Biden wants to end tax benefits for 401(k) savings plans

Most of the “moving to the far left” commentary regarding the Biden campaign focuses on defunding the police and critical theory darlings in general. But a cute little socialist policy talking point that has crept into Biden’s platform that will knock suburban families in the teeth is flying under the radar.

The dude (or at least his handlers) wants to end tax benefits for 401(k)-style retirement plans. The Bernie-and-AOC-driven “Unity Task Force” refers to this in Orwellian terms as “equalizing the network of retirement saving tax breaks,” but what it really means is eliminating current benefits. Because it’s not enough that public pensions across the country are dramatically underfunded, which will no doubt be a shocker to hundreds of thousands of Gen X and Millennial public servants who think they are going to get a big deferred comp payday eventually, but we need to gut private retirement savings structures in solidarity, apparently. And, you guessed it, this is all about the perceived inequality in who seems to benefit from these vehicles.

It defies imagination that anyone in this country wants Americans to save less for retirement, which is the effect messing with incentives to save will have. From Forbes:

So what did that proposal suggest? It included a variety of options, including

  • Reducing total available pre-tax savings (employer and employee) from (at the time) $51,000 to only the lesser of $20,000 or 20% of pay;
  • Expanding the currently relatively-small “Saver’s Credit” (equal to 50% of the first $2,000 in retirement savings, only for relatively lower earners, up to $$19,500 for singles, $39,000 for couples; and phasing out quickly, to 20%, 10%, and ultimately nothing for singles with $32,500/couples with $65,000 in income) to stay at 50% for higher earners and phase out in a much more gradual manner instead; or
  • Wholly removing any tax benefit for retirement savings and provide a credit of 25% instead (often this proposal includes a limit to the credit; this particular proposal doesn’t specify such; also, note that this was prior to the 2017 tax law which dropped tax rates).

Biden’s proposal sounds, well, fair enough. But what would happen, in practice?

Let’s start with a small point of clarification: strictly speaking, “401(k)” refers to the ability of a worker to defer a part of their pay for retirement savings purposes, and to avoid taxes until the money is ultimately withdrawn. The deferral of employer contributions is not a part of section 401(k) of the relevant IRS tax code. Does Biden want to remove the tax preference for both workers’ and employers’ contributions to retirement plans, or only the former?

The Urban Institute proposal assumed that higher-income workers would continue to save just as usual, even if they are on the losing end of tax changes. But would they continue to save through their employers’ 401(k)? And, likewise, if employers’ contributions no longer offered a tax advantage, would they continue to offer these plans, or to offer employer contributions to them?

As it is, “nondiscrimination” regulations require that employers design their plans to ensure that the amount of benefit received by lower-income workers is not too much less, proportionately, than highly-compensated employees, even though the latter are more likely to save and receive matches. The entire system is designed on the expectation that employers’ concerns lie largely with their higher earners and that they must be regulated into offering similar benefits to their lower earners. Would they be more likely, in these alternate circumstances (especially if benefits are capped and quite limited for higher earners), to simply boost pay instead so that these workers can seek out other forms of tax-advantaged investing?

To be sure, this isn’t generally an either-or situation. But employers evaluate their entire benefits cost and determine overall benefits & compensation budgets, shifting, at any one time, how much they allocate to retirement savings compared to pay raises. And this would surely be a consideration.

(Incidentally, in fairness, one further concern, that middle class savers who are currently urged by conventional wisdom to aim to save at least enough to receive their employer’s match, would aim for a lower target instead, that of the maximum “government-matched” contribution, might not be an issue: according to Vanguard’s 2020 survey, most savers do not target this “get the full match” level of savings at all. 34% of savers contribute less than needed to get the full match, a surprising 49% contribute more, and only 18% contribute exactly enough to get that full match, and nothing more.)

But there’s a final issue that’s even more concerning: this proposal doesn’t appear to recognize what really happens with retirement savings accounts tax advantages.

Here’s another example of such a proposal, a 2011 Brookings report:

“There is a formal economic equivalence between the incentives created by a deduction at a given rate and those created by a tax credit of a different rate. For example, a 30 percent matching credit is the equivalent of an income tax deduction for someone with a 23 percent tax rate. For every $100 contributed to a retirement account by an individual with a 23 percent tax rate, the individual would receive a tax deduction worth $23.”

These proposals appear to forget that tax advantages in retirement savings accounts are not simply a matter of deductibility, as one deducts mortgage interest or charitable deduction.

