, as @Gary1952 said, don't take a taxable distribution. If you're going to pay taxes, you're better off rolling it into a Roth. All its future earnings will be tax free, as opposed to taxable in a taxable account.
The law allows rollover conversions directly from a 403(b) into a Roth IRA. This eliminates one step in the conversion process. But my limited experience in helping someone do this within TIAA suggests that the 403(b) administrators may not know what they're doing. (In that case, TIAA withheld state income taxes which they were not supposed to do.)
Instead, a direct rollover to a T-IRA will preserve your options to convert or not. If you should convert the IRA (or a portion) to a Roth, don't have taxes withheld, else the amount withheld will be treated as a taxable withdrawal. In addition, the conversion moneycannot be withdrawn penalty free for five years. Because your wife is (and will continue to be) under 59½ the conversion money will be subject to the usual 10% early withdrawal tax until it becomes a qualified distribution. That happens five years after the conversion.
Here's a short column discussing these two "traps":
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/roth-ira-conversion-10-penalty-trap
In some states (I don't remember which state you're in), some retirement distributions (including IRA withdrawals/conversions, pension plans, etc.) can be taken state-tax-free. This feature may be age-restricted. For example, Colorado exempts $20K of retirement income (including IRA withdrawals) for people aged 55-64, and $24K for seniors. So if you're thinking about converting the money, it might make more sense for you to convert part of your T-IRA (if any) rather than part of your wife's. Not to mention that you're closer to RMDs.
Page with table of how each state treats retirement income:
https://taxna.wolterskluwer.com/whole-ball-of-tax-2018/state-retirement-taxes
That gets us to whether it even makes sense to convert (which is effectively what you're doing if you do a direct rollover to a Roth). Not enough information to reasonably comment here, especially since I don't understand what you mean by "doesn't make enough money". Generally 100% of compensation can be contributed to T-IRAs (up to contribution limits, of course).
The 12% bracket that @bee mentioned calls to mind another consideration: 0% capital gains. If you keep your total taxable income under $78,750 (sic), then you cap gains are taxed at 0% by the IRS. Note that this limit is slightly different from the $78, 950 limit for the 12% ordinary income tax bracket (MFJ).
Too many considerations and too little information to comment intelligently about your conversion decision (which would be informational in any case and not constitute advice, as with all of this post).

This thread illustrates the diversity of thought of guests appearing on this program. I look forward to the annual visit from Matthew McLennan and Ed Hymann because it is loaded with worthwhile information about the economy and markets. The prior show entitled "Failing Retirement" made some good points (especially by Teresa Ghilarducci but I certainly didn't agree with Jamie Hopkins's recommendation of "Fixed indexed annuities" for ones fixed income allocation (due to the outrageous fees generally associated with the product). And having David Rosenberg the weeks before served as a good counterbalance to the generally bullish views of McLennan and Hymann.
I like the show but find it a little creepy that the show's sponsors are often associated with guests who appear on the shows. I don't think Lewis Rukeyser's show ever took money from companies represented by panelists or guests, and in my view this gave the program "Wall Street Week" more credibility which will probably be unmatched in my lifetime.

Re: RMD - You can, in a sense, have your cake and eat it too - not that it makes a huge difference in net amount received. I simply move the expected RMD amount into a cash or cash equivalence fund well ahead of the actual time it will be taken. At that point it becomes “hidden” within my investment portfolio until the actual RMD / distribution. Around the end of year, as @Catch22 suggests, still works fine for RMD compliance. It’s at that time I transfer the funds earlier set aside into a non-sheltered cash account. Does allow the money sitting in cash to grow tax deferred until you actually pull it out. An added. enefitnis that it allows a degree of flexibility, should circumstances change.
Interesting discussion. I prefer to use various diversified income and moderate / conservative allocation funds at TRP and D&C (DODLX) and let those guys decide how much and what kind of bonds to hold. But I can see the appeal of using CEF bonds (apparently in a modified laddering approach) late in retirement. From the bit I’ve read, CEFs are thought to hold some good value currently. Boils down to what you know best and each’s individual comfort level. Welcome to the guys who came over from M*. I’ve seen some of your CEF discussions on that board, but have never posted there.

autoshops and Gary, thanks for responding. I have found investors have carved out their own unique mix of conservative bond oef funds, that fit their unique objectives and investing style. I certainly understand how many investors hold balanced funds and equities, probably most do--holding conservative bond oefs for ballast purposes and holding them for income, are very typical. When I was in my early 60s, I held many balanced funds and some equities, but as I got older, I had accumulated enough where my objectives became more conservative, so that I could just have a stress free retirement. I am spending quite a bit of time in my taxable account recently--funds like DBLSX are very solid low risk funds, and the question I need to answer is whether I can take a bit more risk to get more total return, without the stress of dealing with that risk. I have decided that PUTIX is a fund worth holding in my taxable account. I like the nontraditional bond category a lot because you can find funds that significantly vary in how you can use them--sometimes for income, sometimes for total return, sometimes for ballast, etc. One of the other reasons I like nontraditional bond funds, is that they often have a primary goal of "absolute return" and have fewer constraints, and more investing tools in their arsenal, to achieve those performance objectives.

