'Robbing Peter to Pay Paul' – Retirement Expert Says It's Absurd Taking Incentives From 401(k) Plans To Fund 'Flawed' Social Security

In a recent discussion surrounding the future of Social Security, a controversial proposal suggests limiting contributions to tax-advantaged retirement accounts, such as 401(k) plans, or imposing annual taxes on their earnings. This idea, put forward by industry academics, aims to address the growing funding shortfall in Social Security but has drawn sharp criticism from advocates of the existing retirement savings system.

Don't Miss:

• The average American couple has saved this much money for retirement — How do you compare?
• How much money will a $200,000 annuity pay out each month? The numbers may shock you.

Brian Graff, CEO of the American Retirement Association, has been particularly vocal in his opposition. He describes the proposal as "robbing Peter to pay Paul," arguing that it is illogical to undermine a successful retirement savings framework to support a system that he believes is fundamentally flawed. Graff emphasizes that dismantling 401(k) contribution incentives could jeopardize the financial security of many Americans who rely on these plans for their retirement savings.

 "It's absurd to take away the incentives from a system that's actually working to give money to a system that is fundamentally flawed," Graff said, according to an article by the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries. 

See Also: IRS Finalizes 10-Year Rule For Retirement Withdrawals, Making Things ‘Even More Insanely Complicated’

The proposal’s authors – Andrew Biggs, Alicia Munnell, and Michael Wicklein – assert that the current tax benefits associated with employer-sponsored retirement plans disproportionately favor high-income earners. They estimate that these tax expenditures will cost taxpayers approximately $185 billion in 2020 while failing to significantly increase overall savings or broaden access to retirement plans for lower-income individuals.

Munnell, who leads the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, has expressed her long-standing concerns about the effectiveness of tax incentives in enhancing retirement plan coverage. She argues that these incentives primarily benefit wealthier individuals and do little to assist those who are less affluent. "Very few lower-income people are covered by retirement plans, and they don't pay much in taxes anyway," she notes, suggesting that the current system does not adequately serve all Americans.

Trending: Rory McIlroy’s mansion in Florida is worth $22 million today, doubling from 2017 — here’s how to get started investing in real estate with just $100

In contrast, Peter Brady, a senior economic advisor at the Investment Company Institute, counters the notion that the retirement landscape is in crisis. He points out that while some individuals rely heavily on Social Security for their retirement income, the majority of Americans do not face widespread retirement insecurity.

Biggs acknowledges that while tax incentives may not significantly boost individual savings, they encourage employers to offer 401(k) plans, thus increasing access for lower-income workers. He and Munnell highlight the success of auto-enrollment features in retirement plans, which have been included in recent legislation to improve retirement savings. They cite the United Kingdom's National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) as a successful model for increasing participation in retirement savings.

Munnell advocates for a more streamlined approach to increasing retirement coverage, suggesting that the U.K. model could serve as a blueprint for the U.S. Biggs agrees, stating that while he does not believe every American needs to save for retirement, addressing the concerns about insufficient participation in retirement plans is crucial. He believes adopting a structure similar to the U.K. could provide a more efficient solution.

This ongoing debate highlights the complexities of reforming retirement systems in the U.S. and the challenges of balancing the needs of current retirees with the future sustainability of Social Security. As discussions continue, it remains clear that finding effective solutions for retirement security will require careful consideration of both existing frameworks and innovative new approaches. 

Read Next:

• Warren Buffett flipped his neighbor's $67,000 life savings into a $50 million fortune — How much is that worth today?
• Many are surprised by Mark Cuban’s advice for lotto winners: Cash or annuity?