Tax Breaks on Retirement Savings Are Pretty Useless

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A recent study of Danish savers suggests that tax breaks for retirement accounts have almost no effect on the amount people sock away for their golden years. This doesn’t surprise me, since I read Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija’s Taxing Ourselves a long time ago (highly recommended!), and they told me the same thing. Nearly every study, they said, agrees that “any response of the saving rate to the incentive effect of a higher after-tax rate of return is likely to be fairly small.” As for IRAs, they act as “a reward, but not an inducement, for saving.” Andrew Sprung puts this into personal terms:

My wife and I are savers….Since the late ’90s I’ve had the kind of solo retirement accounts allowed to the self-employed….I am always acutely conscious that a large chunk of every allowable dollar that I fail to contribute goes to taxes — avoidably. So I come as close to maxing out as I can. I’ve always assumed that this a good thing — that this incentive is working as it should.

What dawned on me after reading about this study, which focused on Danish savers since reams of detailed data are available there, was that the incentive doesn’t really shape how much I save — it just controls where I put it.

….About 90% of our savings, excluding home equity, is in retirement accounts. That’s not good. Or rather, it’s only “good” if you assume that it’s in the natural order of things for retirement funds to be especially privileged….What the Danish study tells me is that all savings should be equal, and all citizens should be able to avail themselves of the same limited tax credits to save. And oh yes, we should be free to put those tax-protected savings into whatever investment vehicles we choose.

That makes sense. There’s probably some incentive effect at work—though in 401(k)s it’s most likely the employer match that’s doing the heavy lifting—but for the most part these vehicles are used by people who’d be saving regardless. Virtually all of the benefit ends up going to the upper middle class and the wealthy, who generally don’t need much of an incentive to build up savings.

I don’t really have anything against tax-advantaged retirement plans. You won’t see it becoming a hobbyhorse here. Still, it’s worth knowing that this is a tax expenditure that costs a lot of money without really accomplishing much of anything.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend