10/6/2011 5:44 PM ET|
Will changes sink retirement plans?
A proposal that would cut or modify tax incentives for savings vehicles such as 401k's is raising concerns that contributions could suffer.
The government officials considering changes to how retirement savings vehicles such as 401k's work may want to note a survey this year by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
Nearly 90% of respondents said it was either "very important" or "somewhat important" to deduct their retirement contributions from their work pay, with one in four of these full-time workers saying they would reduce -- or stop -- their contributions if the ability to deduct them from their taxes is eliminated, a change Congress could announce as soon as December.
Despite the disputed claim that the changes would affect those primarily in higher-income brackets, Congress should note: Those earning between $15,000 and $25,000 had the most negative reaction to the notion of changing retirement plans, with nearly 57% saying they would reduce savings.
In an America without widespread pension plans, this could mean millions of the nation's poorest people turning more, if not exclusively, to Social Security to pay for all of their retirement needs, even though the system is portrayed by many politicians as already facing a crisis.
Such reliance is particularly troubling for 401k advocates, because the average Social Security beneficiary gets only slightly more than $14,000 each year, hardly enough to retire comfortably on. (Will your 401k provide enough in your retirement? Find out with MSN Money's calculator.)
Attorney and CPA David White, the president and founder of David B. White Financial in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., doesn't mince words as he watches the ongoing debate.
"The ramifications are very serious and severe," he says. "I think it would be a huge mistake to do this."
Such fears that changes could reduce incentives for saving -- including making employers less inclined to promote and support the plans they do now -- are abundant, despite efforts to make the changes part of a careful strategy that seeks opportunity in crisis by looking at a long-term overhaul good for all involved.
A variety of tax incentives and strategies are at work with retirement plans, according to the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries. Employer contributions to qualified retirement plans are deductible to the employer and not subject to FICA tax. Income tax on investment earnings on those contributions is deferred until distribution. In addition, people with adjusted gross income of less than $27,750 and married couples with an AGI of less than $55,500 may qualify for a Saver's Credit ranging from 10% to 50% of the first $2,000 a person contributes to an IRA or employer-sponsored defined-contribution plan.
Any and all of the current tax incentives could be eliminated or modified as part of a deficit-reduction strategy.
In his opening remarks at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Sept. 15, Max Baucus, D-Mont., laid out concerns with the current retirement system.
"Our tax code has several key provisions that encourage Americans to save for their retirement," he said. "The tax benefits apply to pensions, Individual Retirement Accounts and employee stock ownership plans. These tax incentives add up. In total, they cost more than the tax preference for employer contributions to health insurance plans, and they cost nearly 50% more than tax expenditures on the home mortgage interest deduction. The United States has the most successful private retirement system in the world, but for the amount our country spends on retirement savings, are we getting enough bang for our buck?"
Baucus pointed out that, unlike many defined-benefit plans such as pensions, defined-contribution plans such as 401k's do not provide stipends or insurance to cover long-term care expenses.
"This means that a retiree can outlive his retirement savings whether due to inflation, market declines, unexpected health expenses or even the good fortune of living longer than expected. And many do," Baucus said. "In spite of the tremendous tax preferences for retirement savings, many Americans are left without sufficient resources to maintain a comfortable retirement."
Budget negotiators and Treasury officials have estimated that eliminating tax breaks for 401k plan contributions would pump more than $67 billion back into federal revenues in 2012 alone. That estimate is disputed and called "overstated" by the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries.
The changes are merely "robbing from future tax revenues," the organization says.
"It should be stressed -- and is often forgotten in this debate -- that the tax expenditures associated with retirement savings are a deferral of taxation, not an avoidance of taxation," says Michael Falcon, the head of retirement for J.P. Morgan Asset Management, who isn't hopeful about the likely impact on savings.
"Replacing the current deferral of taxation would have an impact beyond the timing of deposits to participant accounts," Falcon says. "The fact that (employee) contributions are not subject to federal withholding (they are subject to FICA tax) means that participants can save more while seeing a smaller impact on their take-home pay. If an employee's tax withholding on $100 was $20, contributing the $100 to the plan would only cost $80 in take-home pay.
