(A Little More) Room to Grow

 Several years ago, we had in mind that it would be fun to get an aquarium for our home, and (even) I got excited at the prospects of filling it with a variety of all kinds and sizes of exotic fish. 

Sadly, those hopes were dashed when I discovered that , despite the massive displays of what appeared to be whole schools of fish in similarly sized tanks at the pet store, our specific-sized tank would only support a handful of the fish I had hoped to display. Apparently, the more fish you want to have (that live), the bigger the tank you need. The reason: they need room to thrive and grow.

At long last the IRS last week announced the new contribution and benefit limits for 2022. Considering the run-up in inflation this year, expectations were similarly high for increases in those limits. And sure enough, among other things, the 401(k) limit was bumped $1,000 (to $20,500) and the defined benefit plan limit rose from $230,000 to $245,000, though the limit for catch-up contribution held level at $6,500. 

At the outset, it’s worth remembering that these adjustments only reflect increases in the cost of living—basically an acknowledgement that the costs of living in retirement change over time, that they increase due to inflation—and that they are timed in such a way that those increases must accumulate to a certain level before that acknowledgement in the form of increased levels kicks in.

But since industry surveys[i] suggest that “only” about 9%-12% currently contribute to those levels, does it matter? And why don’t more people max out on those contributions? Well, cynics might say it’s because only the wealthy can afford to set aside that much.[ii] But Vanguard’s data suggests that only about half (56%) of even those workers making more than $150,000 a year maxed out their contributions. If these limits and incentives work only to the advantage of the well-off, why aren’t more maxing out?

Limit ‘Ed’

Those who look only at the outside of the current tax incentives generally gloss over the reality that there are a whole series of benefit/contribution limits and nondiscrimination test requirements. These rules are, by their very design, intended to maintain a balance between the benefits that these programs provide between more highly compensated individuals and the rest of the plan participants (those rules also help to ensure a broad-based eligibility for these programs). Almost assuredly those limits are working to cap the contributions of individuals who would certainly like to put more aside, if the combination of laws and limits allowed.[iii]

But let’s think for a minute about a group that doesn’t get nearly enough attention: the group— millions of working Americans, in fact—who are not wealthy by any objective measure, but earn enough that Social Security won’t come close to replicating their pre-retirement income. These middle and upper-middle income individuals apparently aren’t the concern of those who want to do away with the 401(k)—but these are the individuals who in many, if not most, situations, not only make the decision to sponsor these plans in the first place—they make the ongoing financial commit to make an employer match.

If nothing else, allowing those contribution limits to keep pace with inflation—like the right-sized aquarium—provides us all not only with a little more room to grow our retirement savings—but reminds us (all) of the opportunity to do so.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] According to Vanguard, during 2020, 12% of participants saved the statutory maximum dollar amount of $19,500 ($26,000 for participants age 50 or older). Fifty-six percent of participants with an income of more than $150,000 contributed the maximum allowed. 

[ii] Setting aside for a minute that $20,000/year likely won’t make much of a dent in the replacement rate for a wealthy individual.

[iii] For some additional validation of the impact of these limits, see “Upside” Potential.

‘Might’ Makes… Wrong?

 Sometimes the motivations of those attacking the 401(k) are pretty obvious.

The most recent was an article by a Maurie Backman at the Motley Fool titled, “Why a 401(k) isn’t the wonderful savings tool you think it is.” I tried to ignore it when it first (to my eyes) appeared on Forbes (which seems to have a pretty low threshold for contributions these days), and I was no more inclined to read it when it showed up a couple of days later on Fox News. But then folks started sharing it on both LinkedIn and Twitter—some ostensibly to hold it up for ridicule,[i] others as an affirmation—and, with some reluctance, I finally clicked on the article. 

Oddly, considering the title (and, in fairness, editors have been known to tweak headlines such that they bear little resemblance to the article they are attached to), the article spent almost as much space outlining the virtues of the 401(k)—specifically that they are “easier to sign up for” than an IRA, and that they have (much) higher annual contribution limits, even for catch-up contributions.

So, what’s their beef(s)? Backman makes three points:

1. That investment choices in a 401(k) can be limited (specifically that you generally can’t buy individual stocks).
2. That fees in a 401(k) can be high (the issue here seems to be the inclusion of actively managed funds alongside index offerings—and an assertion that “401(k)s plan come with administrative fees that generally are not negotiable. The administrative fees you'll pay with an IRA are typically much lower”—an assertion that doesn’t align with my experience, but is offered without data).
3. That a Roth option isn’t guaranteed (this factual assertion despite the fact that the most recent data from the Plan Sponsor Council of America that more than two-thirds of 401(k)s do currently provide the option).

To sum up: According to the article that claims the 401(k) isn’t a wonderful savings tool, the suboptimal aspects of a 401(k) are: (1) the options might not include individual stocks; (2) the fees can be high; and (3) you aren’t guaranteed to have the ability to save for retirement on a Roth basis—even though, by the author’s own admission, 401(k)s have much higher contribution limits and are easier to access, and thus are much more likely to be used (recall that data indicates individuals are 12-15 times more likely to save in a 401(k) than in an IRA on their own). Oh—and there’s only a passing reference to the employer match, which arguably also isn’t “guaranteed,” but is certainly more likely to be found in a 401(k) than in a stand-alone IRA.  

