Qualified Retirement Plans Are Not a Congressional Toy

I was at the Southern Employee Benefits Conference Annual Educational event yesterday. One of the speakers had just returned from a conference in Washington where there were a number of presenters who are staffers on The (Capitol) Hill. Reports are that staffers from both parties strongly implied that tax-favored status of 401(k) and other qualified retirement plans may be in jeopardy.

In short, this is bad -- really bad.

The eventual ability of many Americans to retire in the recently traditional sense is already in jeopardy. Various surveys that I have seen say that the majority of Americans in the workforce have no savings outside of their qualified retirement plans and for most, those are 401(k) plans only. If Congress were to eliminate some or all of the tax breaks associated with them, I fear that those savings would disappear as well for many people. All but those who had the ability and foresight to save and invest on their own would be left to find sources of income until they reached their deathbeds.

That is bad -- really bad.

I don't think I have ranted too much for a while, but this topic is always good for one.

When Congress looks at issues that have tax effects, they break them into two categories -- tax revenues and tax expenditures. Anything that causes the government to collect less money in taxes is a tax expenditure.

Therein lies the rub. Most things that Congress can do for the country cost money. If Congress chooses to send a bill to the President that provides for some improvement that was not previously planned, it needs to pay for those costs. It often chooses to do so through reductions in tax expenditures.

According to IRS publications, the two largest current tax expenditures are for employer-provided health insurance and for employer-provided retirement plans. Health insurance is a sacred cow. It's not going away unless or until we have a single-payer system. Retirement does not appear to be so sacred.

And, retirement always seems to be a good revenue raiser, at least the way that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores bills. The CBO looks at 10-year costs or revenues. So, Congress needs money to pay for a highway bill -- they reduce required contributions to defined benefit plans. That cuts tax expenditures ... in the short run.

As I have said many times, Congress should not intermingle tax policy and public policy. Ever!

Sadly, Congress does not listen to me. All of my readers know that Congress should listen to me, at least on these issues, but alas, they are not so wise.

So, we are left with a Congress that makes changes to employee benefit plans in the most interesting places. Here are a few that will either refresh your memory or leave you scratching your head or both:

• The Uruguay Round Agreements that led to the formation of the World Trade Organization
• HATFA, the 2014 highway funding bill
• Several defense appropriations acts
• Any number of omnibus budget reconciliation acts (OBRAs)
• KETRA, the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005
• SBJPA, the Small Business Jobs Protection Act

If Congress wants to eliminate the tax breaks for qualified plans, it should do so by eliminating the federal income tax. If Congress chooses not to do that, don't mess with them.

Frightening Data on DC Plan Ownership

According to an article in this morning's News Dash from Plan Sponsor, fewer families had an individual account retirement plan (defined contribution or IRA) in 2013 than in 2010. However, on the bright side, average account balances have increased over the same period.

What do we learn from this? It's difficult to know for sure, but as is my wont on my blog, I'm going to take a shot at working it out.

Why are average account balances up? Well, the equity markets have performed pretty well over the last few years. Combine that with the fact that there has been time for additional contributions to those accounts and this makes sense. When we combine this, however, with my rationale for the prevalence of accounts decreasing, it may look troubling.

That the number of families with individual account retirement plans is decreasing suggests underlying issues with the economy. What I suspect is that many long-term unemployed or under-employed have had to liquidate accounts that they had a few years ago in order to survive. People laid off from jobs have taken distributions rather than rollovers to live on. I suspect that more often than not, these have been total distributions from smaller accounts. By eliminating some of the smaller account balances, the average and median accounts have grown in size.

That only about 50% of families have individual retirement accounts and only about 65% have any retirement plan at all is not good news for our future economy. How will the remaining 35% live? Moreover, among those 65%, will they have enough to survive in retirement?

The way it looks to me is that for people who are able to fully utilize their 401(k) or other retirement program for their entire working lifetimes, retirement may be comfortable. But this data suggests that this will be a substantial minority. For the rest, the retirement system is failing us.

