‘Positive’ Thinking: Why Small Businesses That Offer a 401(k) Do So

Last week we explored the reasons why small businesses DON’T offer a retirement plan to their workers. But there are quite different—and positive—reasons for choosing to do so.

The obstacles that keep most small businesses from offering a retirement plan to their workers are an assortment of factors, real and (somewhat) imagined. There ARE remedies for those concerns,[i] but mediation of those concerns doesn’t seem to be a factor in the motivations of small businesses that DO choose to offer a plan.

Reasons ‘Able’

According to that recent survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Greenwald Research, when the small business owners who offer retirement plans were asked the reasons that they do so, factors associated with attracting and retaining workers were the most prominent. Indeed, the vast majority—more than 9 in 10 of the small business owners[ii]—said that a reason they offer a plan is the positive effect on employee attitude and performance. 

According to the report, 90% said that a competitive advantage for the business in employee recruitment and retention is a reason for offering a plan. In fact, nearly a third (30%) said the positive effect of offering a plan is the MOST important reason, though nearly as many (25%) cited the competitive advantage as the most important reason.

Tax ‘Tacts’

Not that tax benefits and preferences weren’t factors; roughly two-thirds of the small business owners said that tax advantages for key executives and allowing the owner to save for retirement on a tax-deferred basis were (also) reasons for offering a plan, though only about 5% of the small business owners cited each of these as the most important reason.

The bottom line is there are any number of good, positive reasons—benefits for workers and business owners alike—for offering, and participating in, a workplace retirement plan. Unfortunately, there are also any number of reasons to put off doing so—not enough time, worries about the expense, confusion about the options, inertia, and that all-too-human inclination to put off big decisions for another day.

Then again, aren’t those the same reasons often put forth to justify not saving for retirement?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also: 5 Reasons Why Your Small Business Should Offer a Retirement Plan | National Association of Plan Advisors (napa-net.org)

 

---

[i] Notably the tax credits included in SECURE 2.0.

[ii] While those small business owners seem committed to the offering, the survey DID find some points of confusion with regard to the obligations associated with that undertaking. Turns out the one statement the survey asked about plan design requirements that was not true had the highest percentage of business owners agreeing with it; two-thirds (63%) of these owners thought that employer contributions were always automatically vested (in fairness, those who didn’t offer a plan were even more mistaken—and that WAS cited as a reason for not offering a plan).

Middle "Grounds"

A new report entitled “The Missing Middle” by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) treads some all-too-familiar ground, myopically focusing on one element of the nation’s private retirement system.

The articulated concern is, of course, the “middle”—an income grouping for which Social Security’s progressive structure doesn’t reach high enough to provide an adequate replacement income, but that lacks the more expansive financial wherewithal of those at the upper end of the income strata.

According to the paper, the tax incentives that arguably existed at the birth of the 401(k) have been muted due to lower marginal tax rates and the expansion of the standard deduction—both of which serve to mitigate the tax burden on lower-income individuals—but in the process also arguably lessen the financial incentive for deferring taxes. And if that were not enough, the authors also argue that the “…tax benefits relating to investment returns may be less in a market with lower returns.”

Of course, the focus of the authors here is the tax incentives for retirement savings[i]—and, unsurprisingly, the premise is that those with lower incomes—and thus less tax liability—get less from the current tax deferrals afforded 401(k) contributions than do those at higher incomes (who pay more in taxes). And, if you look only at that aspect—and that’s where most such critiques stop—it’s a fair point.

Before going into the shortcomings in that analysis, I’ll admit that there are certain legitimate economic realities that the paper highlights—that higher-income (and by this we don’t necessarily mean wealthy) individuals are more likely to have access to a retirement plan through work, that there are racial aspects that correlate to wealth inequities and access in the workplace, that the Saver’s Credit as currently designed (requiring a long-form tax filing to claim and being non-refundable) aren’t available to many who would otherwise be eligible, and that Social Security, though an underlying foundation of private requirement as a whole, and particularly for lower-income individuals, has funding issues of its own to fulfill the current benefit promises.[ii]

‘Missing’ Interactions

Unfortunately, as noted above, these types of analyses always gloss over the interrelationships between the tax incentives and the creation of these plans in the first place. It is assumed (generally implicitly) that employers that want to be considered an “employer of choice” will be forced to offer these plans regardless of the tax preferences to do so. Let’s face it, the tax preferences—though modest at an individual level—do provide an incentive to not only offer the plan, but—in most cases—to provide a matching contribution. A matching contribution that these type critiques always seem to gloss over (it does make their math simpler). And let’s face it, there’s no question that having access to a plan matters—even this NIRS paper acknowledges that those with access are 15 times more likely to save. 