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that an article penned by the Motley Fool—a platform that purports to help individuals make stock picks—thinks that you’d be better off utilizing a retirement savings plan[ii] that would more readily accommodate their services. 

Yes, sometimes the motivations of those attacking the 401(k) are pretty obvious. The motivations of those choosing to publish such silliness? Not so much.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Memo to those who did—clicking on the article is the whole point; sharing it only exacerbates the problem.  

[ii] To add to the irony, the article sums up its advice thusly: “What you should do in that case is contribute just enough money to your 401(k) to snag your full employer match, if one is offered, but then put the rest of your savings into an IRA. Doing so could help you invest more appropriately, avoid high fees, and enjoy the perks of a Roth saving option.” 

"Checks" and Balances

In about a month, the IRS will announce the new contribution and benefit limits for 2018 – and that could be good news even for those who don’t bump against those thresholds.

These are limits that are adjusted for inflation, after all – designed to help retirement savings (and benefits) keep pace with increases in the cost of living. In other words, if today you could only defer on a pre-tax basis that same $7,000 that highly compensated workers were permitted in 1986 – well, let’s just say that you’d lose a lot of purchasing power in retirement.

But since industry surveys suggest that “only” about 9%-12% currently contribute to the maximum levels, one might well wonder if raising the current limits matters. Indeed, one of the comments you hear frequently from those who want to do away with the current retirement system is that the tax incentives for 401(k)s are “upside down,” that they go primarily to those at higher income levels, who perhaps don’t need the encouragement to save. Certainly from a pure financial economics perspective, those who pay taxes at higher rates might reasonably be seen as receiving a greater benefit from the deferral of those taxes.

Drawing on the actual account balance data from the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, and specifically focusing on workers in their 60s (broken down by tenure and salary), the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute has found that those ratios were relatively steady. In fact, those ratios are relatively flat for salaries between $30,000 and $100,000, before dropping substantially for those with salaries in excess of $100,000. (See chart.) In other words, while higher-income individuals have higher account balances, those balances are in rough proportion to their incomes – and not “upside down.”

And yet, according to Vanguard’s How America Saves 2017, only about a third of workers making more than $100,000 a year maxed out their contributions. If these limits and incentives work only to the advantage of the rich, why aren’t more maxing out?

Arguably, what keeps these potential disparities in check is the series of limits and nondiscrimination test requirements: the boundaries established by Internal Revenue Code Sections 402(g) and 415(c), combined with ADP and ACP nondiscrimination tests. Those plan constraints were, of course, specifically designed (and refined) over time to do just that – to maintain a certain parity between highly compensated and non-highly compensated workers in the benefits available from these programs. The data suggest they are having exactly that impact.

Those who look only at the external contribution dollar limits of the current tax incentives generally gloss over the reality of the benefit/contribution limits and nondiscrimination test requirements at play inside the plan – and yet surely those limits are working to “bound in” the contributions of individuals who would surely like to put more aside, if the combination of laws and limits allowed.

One need only look back to the impact that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had on retirement plan formation following the imposition of strict and significantly lower contribution limits – as well as a dramatic reduction in the rate of cost-of-living adjustments to those limits – to appreciate the relief that came in 2001 with EGTRRA.

Anyone who has ever had a conversation with a business owner – particularly a small business owner – about establishing or maintaining a workplace retirement plan knows how important it is that those decision-makers have “skin in the game.”

While we don’t yet know what the limits for 2018 will be, gradually increasing the limits of these programs to keep pace with inflation helps assure that these programs will be retained and supported by those who, as a result, continue to have a shared interest in their success.

And that’s good news for all of us.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Room to Grow

Several months back we acquired an aquarium, and I looked forward to filling it up with all kinds and sizes of exotic fish – only to be disappointed to find out that, despite the massive displays of what appeared to be whole schools of fish in similar sized tanks at the pet store, our tank would only support a handful of the fish I had hoped to display. The reason; they need room to thrive and grow. The more fish you want to have (and live), the bigger the tank.

The IRS has now announced the new contribution and benefit limits for 2015. Most were increased, notably the annual contribution limits for 401(k), 403(b), and 457 plans (from $17,500, where it has been for the past two years, to $18,000) and the catch-up contributions for those over age 50 (from $5,500, where it has remained since 2009, to $6,000).

But since industry surveys suggest that “only” about 9%-12% currently contribute to those levels, does it matter?

It’s worth remembering, of course, that these adjustments only reflect increases in the cost of living; you’d need more than $6,000 to buy what that $5,500 catch-up contribution would have gotten you in 2009. Moreover, they are timed in such a way that those increases must accumulate to a certain level before the adjustment kicks in.

But why don’t more people max out on those contributions? Well, cynics might say it’s because only the wealthy can afford to set aside that much. But at Vanguard only 36% of workers making more than $100,000 a year maxed out their contributions. If these limits and incentives work only to the advantage of the rich, why aren’t more maxing out?