Instead, recall that in a Roth account, whether a 401(k) or an IRA, one pays taxes right away, then takes one’s money at retirement without paying further taxes.

In a traditional 401(k), one doesn’t pay taxes when making the contribution, but nonetheless must pay taxes upon withdrawing the money at retirement. This is the entire reason for the RMDs, required minimum distributions, to give the government its share without excessive delay.

But regardless of which type of account one elects, the principle is the same.

Imagine that the tax rate was entirely flat, say 20% for everyone, no deductions, no marginal rates. Your effective tax rate, measured as the proportion of the final account balance at retirement paid out in taxes, is 20% either way.

What’s the benefit of the tax advantage, then? It prevents workers from being double-taxed, that is, taxed on their investment return.

Here’s the math:

Imagine a 30 year career, where a worker has 3% pay increases each year and earns 6% in investment return each year.

With a 15% income tax rate, the tax-advantaged net tax rate at the end of the 30 years would be, of course 15%. But if there were no tax benefits, and if investment gains were taxed at the same rate, the effective tax rate would be 22%, considering the “cost” in taxation on the compounding of returns. If the income tax rate were 20%, the effective tax rate would be 29%. And a tax rate of 30% would result in an effective tax rate of 42%, in each case considering the proportion of the total investments paid as taxes over the years.

Here, “tax deferral, no Roth” is a scenario similar to capital gains, paying taxes only when you sell the stock. “Inside build-up taxed” is like an interest-bearing bank account, where you pay taxes on the interest every year. This is highly simplified just to provide an idea of what’s going on.

Now, reader, your own reaction might be: “what double taxation? It’s entirely fair to tax investment income!” But in either case, that means that the comparisons being offered are comparing apples to oranges.

Here’s another example: there have been proposals to switch from a “pure” tax deduction for charitable contributions to a tax credit instead. If the credit were set at 20% of the contribution, then anyone who pays income tax at a rate less than 20% would be a “winner” and anyone who pays taxes at a rate greater than 20% would be a loser.

But to remove the tax-deferral (or, in the case of the Roth, the removal of taxes on investment build-up), is wholly different conceptually. Yes, you can do the’ math of the long-term additional revenue the federal government would get by taxing investment gains (assuming they don’t find other tax advantaged savings, or stop saving altogether), and calculate, over the long term, how much the government could “spend” by giving tax credits for retirement savings instead, but it’s a much more complicated set of changes than it appears.

I have always kind of viewed the political left as financially and economically illiterate people, but this is a whole new animal. They seemingly want to destroy one of the most common vehicles for saving money and building wealth that middle class Americans have, for literally no other reason than they are bitter that it works.

I feel like breaking the multi-trillion-dollar student loan machine is the single biggest policy issue for restoring health to our political discourse there is (well, apart from ending eternal foreign wars). All it does is drive up the cost of tuition across the country, as school administrators understand they have basically no limit on how much they can charge so long as the US government is willing to lend unlimited amounts to glorified teenagers with a simple signature.

But the kids these schools are cranking out are graduating with significant economic resentment, precisely because they cannot get a mortgage, start a family, etc., thanks to the extortionate levels of debt they have assumed. And so their politics is about smashing everyone else’s financial futures too in some miserable solidarity. As Boomers become a smaller part of the voting population and these kids become a larger part, dysfunction knows no bounds. This is a prime example.

3 thoughts on “Biden wants to end tax benefits for 401(k) savings plans

  1. If you have not run across her before, Google the name “Teresa Ghilarducci” from the New School. She has been a key thinker from the left on policy with respect to retirement for about the past 10-15 years. She has testified several times before House subcommittees, mostly during Obama’s fist term IIRC. She had a plan at one time to actually confiscate all private retirement savings accounts and have them managed by the government. It was truly scary. Not sure where she is at with her plan today but it seems the last time I saw her name mentioned she had teamed up with one of the big Wall Street names in private equity with an updated variation on that plan.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. i know who she is. She’s a pension fund conspiracy theorist. It’s really straightforward the reasons why public pensions are underfunded. Leftist policymakers took the money that was supposed to fund pensions and spent it on their other political priorities for years, thus depriving them of both principal and investment income. She’s one of the people who gets out there and pretends there was some evil plot to defund pensions. Honestly, there are some real wingnuts in Wall Street now. I have met young hedge fund managers who say they hate capitalism. Colleges have ruined a generation for sure.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s