@Derf - I wasn’t trying to hype TMSRX. It came up as part of a larger discussion about investing late in the retirement years. I took the time to address your question about the 16% cash position and tried to share a few thoughts on a fund that’s barely one-year old.
I’d be very surprised if anyone else who posts here owns it. I own a great many funds that are not currently popular. I have to answer only to myself. So, you invest your way and I’ll invest mine.

I took a sneak peak (TMSRX) at Marketwatch & to my surprise 32% in TRPUSBF. Looking at 4/th Qter. 2018 shows app. 7% drop. I guess it boils down to downside protection vs upside gain. Is anyone into this fund for say 10% or more of retirement income funding. I did take note it appeared to give out some donuts , but as of now the dividend is unknown to me. Derf
P.S. donuts $.27 & a wavier in effect for ER.

Kitces:“ Once ... buckets are established, the retiree then might use the following decision-rule framework for liquidations:
1) If equities are up, take the retirement spending from equities
2) If equities are down but bonds are up, take the spending from bonds instead
3) If both equities and bonds are down in the same year, take the distribution from Treasury bills ”
(or, in my case, from “Alternative” investment funds)
Thanks for the link @msf - I’d never seen any analysis comparing the two approaches before and somewhat humbled that Kitces sees some merit in what I’ve been doing. Of course there will be other experts who disagree.
My method IMHO only works if one is willing to sacrifice some current level of return in exchange for being fully invested at all times (a lousy misleading term anyway). So, I carry what some would consider expensive, low performing or erratic performance funds as an offset to a severe equity sell-down. Funds like TMSRX, PRPFX, OPGSX - none of which would pass mustard based on the metrics most mutual fund investors use or receive high marks on this board. There’s also a static 15% weighting in the mix devoted to ultra-short and short term bonds. (I just recently increased that frim 10%.) And as Kitces mentions, you have to be willing to sell your winners in a downturn and hang on to your losers.
One big problem is in trying to backtest anything. For most, 10-15 years seems like an eternity. But in terms of really important global financial turning points 10-15 years is little more than a drop in the bucket. And some of the alternative investment funds (like TMSRX) have only become available recently.

I can only wish that my retirement account had that persons' 1966 dollar amount in 2019 dollars. (inflation adjusted!!!]
Derf

Hi @hank
OK, finished some early chores and coffee gone.
The numbers from the posted link seem large, but in the overall; may not mean much when related just to the IRA and 401K holdings (i didn't check 403b, but this amount is likely very large, too)
So, here's some info from ICI.org as of mid-year, 2019:
--- IRA total assets = $9.7 TRILLION
--- 401k total assets = $5.9 TRILLION
Secondary info reports total individual retirement market assets = $29.8 TRILLION, although I don't have time to chase this data breakdown.
Obviously, the numbers in the link are interesting; but not of significant value to cause me to change my ways as of today.
At least, some form of a value measuring benchmark info was available.
ADD: some of the flow to MM accounts likely can be attributed to required minimum distributions from traditional IRA accounts before Dec. 31
Take care,
Catch

@Gary
This may not apply to you; but perhaps for whomever..................
If a spouse is not working, the other spouse may provide funding to a spousal Roth, etc.
The link below also provides contribution limits, and other info.
See this IRS page.

Just looking at the mechanics, and not the particular funds ...
It looks like with a little flexibility, you could get down to two institutions - Fidelity and Vanguard - pretty easily. TRP is now NTF at Fidelity (and at Vanguard, though I'd favor Fidelity for brokerage/third party funds). The only reason I might have for continuing to invest directly with TRP is free M* premium access.
For the HSA, if you're willing to invest in anything other than BRUFX, Fidelity now offers HSA accounts that are as free as its regular/IRA brokerage accounts. As a side note, you don't have to withdraw money from an HSA as expenses are incurred. You can pay out of pocket and reimburse yourself anytime in the future out of the HSA so long as you hold onto your bills and receipts. So, like other "Roths", you can keep the HSA invested in more volatile funds and draw on the HSA only when it is doing well.
Personally, I tend to avoid sector funds. In part because I don't claim any macro expertise. In part because, as you wrote, I pay my fund managers to make those kinds of decisions. To each his own. I agree with targeting 3 years or so of "survival funds". Even if the other funds don't fully recover in three years, they should come back enough that drawing on them after that time shouldn't be too painful.
A curiosity question, no need to respond w/personal data: my understanding of WEP is that "By law, it cannot eliminate your benefit entirely." (AARP page) So I'm wondering how you're getting hit so hard by it.

This is what I see. Fidelity may have given you incorrect information. It does mention income limits. Could that be it?
The Roth IRA contribution limit is $6,000 for 2019, up from $5,500 in 2018. Retirement savers 50 and older can contribute an extra $1,000. Income limits apply. Retirement savers have yet another reason to celebrate the Roth IRA: The maximum amount that can be contributed to a Roth in 2019 has been increased by $500. Jun 11, 2019

The IRS says yes.
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-ira-contribution-limits