What’s also glossed over is the impact of non-discrimination tests and legal contribution limits—limits that work, and work as designed, to keep an effective balance between the benefits of higher-paid and other workers. In fact, data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute has proven that while higher-income individuals do have higher account balances, those balances are in rough proportion to their incomes. 

In calling for a “recalibration” of what they see as a “fundamentally inequitable system,” the well-intentioned authors are missing the mark. By focusing exclusively on the individual tax preferences, while at the same time ignoring the impact of tax preferences on the decision to offer a plan in the first place, as well as the influence of non-discrimination testing in encouraging an employer match (not to mention the financial impact that has on the retirement prospects of non-highly compensated workers), they—and their purported solutions—turn out to be missing the point—and the very “middle” they claim the current system overlooks. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Once again, the trade-off for deciding to defer taking pay now, and depositing it in a trust subject to various restrictions and pre-withdrawal penalties is that you don’t pay taxes on compensation you haven’t gotten access to.

[ii] To address the perceived shortcomings identified, the authors have several solutions. Specifically, they want to boost and expand Social Security, federalize the state-run IRAs, target the Saver’s Credit to participants in those programs, and perhaps introduce a state version of the refundable government credit in place of tax incentives, which would equalize the credit. 

The Enemy of the ‘Good’

 A reader recently commented, “Nevin: You are continually berating those who question various aspects of 401(k) plans as if the current structure is ‘perfect.’ It isn’t.”

That comment was inspired by a recent column of mine critical of a proposal rumored to be under contemplation by the Biden campaign—one that would “trade” the current tax preferences of 401(k) deferrals for a flat government tax credit. It’s a proposal that is intended to direct more of the same amount of government expenditure (when the government doesn’t take money from your pay, it’s considered an expense) to lower income individuals, in that a flat dollar credit would ostensibly be worth more to lower income individuals than the deferral of taxes under the current system. 

Now that reader went on to offer a comment in support of that intent, explaining that “…one of the biggest challenges we face is getting lower paid people to participate. Credits will give bigger benefits to these people, and maybe, just maybe, spur increased participation,” closing by challenging me to “…work to make 401(k) plans BETTER, and not simply berate those who challenge the current system. It ain’t perfect, my friend. Far from it.”

Now, as it so happens I know this particular reader. And so I know that he cares deeply about retirement savings and retirement savers, that he’s one of the many out there who are truly working every day to make things “better.” 

That said, if he read my criticism of this proposal to be an assertion that the current system has no faults or shortcomings—well, that wasn’t my point. I have never said the current system was perfect, and in fact, dedicate any number of these columns to highlighting needs/opportunity to make it better.

Beyond that, my experience has been that when those kind of assertions are published[i] (even as an “op-ed”) by a reputable news organization—well, left unchallenged, the assertions are often assumed to be accurate. Indeed, every time something like this makes its way into circulation, I will hear from a half dozen different advisors (or more) telling me that the article has been passed on to them by plan sponsor clients (or participants), looking for comment, or response (and often asking me for assistance in that regard). Indeed, those are the kind of things that tend to get routed to those in academia and on Capitol Hill by those who see it as an affirmation of their notion that the current system is inadequate or biased in favor of the well-off. 

However, it’s one thing to press for change, but something else altogether to do so without fully thinking through (or at least acknowledging) the potential implications of that change—what are generously referred to as the “unintended” consequences, but sometimes seem more a willful and deliberate disregard. In this particular case a federal tax credit at the expense of having a workplace savings plan or an employer match doesn’t seem like a good trade-off to me. Moreover, making broad generalizations about fees (that don't seem supported by data) to justify a call for undermining valuable support for participants and employers doesn’t strike me as being a well-reasoned argument for change/improvement. 

To me the biggest shortfall of the current system is that too many working Americans don’t have the opportunity to take advantage of it. Oh, there are plans that still pay too much in fees, that either don’t avail themselves of the services of a plan advisor, or rely on the counsel of one that isn’t qualified, plans run by fiduciaries who either aren’t aware of that responsibility or fail to fulfill it. The system, in total, isn’t perfect—but those who pick at those imperfections to justify its wholesale demise should be challenged and held to account for misstatements and exaggerations, and they should be willing—and able—to consider and respond to questions—and data—about the ripple effect of unintended consequences. 

