Dear readers, it’s embarrassing to admit that a radical change in our retirement system has been incorporated into the “Build Back Better” budget adjustment bill and, until recently, has completely evaded my notice. As Ashley Evering of Forbes also explained,
“This proposal requires employers with five or more employees to present a retirement plan, automatically register employees and direct 6% of their salary to a severance pay account after 2023. The automatic escalation clause will increase the automatic contribution to 10% of salary by the fifth year. The default plan is a loss IRA invested in the target date fund and an investment based on the expected retirement year. It is a combination of.
“For employers, it’s a duty. They will have to provide a plan. Employees will be able to opt out.”
In some respects, this is similar to the auto-registration plans currently in operation or in progress in Oregon, California, Illinois, etc. For example, in Oregon, employees participate in state-controlled IRA by default, increasing from a 5% contribution level to 10%, but employees adjust or refuse contributions altogether. I can do it.
But there is a decisive difference. In the first place, under the new federal order, employers are obliged to choose a specific IRA to enroll their employees, rather than simply transferring salary deductions to the state. They seem to choose from a list of approved providers. Second, various state programs were introduced in stages. Federal obligations apply to all employers with five or more employees from day one, and there seems to be no analysis of how these small employers would do so. Third, the program requires employers to select not only IRAs, but only those that have the option to convert their account balances to annuities at retirement.
Workers may also be “nudged” to donate 10% of their wages without useful guidance on the level of savings appropriate for their personal situation. Given the gradual level of social security benefits that replaces a much higher proportion of low-income wages than middle-income or high-income earners, there is no one-size-fits-all answer here, and in fact some low-income earners. There are also people. It may be better to have no savings at all. Also, there is little information about what happens when salary-to-salary workers are placed in these programs — are they opting out? Would you like to reduce their spending? Or do you end up in debt? (As far as I know, there is only one study on this question and concludes that an auto-registration program with a contribution of 3% does not increase debt on average.)
But the most annoying thing is that the proposal is hidden in the settlement bill and disguised as a tax. This is because the employer sees a fine of $ 10 per employee per day for non-compliance with the requirements. A “tax” to ensure that the law meets the requirements of the settlement bill. Just as I thought it was scary to consider using a settlement process to pass a major family vacation bill without public discussion of planning design and financing (or lack thereof). In addition, this is also just the kind of bill you have, thus the business never goes through and then surprises people.
This is a deep and profound change for employers and employees. Whether the IRA provider will develop a hassle-free way for employers to choose the right education program for their offerings and participants, whether the planned automated IRA advisory group will do the job well, the government. The goal of the program is very unclear whether to create a method of compliance that will achieve as little burden on the employer as possible. It would be much better if such a program were implemented in parallel with broader social security reforms. Hiding it in a large spending program is yet another example of the serious failure of Congress as a governing body.
As always, you are invited to comment on JaneTheActuary.com!!