The conventional order
Why 'Taxable First, Roth Last' Often Costs the Most
The order most households absorb is: spend the brokerage account first, then the IRA, then the Roth. The logic is deferral: every year the IRA is left alone is a year of tax-deferred growth. For a household whose wealth is mostly tax-deferred, the logic breaks in a specific way.
Picture a couple retiring at 65 with $3,000,000 in IRAs and $800,000 in a brokerage account, delaying Social Security to 70. Spending the brokerage account first, their taxable income in the first five years is tiny: dividends, interest and a little gain, most of it inside the $35,500 standard deduction and the 0% capital-gain rate. Then Social Security starts, and at 73 required distributions of well over $100,000 a year arrive on top of it. Their income goes from almost nothing to the 24% bracket and a Medicare tier in the space of a few years, and stays there for life.
Those first five years were the cheapest years of their retirement to take IRA income, and they took none. The 12% bracket, which runs to $100,800 of joint taxable income in 2026, was empty. The 22% bracket, to $211,400, was empty. Every dollar that could have come out at 12% or 22% instead comes out later at 24% or 32%, with a Medicare surcharge attached, or is inherited by children who pay their own rates on it within ten years.
The conventional order minimizes tax in each year. Retirement tax planning minimizes tax across all of them, which usually means paying more in the early years on purpose.