Never forget that “perfect” is often the enemy of the good. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Warning: I’ve been at any number of symposiums or roundtables—and even read the occasional op-ed—where the words of a well-intentioned industry leader are served up as an “admission” of failure of the current system. 

• 
  

A Preference on ‘Preferences’?

A research paper finds that introducing a Roth 401(k) option doesn’t have much impact on current plan savings rates — but what does that have to do with their preference for tax preferences?

Well, according to “Does Front-Loading Taxation Increase Savings? Evidence from Roth 401(k) Introductions,” governments could actually increase private savings by taxing savings up front, rather than in retirement. This conclusion basically suggests that taking away the current 401(k) pre-tax contribution and replacing it with a Roth assumption would not only not decrease, but it might actually increase, retirement savings, and with no additional cost to the government.

For years a key education element touted about 401(k) plan participation has been the ability of the individual to put off paying taxes on their contributions and on the earnings attributable to those contributions (and those of their employer, if any) until retirement, at which point they would ostensibly find themselves in a lower income tax bracket. Moreover, by saving on a tax-deferred basis, the theory went that you could get more bang for your buck in leveraging the taxes deferred.

A Preference for Roths

The researchers look at that scenario a little differently — gauging that paying taxes upfront on the contributions and foregoing paying taxes on the accumulated earnings amounts to a better deal. They then anticipate that participants would shift their 401(k) contributions to Roths.

To test their hypothesis, the researchers drew on administrative 401(k) plan data from 11 companies that introduced a Roth 401(k) option between 2006 and 2010 to analyze the impact of a Roth option on savings plan contributions. They found no evidence of a change in total contribution rates between employees hired after a Roth option is introduced and employees hired before. In fact, they note that if anything, contributions rise slightly when a Roth option is available.

Having found no evidence of the anticipated shift to Roths, they seek to explain it.

To do so, they turn from actual data to a survey of participants who are asked to provide a savings recommendation to a couple of fictional participants — basically to come up with a recommended savings rate for a pre-tax 401(k) option versus one that allows for both a pre-tax 401(k) deferral and a Roth 401(k) contribution. Despite what the researchers see as obvious advantages with the Roth, the contribution recommendations (in terms of a total contribution) are almost identical.

No ‘Wonder’

While considering several possible explanations for why this occurs, they settle on one that seems fairly obvious: “ignorance and/or neglect of the 401(k) tax rules.” But since the introduction of the Roth 401(k) option didn’t lead to any major shift in contribution rates, the researchers conclude that this suggests that governments may be able to increase after-tax private savings (because participants will have more savings accumulated with the Roth) while holding the present value of taxes collected roughly constant (the government gets less money, but gets it upfront, rather than waiting for the individual to retire) by making savings non-deductible up front but tax exempt in retirement, rather than vice versa.

In other words, since the addition of the Roth option didn’t lead to any significant changes in contribution behaviors, policymakers could consider shifting those current tax preferences to a post-tax savings assumption without being worried that individuals would react negatively, and perhaps save less, in response.

What If?

While acknowledging that a Roth-focused savings design could be advantageous to some, perhaps many workers (especially younger workers who may currently be paying the lowest tax rates of their working lives), I’d like to posit an alternative perspective.

What if those workers didn’t shift to Roth just because they liked the notion of putting off paying taxes — that they appreciated the logic of getting a dollar’s worth of savings for 85 cents worth of paycheck (that might, however, even account for the small uptick in contributions for the Roth — trying to make up for that “gap”)? Or that, having contributed on a pre-tax basis for some period of time, they were simply disinclined to make a change. After all, if plan sponsors simply added a Roth contribution type to the play, without changing default assumptions or matching formulas, simply presenting it as an additional option, I think it’s fair to say that, under those circumstances, most participants wouldn’t have any reaction or response to the new option. Indeed, considering normal behavioral inertia, it would be surprising if they did.

Let’s face it — they didn’t save more, they didn’t save less. They pretty much held the status quo.

So, what does this non-response of participants to the addition of a Roth option tell us about their likely response to the elimination the ability to defer paying taxes on income they haven’t received?

Well, Newton’s First Law of Motion is that objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an external force. If you wanted to really test the reaction of participants to losing their pre-tax deferral choice — their “preference” for tax “preferences” — it seems to me that you’d need to actually take that option away from them. And then perhaps consider Newton’s Third Law of Motion: that for every action there is an equal — and opposite — reaction.

There is, it seems to me, a big difference between participants ignoring an additional choice and having an existing choice taken away. And policymakers who ignore that distinction in effecting tax law changes for retirement plans do so at their peril.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD