Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Thumbs up, thumbs down images

Financial Planning > Tax Planning > Tax Reform

Debate: Should Retirement Tax Benefits Be Cut to Support Social Security?

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

One again, lawmakers in Congress have turned their attention to options designed to save the Social Security system from insolvency. Nearly all of these proposals focus on ways to reduce the amount of Social Security benefits that taxpayers are entitled to receive once they reach retirement age.

Some of these ideas focus on increasing the age at which taxpayers can claim full retirement benefits, while others focus on reducing the amount of money taxpayers receive in their Social Security checks.

As an alternative, some commentators have suggested cutting the tax benefits associated with defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans and IRAs, and using the added tax revenue to shore up the Social Security system.

We asked two professors and authors of ALM’s Tax Facts with opposing political viewpoints to share their opinions with respect to cutting other retirement benefits as an alternative to cutting Social Security benefits.

Below is a summary of the debate that ensued between the two professors.

Their Votes:

thumbs up Bloink
Thumbs down Byrnes

Their Reasons:

Bloink: When we worry about Social Security running out of money, we almost always talk about cutting Social Security benefits as a solution to the problem. In reality, the government-subsidized old-age benefit system in this country includes much more than just Social Security. We must begin to acknowledge this when we’re talking about ways to fix the Social Security system.

Byrnes: Talking about eliminating retirement savings tax preferences is crazy. First of all, we’re going to find ways to support the current Social Security system, so talking about benefit cuts is extreme. We want to do everything we can to encourage Americans to save to fund their own retirements — so that they’re less reliant on Social Security and much more likely to avoid the need for additional government assistance, like Medicaid benefits.

Bloink: The tax benefits given to defined contribution plans and IRAs cost the government billions of dollars each year — and they’re primarily relied upon by the wealthy who are most able to maximize these tax-preferred contributions.

Social Security is a program that low-wage workers rely on much more heavily because they don’t have the excess funds to contribute to these accounts. So when we talk about cutting Social Security benefits while ignoring the other “legs” of the system, we’re punishing the lowest-income Americans while offering a benefit to the wealthy.

Byrnes: The benefits of retirement savings apply across the board. Yes, wealthy taxpayers may have the greatest opportunity to save, but we’re always taking steps to encourage greater savings among lower-income taxpayers — just look at Secure Act 2.0, which contains auto-enrollment provisions, enhances the saver’s credit and allows employers to offer incentives to workers who save. We should continue to focus on helping lower-income taxpayers save for their own retirement in any way we can.

Bloink: Some estimates have found that the wealthiest 20% of all Americans receive over 58% of the benefits associated with defined contribution and defined benefit plans. So we’re giving the super-rich yet another tax loophole with retirement plan tax preferences — so that these taxpayers can continue to use the system to avoid paying their fair share. By allocating those tax preferences to the Social Security system, we’d be providing a much more equitable retirement benefit to every American.

Byrnes: This type of cut to retirement savings tax preferences will never become law. Saving for retirement is simply too important. Encouraging adequate retirement savings at all levels will always continue to be a government priority, so these proposals really have no chance of becoming the law of the land.


  • Learn more with Tax Facts, the go-to resource that answers critical tax questions with the latest tax developments. Online subscribers get access to exclusive e-newsletters.
  • Discover more resources on finance and taxes on the NU Resource Center.
  • Follow Tax Facts on LinkedIn and join the conversation on financial planning and targeted tax topics.
  • Get 10% off any Tax Facts product just for being a ThinkAdvisor reader! Complete the free trial form or call 859-692-2205 to learn more or get started today.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.