How would 401(k) ‘Rothification’ alter saving, retirement security, and inequality?

IF 1 4区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Pension Economics & Finance Pub Date : 2022-06-08 DOI:10.1017/s1474747222000105
Vanya Horneff, Raimond Maurer, Olivia S. Mitchell
{"title":"How would 401(k) ‘Rothification’ alter saving, retirement security, and inequality?","authors":"Vanya Horneff, Raimond Maurer, Olivia S. Mitchell","doi":"10.1017/s1474747222000105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many nations incentivize retirement saving by letting workers defer taxes on pension contributions, imposing them when retirees withdraw their funds. Using a dynamic life-cycle model, we show how ‘Rothification’ – that is, taxing 401(k) contributions rather than payouts – alters saving, investment, consumption, and Social Security claiming patterns. We find that taxing pension contributions instead of withdrawals leads to delayed retirement, somewhat lower lifetime tax payments, and relatively small reductions in consumption. Indeed, the two tax regimes generate quite similar relative inequality metrics: the relative consumption inequality ratio under taxed-exempt-exempt (TEE) is only 4% higher than that in the exempt-exempt-taxed (EET) case. Moreover, results indicate that the Gini measures are also strikingly similar under the EET and the TEE regimes for lifetime consumption, cash on hand, and 401(k) assets, differing by only 1–4%. While tax payments are higher early in life under the TEE regime, they are slightly lower in the long run. Moreover, higher EET tax payments are also accompanied by higher volatility. We therefore find few reasons for policymakers to favor either tax approach on egalitarian or revenue-enhancing grounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":46635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pension Economics & Finance","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pension Economics & Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474747222000105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many nations incentivize retirement saving by letting workers defer taxes on pension contributions, imposing them when retirees withdraw their funds. Using a dynamic life-cycle model, we show how ‘Rothification’ – that is, taxing 401(k) contributions rather than payouts – alters saving, investment, consumption, and Social Security claiming patterns. We find that taxing pension contributions instead of withdrawals leads to delayed retirement, somewhat lower lifetime tax payments, and relatively small reductions in consumption. Indeed, the two tax regimes generate quite similar relative inequality metrics: the relative consumption inequality ratio under taxed-exempt-exempt (TEE) is only 4% higher than that in the exempt-exempt-taxed (EET) case. Moreover, results indicate that the Gini measures are also strikingly similar under the EET and the TEE regimes for lifetime consumption, cash on hand, and 401(k) assets, differing by only 1–4%. While tax payments are higher early in life under the TEE regime, they are slightly lower in the long run. Moreover, higher EET tax payments are also accompanied by higher volatility. We therefore find few reasons for policymakers to favor either tax approach on egalitarian or revenue-enhancing grounds.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
401(k)计划的“罗斯化”将如何改变储蓄、退休保障和不平等?
许多国家鼓励退休储蓄,允许工人推迟缴纳养老金税,等到退休人员提取养老金时再征收。使用动态生命周期模型,我们展示了“Rothification”(即对401(k)缴款而不是支出征税)如何改变储蓄、投资、消费和社会保障索赔模式。我们发现,对养老金缴款征税而不是对提款征税会导致退休时间推迟,终身纳税金额有所降低,消费减少幅度相对较小。事实上,这两种税收制度产生了相当相似的相对不平等指标:在免税-免税(TEE)的情况下,相对消费不平等比率仅比免税-免税(EET)的情况高4%。此外,结果表明,在EET和TEE制度下,终身消费、手头现金和401(k)资产的基尼系数也非常相似,差异仅为1-4%。虽然在TEE制度下,早期的纳税额较高,但从长远来看,它们略低。此外,更高的EET纳税也伴随着更高的波动性。因此,我们发现政策制定者几乎没有理由支持基于平等主义或增加收入的税收方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Social security and retirement around the world: lessons from a long-term collaboration What drives the growth of an open pension fund? A building block approach to retirement income design The actuarial sources of the rise in unfunded liabilities in America's defined benefit plans in the 21st century Introduction to the 20th Anniversary Special Issue of the Journal of Pension Economics and Finance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1