30 years ago, defined benefit (DB) plans were the bulwark of the corporate retirement system. After years of Congressional meddling, many employers consider DB plans to be impractical. At the same time with further emphasis on individual responsibility, the burden of providing a retirement benefit has been shifted largely to employees.

If you are good at Googling or Binging, you can easily find projections from lots of smart people showing that a good 401(k) plan will be sufficient for responsible employees to retire on. In my opinion, most of these projections are deficient. You just don't see projections that consider leakage including:

• Unemployment for a meaningful period of time
• The necessity to take a job for a short or long time that does not have a savings plan
• Increased cost-shifting of all benefits to the employee which may reduce an employee's ability to save
• High-deductible health plans which force employees in many cases to pay significant amounts out-of-pocket for health care

This data is frightening. The retirement system is severely broken. Too many times, the public policy behind the retirement system has been abused by tax policy. We are left with retirement plans being a toy for Congress to make bills seemingly budget neutral. 

The ability to retire is part of the 21st century American Dream. This data suggests that the retirement part of the dream may be just that -- a dream.

Not pretty ...

Tax Reform on the Horizon ? Probably Not

Representative Dave Camp (R-MI) has just introduced into the House Ways and Means Committee which he happens to chair the Tax Reform Act of 2014. You can read it here. Given that the Republicans only control one house of Congress and do not control the White House, the bill has little likelihood of passing. However, it gives notice as to where the party leadership may want to take tax policy.

After I've done my skim-through of the roughly 1000 pages, I'll try to comment here if it's worthy of any such comment.

The Perverse Result of More Progressive Tax Rates

It's no secret that the two major US political parties are at odds over federal income tax rates. President Obama and leading Democrats have made clear that they intend to raise taxes again on higher income Americans. Leading Republicans have implied that they will not let this happen and they seek a flatter tax structure.

Holding two of the legs of the voting stool (presidency and Senate), the Democrats would appear to have the upper hand. Let's focus on how this affects retirement. Who wins?

I think it is very possible that this will produce a perverse result. Here is why. When marginal tax rates on the highest earners increase, with those increasing rates tend to come hand-in-hand the following behaviors among that group:

• They save more on a tax-deferred basis
• They spend less
• They invest less

They are hoping that this is just part of a cycle and that their rates will come back down again soon. 

All this tends to point toward even further employer belt-tightening. This means smaller benefits and limited pay increases. The middle class is generally less able to withstand this because the people who fill that class just can't save as much. The highest earners, on the other hand, even if they can't make use of qualified plans have nonqualified plans in which to save on a tax-deferred basis. In essence, they will currently spend less and will have even more saved for retirement. At the same time, those who earn less than that will save less and have even more difficulty preparing for and saving for retirement.

I think this is just the opposite of what the Democrat Party intends. The result could be perverse indeed.

We Have a Fiscal Cliff Deal

It had to happen. If it didn't, the sun might not have risen. Perhaps it's what the Mayans anticipated so many years ago -- the fiscal cliff. Well, through the last-ditch efforts of Congress (you do know that a collection of baboons is called a congress, don't you?), we have 157 pages of legislative contortion that keeps the country from plunging off that cliff.

Who gets helped? Who gets hurt? Well, they say that if nobody is happy, then there really was compromise. In this particular case, the compromise was a combination of tax cut extenders and a few spending cuts. Most of what's in the bill doesn't matter to my typical reader. In fact, most of it doesn't apply to any reader that I know. But, since you're here and reading, I'll let you in on a few things that might.

• FICA taxes (the OASDI part) are going back up to 6.2% of pay up to the wage base. For those who are counting, that's a 2% additional tax compared to last year on the entire income of most working Americans. But, if we kept it at 4.2% of pay, Social Security was going to run out of money really quickly.
• Most Americans have no increase in their marginal tax rates. Unless you are (depending upon your filing status) a single person with adjusted gross income (AGI) in excess of $400,000, a head of household with AGI more than $425,000, or a couple filing jointly with AGI exceeding $450,000, you still benefit entirely from the Bush era cuts in marginal income tax rates.
• If you are fortunate enough to be a beneficiary of the estate of someone who is unfortunate enough to die, estate tax rates are higher than they have been the last few years, but not as high as they were prior to 2001.

