Obama injects politics into a tax on savings

A bullet point on Page 18 of President Obama’s 2014 budget sounds ominous: “Prohibit Individuals from Accumulating Over $3 Million in Tax-Preferred Retirement Accounts.” That it appears in a section titled “Strengthening the Middle Class” is odd since such a proposal would seem to undermine the goal.

Why, at a time when the government is looking to reform entitlement programs because it can’t keep the promises it has made to future generations, does Obama want to reduce the incentive to save? It makes no sense.

Suddenly, the political agenda becomes obvious. Mitt Romney’s $102 million individual retirement account became an issue during the 2012 presidential election. Instead of offering a solution to prevent wealthy individuals from putting deeply discounted stock in their IRAs and earning huge, tax-free profits, Obama is looking to score political points.

“He’s going after a very small segment of the population that has in some way managed to save wealth in a tax-deferred vehicle,”says Jason Fichtner, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center in Arlington, Va.

A very small segment — for a very small return. Limiting an individual’s total retirement balances to about $3 million, enough to finance “an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement,” would raise $9 billion over 10 years, according to Obama’s budget proposal.

Fichtner has spent the last 15 years — at the Joint Economic Committee of Congress and Social Security Administration before going to Mercatuus. For starters, he would adopt a system of automatic enrollment. By forcing individuals to opt out rather than opt in, saving becomes a passive choice. Think of it as the default setting. You do nothing, which is the path of least resistance, and you receive the benefit.

To his credit, Obama’s budget includes automatic IRA enrollment and payroll deductions for those who lack employer- based 401(k) plans, considered to be the best way to induce people to save.

Next, Fichtner would address the current deductibility limits, which he says are “upside-down:” The higher the marginal tax rate, the bigger the benefit from the deduction. The existing system gives incentives to those who don’t need any.

He suggests changing the deductibility of 401(k) and IRA accounts to a nonrefundable tax credit. Instead of giving an individual in the 10 percent income-tax bracket a 10 percent benefit, give a dollar-for-dollar credit on his income tax. For high-income savers, the credit would be capped.

Operationally, capping pretax savings would be a nightmare. The amount of money required to generate an annuity of $205,000 at today’s interest rates is greater than if they stood at, say, 5 percent. What happens then? Is the additional principal returned to the individual and taxed at his current rate? What happens when interest rates fall, requiring more savings to guarantee the maximum annuity payment?

You get the point. It should be obvious that the proposal to cap retirement accounts was designed to punish the rich rather than strengthen the middle class. The result is something that’s “unworkable, unmanageable and un-administrable,” Fichtner says, rather than good retirement policy.

There is a much simpler solution to Romney’s IRA. If the problem is ensuring that partners in private-equity firms don’t put low-cost-basis shares into their IRAs, the government could stipulate that only cash be invested.

Perhaps a more important question is whether the government should be subsidizing saving in the first place. In a recent working paper, Chetty and four co-authors found that the tax subsidy for retirement savings accounts cost the government $100 billion a year. That puts it among the top five tax expenditures, or loopholes that are really government spending by another name. And it’s much less effective than automatic saving.

The well-to-do don’t need a tax incentive to save. At some point, they have all the homes, cars, yachts and airplanes they could ever want. And while saving is certainly a worthier pursuit than many of the activities government subsidizes, studies suggest there are more effective ways to achieve that goal. So why pay people to do what they are already doing?

We shouldn’t, Fichtner says. “But we should make sure we help those who aren’t doing it, do it.”

That sounds like something out of the Obama playbook. Having just paid a lower effective tax rate (18.4 percent) than his secretary this year, the president may want to rethink his fairness doctrine. That might help him to differentiate between good ideas for retirement saving, such as automatic enrollment, and purely political ones. At least we can hope.

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

 <span class="cutline_leadin">World Cup: </span>A soccer fan doesn’t take her team’s loss well. Germany beat Brazil 7-1, sending the nation into despair.


    Get a grip, soccer fans, look at the bright side

    I’m as speechless as any sports fan on this planet. Seven-to-one. That’s how badly Germany defeated – no, demolished – Brazil in the semi-finals of the soccer World Cup on Tuesday.



    Migrant children are fleeing violence, but so are ours

    Incensed by President Obama’s plan to deport thousands of immigrant children who have arrived in the United States illegally in recent months, activists have taken to the streets to chide the president. Many protests have included children. At one, a young boy can be seen carrying a sign that reads, “No deportation of children fleeing violence and poverty.”


    Florida makes progress in caring for troubled kids

    Every day, the most vulnerable children in our communities rely on the state’s child-protection system to make decisions and investments that will positively change the course of their lives. For some, these decisions can mean the difference between life and death — literally. During the past several months, the Legislature has focused significant attention on child welfare reform and, just recently, Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Senate Bill 1666, a critical starting point as we work toward improving this vital system of care.

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category