退休401(k)计划:退休储蓄的新框架

Benjamin C Silver, Michael Slomovics
{"title":"退休401(k)计划:退休储蓄的新框架","authors":"Benjamin C Silver, Michael Slomovics","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3762653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Americans attempting to save for retirement face a maze of account options, each with their own unique tax consequences. Unfortunately, this maze also limits access to tax-advantaged retirement savings and takes money out of savers’ pockets. In this article, we recommend entirely eliminating traditional and Roth 401(k) accounts after a date to be specified by Congress. To compensate for dollars that workers (and their employers, through matching contributions) formerly contributed to these accounts, we propose raising the current contribution limits to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) proportionately. We argue that this reform would solve numerous inefficiencies and inequities in the current 401(k) system — it would effectively expand lower- and middle-class workers’ access to tax-advantaged retirement savings. In Part II we discuss how our proposal would solve seven severe problems plaguing the 401(k); in Part III we explain the options for transitioning from the current regime to an all-IRA regime; in Part IV we address some preliminary objections to our proposal.","PeriodicalId":10619,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Economy: Social Welfare Policy eJournal","volume":"185 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retiring the 401(k): A New Framework for Retirement Savings\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin C Silver, Michael Slomovics\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3762653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Americans attempting to save for retirement face a maze of account options, each with their own unique tax consequences. Unfortunately, this maze also limits access to tax-advantaged retirement savings and takes money out of savers’ pockets. In this article, we recommend entirely eliminating traditional and Roth 401(k) accounts after a date to be specified by Congress. To compensate for dollars that workers (and their employers, through matching contributions) formerly contributed to these accounts, we propose raising the current contribution limits to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) proportionately. We argue that this reform would solve numerous inefficiencies and inequities in the current 401(k) system — it would effectively expand lower- and middle-class workers’ access to tax-advantaged retirement savings. In Part II we discuss how our proposal would solve seven severe problems plaguing the 401(k); in Part III we explain the options for transitioning from the current regime to an all-IRA regime; in Part IV we address some preliminary objections to our proposal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Political Economy: Social Welfare Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"185 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Political Economy: Social Welfare Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3762653\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Political Economy: Social Welfare Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3762653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

试图为退休储蓄的美国人面临着一个错综复杂的账户选择,每个账户都有自己独特的税收后果。不幸的是,这个迷宫也限制了获得税收优惠的退休储蓄,并从储户的口袋里拿走了钱。在本文中,我们建议在国会指定的日期之后完全取消传统和罗斯401(k)账户。为了补偿工人(及其雇主,通过匹配的捐款)以前向这些账户缴款的美元,我们建议按比例提高传统和罗斯个人退休账户(“ira”)的当前缴款限额。我们认为,这一改革将解决当前401(k)体系中的许多低效和不公平问题——它将有效地扩大中低收入工人获得税收优惠的退休储蓄的机会。在第二部分,我们将讨论我们的提议将如何解决困扰401(k)计划的七个严重问题;在第三部分中,我们解释了从当前政权过渡到全爱尔兰共和军政权的选择;在第四部分,我们讨论了对我们的建议的一些初步反对意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Retiring the 401(k): A New Framework for Retirement Savings
Americans attempting to save for retirement face a maze of account options, each with their own unique tax consequences. Unfortunately, this maze also limits access to tax-advantaged retirement savings and takes money out of savers’ pockets. In this article, we recommend entirely eliminating traditional and Roth 401(k) accounts after a date to be specified by Congress. To compensate for dollars that workers (and their employers, through matching contributions) formerly contributed to these accounts, we propose raising the current contribution limits to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) proportionately. We argue that this reform would solve numerous inefficiencies and inequities in the current 401(k) system — it would effectively expand lower- and middle-class workers’ access to tax-advantaged retirement savings. In Part II we discuss how our proposal would solve seven severe problems plaguing the 401(k); in Part III we explain the options for transitioning from the current regime to an all-IRA regime; in Part IV we address some preliminary objections to our proposal.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Age at Arrival and Immigrants' Housing Tenure: Evidence from the UK The Impact of Public Pension Deficits on Households' Investment and Economic Activity Ending Poverty in All its Forms Everywhere Incomes and the Poverty Line of the Population The housing market of Russian cities
×
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