We all know that saving for retirement is something that people should do regardless of the tax incentives. Would fewer people buy homes if there were no interest deduction for mortgage payments? Probably fewer could afford to, and there would be fewer who save for retirement.
Complexity and confussion -- more excuses not to save!
This idea is a travesty. Theoretically we have these plans so people can accumulate money to take care of themselves in retirement. If you kill the incentive to save, no one will, making everyone once again a burden to society and the government. Meanwhile government takes more of our living (barely) wage to waste on personal greediness prior to needing it to support the burdens they have just created by killing tax incentives for 401(k) savings. Does ANYONE in governent have a brain and analyze the consequences of the idiotic things they propose?
If a retirement plan does not offer benefit to the business owners, the business owners will find there is little reason to pay the cost for the plans. Regulation has made them more and more expensive to maintain, as well as difficult for highly compensated employees to maximize their own benefit, particularly in small to medium sized companies.
Contributions are already limited (401g1 limit $17,000 for 2011). Is the discussion to durther reduce this amount? The decision should be to uncap FICA and increase the limits on 401k's and IRA contributions.
With the reduction of DB plans, the 401k is the primary retirement savings vehicle for Americans. We are not saving enough today to fund our retirements. While this change in the tax treatment may generate an increase in government revenues (we can make the numbers say what we need to in support of our arguements), Americans will continue to find themselves unprepared for our retirements. This proposal does nothing to address the long term issue of the retirement saving crisis we face in this country.
The government needs to control it's spending - just like everyone else. Lets say this doesn't work and people reduce or stop saving - now you have two problems, the government is still over spending and you have more people that need help down the road. fixing something now and ignoring the future is bad.
If management believes the value in participating is reduced, their support of the programs will reduce.
They should leave well enough alone. Anything the government is for is bad for the rest of us.
Where do I start? 1. The whole idea that the government needs more money is terrible. They can't manage what they've got, and they want more. The people have to put our collective foot down. 2. This whole concept of "equality" is a gross twisting of the American Dream. In America, everyone get equal OPPORTUNITY. The idea that everyone should get equal resources/captial/income is socialist and is not what our country is founded on. The tax incentives are for moderate to upper income people. No amount of tax benefit will give incentive to low income workers that need to put food on the table. The fact that low income workers don't save is not a product of the tax incentives. The fact that moderate income workers do save, is a product of tax incentives. 3. Upper income workers already pay a huge percentage of the taxes. This isn't a question of rich versus not-rich, as the media would portray, but dividing the middle class against itself. The true rich, like Warren Buffet, don't care, but the lower income middle class is being put into the welfare state at cost to only the higher income middle class. That has to end - on both sides.
Changes would discourage savings for retirement when there is already talk of cutting Social Security benefits. Is that helping anyone but those who do not save.