"If participant contributions were subject to taxation, this could result in lower contributions, as employees would not get the benefit of the 'withholding bonus.' This would be compounded if the employer contributions were now subject to immediate federal tax withholding and FICA," Falcon says.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
They want to take away every break from the middle class. What about the rich tax breaks end them too.
Congress give up your pension and health plans set an example. Look at all the money we would save.
Incredible! A program enacted with the support of both parties and business, to allow middle income americans to benefit from their labors, prepare for retirement, and provide capital for economic expansion and congress wants to reduce or eliminate the incentives to participate. Given the desire of congress to reduce the dependence on social security and have the individual take responsibility for their own retirement how can they even be considering this. How can we even think about doing this until every cent earned (and I use that term loosely) by a hedge fund manager and investment banker is taxed as personal income vice capital gains.
You get the behavior you reward. We used to reward home ownership, education, and saving for retirement. All seem pretty good ideas to form a solid society. What is it we want to form by eliminating the incentives in these areas? Eliminate the middle class?
would look good to cut something that doesn't effect them ! lets cut the senate or congress pay or benefits and see them yell! JTP
We are being enslaved. The average company saved 42% off of traditional retirement funds when switching employees to 401K systems. Now they are moving to save 100% (as some already do) by doing no savings match.
Question: How do you get a bunch of generic money from non-informed people into the stock market in order to inflate the value of a sagging economy?
Answer: Force them into 401K plans with minimal investment control and then down the road start to remove the other original benefits. I for one am sick of using the 401K calculator that tells me when I hit 65, if this and that happens It will be worth $900,000. Yet for the past 20 years the account has been dismal. CAN YOU SAY SCAM?
They want us too tired and too poor to fight back and I'm afraid they are winning.
To put a lock down on the accounts until retirement age I assume means 591/2 years now, yet it will not be long before they change that too-possible to say 65. Then 66, then 69-70 etc like Social Security.
The better question is how many millions of Americans from all social classes have been able to make ends meet these last couple of years because they had a 401k account prior?
I have read countless articles on folks having to draw out money or close out completely their 401k or IRA knowing they still had to pay a 10% Excise Tax.
Either way the government gained 10% while millions struggled to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not everyone can get food stamps or welfare-why-because they have money in a savings account called a 401k or IRA!
However, most folks would rather support themselves & pay the 10% penalty if they have it- I believe-that's why they saved for a rainy day in the 1st place. It's the governments rules that hurts them from doing so!
Robbing future tax collections to take them away today and compromise long term savings. Only the genius's we have on Capitol Hill would come up with this one.
As a CPA this will effect the lower to middle class not the 20/20 plan but rather if the high earners or owners of the company can't get their benefit they as some one in the article said will not set up a plan nor contribute to one.
In my experience the main reason a small businessman set's up a pension plan for his employees is because of his ability to put aside tax free monies for his retirement, unfortunately no benefit for the owner no plan for the employees.
It is not fair, some may even consider it greedy or selfish but it is reality.
Most Americans do NOT put more than $20,000 or 20% of their income away. Why because they simply can't afford to. The only people that can for the most part are the wealthy. The 20/20 rule sounds very reasonable. However they also need to treat the proceeds as capital gains then not ordinary income. It makes no sense. They also need to raise the capital gain rate for anyone with a Gross Income over $250,000. I'm tired of see someone take home $900,000 in a year and pay something close to $13,500 in Federal Taxes not subject to FICA. In 2010 a married couple filing joint that with an adjusted gross income of $84,000 would have to pay $13,369. If you're not married you get hit with the singles rate and you would have to pay $17,236. This is not including the roughly 7.5% you've already had to pay in Social Security and Medicare. Lets address this! The rich will always invest. They will not simply stuff $1,000,000 under the mattress.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
RECENT ARTICLES ON RETIREMENT
A single mom is taking a McDonald's franchise to court, saying she was forced to accept with a fee-heavy 'payroll card' instead of a check or direct deposit.