Limit 'Ed'

Those who look only at the outside of the current tax incentives generally gloss over the reality that there are a whole series of benefit/contribution limits and nondiscrimination test requirements. These rules are, by their very design, intended to maintain a balance between the benefits that these programs provide between more highly compensated individuals and the rest of the plan participants (those rules also help to ensure a broad-based eligibility for these programs). Surely those limits are working to cap the contributions of individuals who would surely like to put more aside, if the combination of laws and limits allowed.

In that vein, one of the comments you hear frequently from those who want to do away with the current retirement system is that the tax incentives for 401(k)s are “upside down,” that they go primarily to those at higher income levels, those who perhaps don’t need the encouragement to save. And from a pure financial economics perspective, those who pay taxes at higher rates might reasonably be seen as receiving a greater benefit from the deferral of those taxes. Indeed, if those “upside-down incentives” were the only forces at work, one might reasonably expect to find that the higher the individual’s salary, the higher the overall account balance would be, as a multiple of salary.

However, drawing on the actual administrative data from the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, and specifically focusing on workers in their 60s (broken down by tenure and salary), the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute found that those ratios were relatively steady. In fact, those ratios are relatively flat for salaries between $30,000 and $100,000, before dropping substantially for those with salaries in excess of $100,000. In other words, while higher-income individuals have higher account balances, those balances are in rough proportion to their incomes — and not “upside down.”

Again, what keeps these potential disparities in check is the series of limits and nondiscrimination test requirements: the boundaries established by Internal Revenue Code Sections 402(g) and 415(c), combined with ADP and ACP nondiscrimination tests. Those plan constraints were, of course, specifically designed (and refined) over time to do just that — to maintain a certain parity between highly compensated and non-highly compensated workers in the benefits available from these programs. The data suggest they are having exactly that impact.

But let’s think for a minute about a group that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. It’s the group — millions of working Americans, in fact — who are not wealthy, but they earn enough that Social Security won’t come close to replicating their pre-retirement income.

These middle, and upper-middle income individuals apparently aren’t the concern of those who want to do away with the 401(k) — but, their personal retirement needs notwithstanding, these are the individuals who in many, if not most, situations, not only make the decision to sponsor these plans in the first place — they make the ongoing financial commit to make an employer match.

Allowing those contribution limits to keep pace with inflation not only helps remind us all of the importance of saving more — like the right-sized aquarium, it also helps provide us all with a little more room to grow our retirement savings.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

"Churn" Factors

British Statesman and Philosopher Edmund Burke famously commented that “”Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”(1) Indeed, those with experience working with employee benefit plans, can attest to a certain déjà vu-esque quality amidst the recent discussions about tax reform, limiting deductions, and “capping” contributions. These, are, in many ways, old “solutions,”(2) albeit these days arguably applied to a new (or at least different) set of circumstances.

As the 113th Congress begins its work, and the Obama administration readies for a second term, it is perhaps not surprising that the nuances of employee benefit plans and their tax treatment might not be an area of expertise for many on Capitol Hill. However, for all the longevity in tenure frequently assumed regarding those in Congress, a review of the data shows just how much turnover has taken place.

For example, you might not be surprised to learn that no member of the current Senate was in office when Medicare, or even ERISA was signed into law. But, as EBRI President and CEO Dallas Salisbury noted recently for the EBRI Board of Trustees, just three of the current 100 members of the Senate were there when Sec. 401(k) became law, and only 10 were there when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 became a reality. Fewer than half of the Senate were in their current office when the Pension Protection Act of 2006 passed.(3)

The implications for policy making in the midst of that kind of turnover are significant for employers and employees alike. Moreover, in an environment where expanding the transferability of Roth 401(k) balances is positioned as a revenue-generating mechanism to stave off sequestration, it seems increasingly obvious that every item of potential revenue or cost savings will be viewed through a new prism of scrutiny, where the short-term cost of the benefit may well trump the long-term value. And, as the data above suggests, by many who come to these deliberations without the full understanding and appreciation that experience in these complicated matters—a “history”—can provide.

One of EBRI’s founding principles in 1978(4) was the acknowledgement that “an ongoing need exists for objective, unbiased information regarding the employee benefit system, so that decisions affecting the system may be made based on verifiable facts.” And, as EBRI approaches its 35th anniversary, it’s clear that that need for information, and its critical role in making thoughtful decisions, remains undiminished.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

1) A century later George Santayana would write in his “Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1,” that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

(2) In fact, a 1993 EBRI Issue Brief titled “Pension Tax Expenditures: Are They Worth the Cost?” cites a 1991 National Tax Journal article that observed, “Whereas the case for employer-sponsored pensions as an institution is strong, the case for a major tax expenditure is weak…given the demands on the budget, eliminating a tax expenditure that benefits a declining and privileged proportion of the population should be given serious consideration.“ See “Pension Tax Expenditures: Are They Worth the Cost?” online here.

(3) See chart above, which tracks Senate turnover, by party, since 1975.

(4) See Facts about EBRI, online here.