What is really going on -- - Truthhurts
[ In Reply To ..]
One of the proposals that has received attention in Washington talking head discussions about how a compromise might be reached between Democrats and Republicans on the fiscal cliff and federal budget is one that argues for cutting back or eliminating the tax break the 401(k) deduction. This, I should say, is not a new suggestion. It’s come up numerous times over the years, but was given renewed life when the Simpson-Bowles commission stumped for it. It’s a commonsense if controversial idea, especially given the evidence we have that the tax break does not cause very many people to save more money. It’s this proposal, not any plot, that led the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries to speak out in defense of the 401(k).
Similarly, the details of the supposed plan to confiscate our 401(k)s originate, not in secret covens, but in the papers a number of academics have published over the years, seeking ways to better or reform our nation’s individual retirement savings efforts. The authors of these efforts include J. Mark Iwry, who is now a senior adviser to Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and and a deputy assistant secretary for retirement and health policy. (The plot thickens! Just kidding!), He’s argued for such things as Automatic IRA’s, which would cover workers who are not offered access to a 401(k), and for the inclusion of annuities as a choice in 401(k) plans.
Another name that frequently surfaces in the 401(k) plot discussions is longtime retirement activist Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at The New School, who believes the 401(k) should lose all its tax advantages, and instead be replaced by something she calls Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, a system of mandatory retirement contributions by both employees and their employers, that would allow for a minimum, promised investment return.
One of the proposals that has received attention is one that is for cutting back or eliminating the tax break the 401(k) deduction. It’s come up numerous times over the years. It’s a commonsense but controversial idea, especially given the evidence that the tax break does not cause very many people to save more money.
The details of the supposed plan to confiscate our 401(k)s originate in the papers that a number of academics have published over the years seeking ways to better or reform our nation’s individual retirement savings efforts. The authors of these efforts include J. Mark Iwry, who is now a senior adviser to Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and and a deputy assistant secretary for retirement and health policy. He’s argued for such things as Automatic IRA’s, which would cover workers who are not offered access to a 401(k), and for the inclusion of annuities as a choice in 401(k) plans.
Retirement activist, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at The New School, believes the 401(k) should lose all its tax advantages, and instead be replaced by something she calls Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, a system of mandatory retirement contributions by both employees and their employers, that would allow for a minimum, promised investment return.