These were all considered to be tax increases by those who were worried about counting tax increases versus spending cuts. But, then there's this beauty for people who are wondering where the spending cuts are coming from. The ability to convert traditional IRA, 401(k), 403(b), etc. accounts to the Roth variety has been made permanent, or at least until a future law makes this ability disappear. 

This is a savings? Of course it is. Readers of this blog know of my dislike for the required methodology used to score bills by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). They look at the next ten years on a static economic basis. Since you have to pay taxes on the converted amount when you convert your Roth, and the taxes that you would have paid upon retirement on the traditional account would often have not been paid for more than years into the future, this is scored as a money-saver.

The message here is that when you read in the media that there are spending cuts in this bill, take it with a grain of salt.

Oh yeah, there are also tax cut extenders for some of the usual suspects: Hollywood, NASCAR, and green energy among them. 2013 is off to a rousing start.

Compliance or Policy?

This is going to be a fairly short post, I think. I want to talk a bit about what should be the greater influence on benefit program design -- compliance or policy?

Right now, and especially as PPACA (health care reform or ObamaCare, if you prefer) is starting to exert its influence, it seems that most benefit program design is structured to facilitate compliance with the myriad of laws that Congress has passed since ERISA was signed 38 years ago. Just think, you provide a big health care benefit, you pay a Cadillac Tax. Your NHCEs can't afford to defer to your 401(k), your HCEs don't get to benefit. You would like to provide your employees with retirement income, but you cannot stand the volatility in corporate cash flow and P&L of a defined benefit plan.

Seems wrong, doesn't it?

So, even to the extent that you have a policy that is governed by things like true long-term cost and what is right for your employees and your business, you are unable to implement that policy while being in compliance.

Seems wrong, doesn't it?

Of course, it's wrong, but the people who make the laws don't seem to get it. They don't believe in benefits policy. They don't believe in retirement policy. They believe in tax policy and gerrymandering the tax code to make it work, often at the expense of corporations (large and small) and their employees.

Seems wrong, doesn't it?

The Social Security Tax Cut May Not Apply to You

Congress has reached a new level of confusing the American public. We have the new 2-month Social Security tax cut. And, it applies to all working Americans (except those like Senators and Representatives whose wages as elected officials I think are exempted from Social Security). So, for the months of January and February, we all get a decrease of 2% in our Social Security taxes. Fantastic!

Now, for some explanation. Generally, a person pays into the Social Security system at the rate of 7.65% of pay up to the Social Security Wage Base (I believe that is $110,100 for 2012). Above that level of wages, a person pays in at the rate of 1.45% of pay. And, for each dollar that a person pays in, their employer pays in an equal amount. If you are self-employed, you are both the employer and the employee, so you pay both parts.

Now, that sounds unfair, doesn't it, that you stop paying in the Old-Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance part (the first 6.2%) after your pay reaches the wage base? Well, you do need to consider that any pay that you receive that is above the wage base is not used in computing your eventual Social Security benefit. For those who are still with me, the other 1.45% is used for Health Insurance, i.e., Medicare.

Here is the good and fair news -- we all get that that cut in our OASDI (the 6.2% piece) during the months of January and February 2012 from 6.2% to 4.2%. But, some of us are deemed to apparently have no need for the extra 2%, so we have the honor of getting to pay a recapture tax, an increase to your federal income tax.

Yeehaw, gotta love it, a recapture tax. I know, what in the world is a recapture tax. Read on, poor reader.

Start by dividing $110,100 (the wage base) by 12 (to get a monthly rate) and you get $9,175. Double that to get a two-month rate and you are up to $18,350.

