I wanted to take some time to share views on a disturbing white paper sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute. It is entitled Guaranteed Retirement Accounts – Towards Retirement Income Security.
This is a paper that goes through the details of a proposal that has been presented to Congress. It is about these Guaranteed Retirement Accounts.
This institute promotes economic agendas that have socialistic qualities. They think that the system is unfair and support the notion of redistributing wealth so that everyone can participate.
Their main focus is on the poverty rate in America and they want to redistribute wealth to take care of the problem.
The latest initiative to come from this institute is a guaranteed retirement account. It is designed to provide an additional social security-like benefit to workers. The program calls for the abolishment of the tax breaks that you would get for contributing into a 401(k) plan or IRA. The program requires any worker who does not participate in a defined benefit plan at a company (company pension plan) to mandatorily contribute 5% of their income into this account.
They also give a $600 tax credit to each worker, which can be used to offset part of that contribution. They guarantee a return of 3% for the account. For an average 40 year worker, it is intended to replace 25% of your pre-retirement income. A worker can still participate in a 401(k) plan. However, they will not get a tax deduction.
The alarming part of this plan is that certain members of Congress actually think that it is a good idea.
I read over the white paper and found many flaws with the theory that they present. Keep in mind that most of these types of plans are written based on theory and not reality.
(1) They are protecting you from the flawed 401(k) system and stock market investing
The 401(k) plan is doing more damage than good according to them. Since people do not know how to invest money, these plans are not providing a good retirement for individuals. Plus, the wealthy receive a bigger tax benefit than others due to the current tax structure. Actually their argument is extremely weak for this point.
So, they are going to provide some stability to your life by forcing you to give up 5% of your income so that they can give you a 3% guaranteed minimum return.
Well, I ran some numbers based on the stock market. If you are investing for 40 years and did nothing but buy and hold, you would earn much more than 3%.
If you started investing at the top of the stock market in 1929 before it lost 86% and continued to invest for the next 40 years, your average return would have been 6.03%.
If you started in 1962 and invested until the stock market hit the bottom of the bear market in 2002, you would have averaged 7.76%. It is absolutely ridiculous that they based this on a 3% annual average return. That time period experienced some big bear markets.
Then my favorite part of the paper regarding 401(k) plans – “though the latter strategy (investing in 401(k) plans) may make sense from an individual point of view, it is inefficient from a societal point of view…” Do they mean socialistic point of view?
(2) Manadatory Contributions
This is a 5% tax hike on lower and middle class. Most are not saving because they don’t have the money to save and are barely making ends meet. Now make them save 5% and see what happens to them financially as well as to the economy.
(3) They claim that the guaranteed retirement account and social security will replace approximately 70% of pre-retirement income for the average 40 year worker.
According to social security, the amount of pre-retirement income covered by social security varies. You would have to be a very low income worker to get to the 70% coverage. That is not the average worker.
(4) Encourages a dependency on the Government and discourages additional saving
This will encourage people to further depend upon the Government to take care of their needs. Because of that, most people will not save additional money. Also 401(k) plans will not be as attractive due to the removal of tax deductions. People will pay more in taxes.
This is just a cover up plan to get more money to cover the short-fall of social security. This plan would be managed by social security. Plus, it is socialistic in just about every way. It is disturbing that this type of plan would be considered as any type of a solution. Dependency on the Government is part of the reason we are in this mess. Adding more dependency only makes it worse.
(5) They state that the Social Security Administration has a proven track record of efficient management
Need I write any more?
Tags: 401(k), Bob Brooks, Congress, Deceptive Money, Economic Policy Institute, Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, IRA, Prudent Money, retirement

Recent Comments