Now, suppose your Social Security wages for January and February are more than $18,350. [For those who aren't sure, Social Security wages look a lot like your gross pay before taxes are taken out. If you pay for certain welfare benefits on a pre-tax basis, they get taken out. And, if you defer compensation to a 401(k) or similar plan or even to a nonqualified deferred compensation plan to the extent that the amount is vested, those get included.]

If you are fortunate enough to still have your Social Security wages for that two-month period exceed $18,350, then you have the honor of paying a recapture tax calculated as follows:

1. Subtract $18,350 from your Social Security wages for the months of January and February combined. If the answer is 0 or less, then this doesn't apply to you. If the answer is greater than $18,350, then call it $18,350.
2. Take the result from step 1 and multiply it by 2%
3. This is the additional income tax that you will owe for 2012 and it is called a recapture tax.

Think of the scenarios. Lots of companies pay bonuses for your performance during the previous year (2011, in this case) during January or February. For people with base pay less than $110,100, your bonus could put you into recapture territory. Maybe you are fortunate enough to be entitled to a really big bonus for 2011 paid during January or February 2012. It might run through recapture territory into I-Don't-Owe-Recapture-Taxes-On-This Territory. And, then, there are the people whose bonuses will get paid during the first half of March. They get the old-fashioned treatment.

Got it? Good!

Now, think about your paycheck. If you are like lots of Americans, the payroll of your company gets handled by an outside provider. And, miraculously, once a week, once every two weeks, once or twice every month, the right amount of pay gets deposited electronically into your checking (or savings) account. Hmm, do you think that will happen now?

The IRS thinks that it may not. In fact, they have already published rules for companies and individuals that mess this up. Doesn't that just build up your confidence?

So, why do we have this nonsense? In my opinion, it's all because our government no longer chooses to govern. Instead, the two major parties wage a constant battle to see which can find a way to embarrass the other. Does it matter if a law is a good law? Of course not. Does it matter if the law can be administered? Of  course not. Does it matter if the law says what it is purported to say? Of course not.

The Democrats appear to have won this game of shame. It's not their first win. But, Republican lovers shouldn't feel left out. They have won the shame game about the same number of times.

So, now we have a middle-class tax cut ... unless your bonus gets paid at the wrong time, or unless you make too much overtime during January and February, or unless ...

On the Origin of Species - Retirement Plan Style

It's been about 150 years since Charles Darwin wrote about his theory of evolution. He also, as we know, discussed Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest." This seems to work pretty well in the worlds of zoology, botany, and ecology. But, does it work with regard to retirement plans?

I guess that part of the premise would need to include what exactly is a fit retirement plan. Is it a plan that allows people to retire? The terminology alone would seem to suggest that. Is it a plan which might assist people in their goal of retiring, but doesn't cost an employer very much? Is it a plan, jury rigged over the years, to assist politicians in their never ending goal of changing stuff to help them get re-elected?

I'd like to believe that a fit retirement plan or retirement system will allow participants to retire after a normal working lifetime. 30 years ago, we had such a system, and it existed without 401(k) plans. But, I guess I must be mistaken, as clearly, that system has not survived. But, it's not been without outside influence -- largely Congress. You see, every year or two for the last 30, when it's come time to develop a budget for the upcoming fiscal year and the country has needed some revenue enhancers, Congress looks to the retirement system. And, it's a really cool solution, too, because nobody understands what Congress is doing (and that includes Congress), but it doesn't affect Congressional retirement benefits.

In his Origin of the Species, Mr. Darwin did not have to consider Congress, or even Parliament.

The 401(k) system cannot be the correct answer. It has too many rules. And, many of the rules and goals conflict with each other. Consider a system containing all of these features.

• If your low-paid don't participate to a great enough extent, your high-paid aren't allowed to.
• If you don't communicate the plan and its benefits to the low-paid, they won't participate to a great extent.
• If you do communicate the plan and its benefits to the low-paid, then the plan is useful to the high-paid, but it costs the company more, cutting into profits.
• Cutting into profits competes with the goals of the management team.
• This affects dividends paid to shareholders which, in theory, is the reason a person holds shares in a company.

And, this is now the primary retirement vehicle for the majority of US companies.

But, wait, we have a Presidential election coming up in just over a year. And, with that, 33 or 34 Senate seats are up for grabs as well as 435 seats (actually a bunch of them are not contested) in the House of Representatives. With those elections will come a bunch of new allegiances. Will your Congressman or Congresswomen be aligned to the Occupy movement, the Tea Party, the Green, the Libertarians or some other group? How about the others? I'm not smart enough to tell you. But, I am smart enough to know that the allegiances of the new group will be different than those of the existing group. So, with this new group will come retirement plan change. 

Maybe this change will be 401(k) biased. Maybe it will revolutionize retirement plans. But in any event, it will do something.

And, you heard it here first, my bet is that they will do something stupid.

If we look at the way things are now, though, people in the workforce are just not going to be able to retire. Yes, some will, but most won't. Certainly, they won't be able to by age 65. What's so special about age 65? It's been a retirement age for a long time. When it first came about, those who were fortunate enough to outlive that age usually didn't do it by too much. Now they do. So many argue that the working lifetime should be extended. But companies don't want to keep the post-65ers employed. These days, they seem to prefer that with the post-55ers as well. And, for that matter, by the time people hit age 65, most of them are just worn out from full-time work.

The 401(k) isn't going to fix it. Maybe we need a fitter plan.

It's Not Just Math

What is so special about $1 million? Is it that much more special than $999,999? Not to me. They would both represent a significant amount of income for one year -- more than I ever expect to see. What is so special about a defined benefit pension plan having a funded status (AFTAP) of 90% or 92% or 94% or 96% or 100% instead of 0.01% less than any of those magical percentages? Nothing that I can see.

Yet, much of public tax policy seems to revolve around hitting or missing these thresholds or cliffs as I think of them. Make the mark and all is well. Miss it by the smallest of margins and you fall off ... perhaps to your death.

I'm sorry. Cliffs may exist in the landscape, but putting them into tax policy is just plain stupid. I repeat, it's just plain stupid. You want to know what I really think about cliffs in tax policy? Let's move on.

I decided to read the President's version of the American Jobs Act of 2011 (AJA). If you want your own copy, you can get it at http://www.whitehouse.gov. It's 199 pages and it's not a fun read. It doesn't have a real good plot; in fact, there is no mystery in this thriller.

I am going to focus on something specific here, and I am going to tie it back to 401(k) plans. According to the current version of AJA (not Steely Dan's version or Louie Gohmert's version), a married couple filing jointly becomes more fortunate when their combined earnings equal or exceed $250,000. By my quick reading, it would suck to have combined earnings of $250,000. $2,500,000 would work out just fine, but if my earnings (combined with those of my wife) were exactly $250,000, I would be looking to find a way to give up one of those dollars to get to $249,999.

Because of the cliff-like nature of tax policy, trust me, the couple earning $249,999 would be far more fortunate than the couple earning $250,000. Their deductions (also known these days as loopholes) wouldn't go away.

What is one of those deductions? How about the one that you get for deferrals to a 401(k) plan or the one that you get for pre-tax payments of health care premiums? At $249,999, you still seem to get them; at $250,000, to quote Phil Rizzuto (that is scary), those deductions will be gone, gone, goodbye. So, after figuring in the tax bill, earning one dollar more costs you a whole bunch. That is just plain stupid.

To quote President Obama, "[I]t's not class warfare; it's just math." President Obama is a very smart man. He taught constitutional law, and I presume that he knows far more about it than I do. However, I taught math and he didn't. This is not just math (I leave the proof that it is or is not class warfare to the reader as that's what authors do in math books).

When there is a literal incentive to earn less or a disincentive to earn more, that's not just math. It's stupid. When a cliff causes you to be worse off than if you had successfully begged for a $1 lower salary, that's stupid.

Some of my readers tend Democrat, some tend Republican, some do not tend at all. This is not about that, however. You can tax the high earners more or not as you choose, but as for the AJA, it's not just math!