FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Roth IRAs Painting the Treasury Red

Imagine the government pushing a retirement plan that’s guaranteed to raise the federal deficit. Imagine that the same plan inherently favors the already-favored. Far from imagining, you’re describing Congress’s growing embrace of Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs).  

The lure of Roths is the upfront revenue they bring in. Contributions to Roths are after-tax, unlike the pre-tax contributions to regular IRAs, 401(k)s, and other traditional plans. In fact Roth accounts are costing the Treasury billions upon billions. Let’s see what drives the losses, and why they’ll be climbing far into the future.     

All the money in retirement accounts gets preferential tax treatment going forward. Capital gains grow untaxed, lifting balances year after year. Traditional accounts pay the country back through taxable withdrawals—voluntary starting at age 59 1/2, mandatory at age 70 1/2. The inflows to the Treasury square the books on a win-win bargain: decades of tax-free growth for retirement savings, coupled with decades of growth in downstream tax revenues.

There are no downstream revenues from Roths. Capital gains are permanently tax-free, creating Treasury shortfalls that erase and ultimately far outstrip the initial boost. There are no required distributions (which might at least spin off some revenue). Losses from Roths grow endlessly; the only question is how large the final numbers will be. Such are the accounts that Congress has chosen to promote—most directly to the affluent, whose incomes once barred them from owning Roths.

The red ink has effectively been flowing ever since the accounts were created in 1997. It turned a deeper red when Congress did away with the $100,000 adjusted gross income limit for Roth conversions. These are paperwork transactions that turn regular IRAs into Roth IRAs. To do this, account holders first have to pay the taxes on the converted amount. The tax bill discourages conversions—but for the well-off, not so much. Investment giants Fidelity and Vanguard reported conversion bonanzas when the income limit came off in 2010.

Roth conversions were back again as part of the 2012 “fiscal cliff” budget deal. The agreement opened the door to immediate conversions by 401(k)s and the like; until then, holders couldn’t convert to Roths before age 59 1/2.

Earlier this year, the Republican majority on the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled the most sweeping tax reform plan in a generation. It makes the first direct attack on traditional accounts, and would sharply increase Roth ownership. It would prohibit any further contributions to regular IRAs. It would limit annual contributions to other traditional accounts to $8,750, half the current maximum; contributions over $8,750 would be channeled into Roth accounts. The income limit for start-up Roths would disappear, just as it has for conversions. According to the GOP plan, these changes would raise about $160 billion over the period 2014-2023. The number is just the latest Roth hocus-pocus: the losses would eventually swamp the apparent gain.

It’s good to help workers save for retirement, as traditional accounts have been doing since the mid-1970s. In contrast, Roths are no help for those who need it but a windfall for those who don’t. They cost the Treasury untold billions. They’re also plainly unfair: why should Roths pay taxes only on contributions, while all the other accounts pay on gains as well? Why should the others require distributions, but not Roths?

Howard Gleckman edits TaxVox, the blog of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. In 2010, with Roth conversions booming and talk of more Roths already in the Capitol air, he flashed a warning signal: “This infatuation with all things Roth bears close watching.”

The infatuation keeps growing, and the red ink just keeps rising.

Gerald E. Scorse helped pass the bill requiring basis reporting for capital gains. He writes articles on tax policy.   

Notes.

“For stocks, mutual funds and bonds…Congress now requires brokerages to report the basis of these investments, a reform wrought partly after my reporting on this issue and the work of others, including Gerald Scorse, who pressed this issue with lawmakers.” – pp. 271-2 of the David Cay Johnston book, The Fine Print.

More articles by:

February 21, 2019
Nick Pemberton
Israel, Venezuela and Nationalism In The Neoliberal Era
Chris Orlet
The Bill and Melinda Gates’ Fair Taxation Scaremongering Tour
Bruce E. Levine
“Heavy Drinking” and the NYT’s Offensive Obit on Herbert Fingarette
Lisi Krall
This Historical Moment Demands Transformation of Our Institutions. The Green New Deal Won’t Do That
Stephanie Savell
Mapping the American War on Terror: Now in 80 Countries
Daniel Warner
New York, New York: a Resounding Victory for New York Over Amazon
Russell Mokhiber
With Monsanto and Glyphosate on the Run AAAS Revokes Award to Scientists Whose Studies Led to Ban on Weedkiller in Sri Lanka and Other Countries
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s Fake National Emergency Moves America Closer to an Autocracy
Alex Campbell
Tracing the Threads in Venezuela: Humanitarian Aid
Jonah Raskin
Mitchel Cohen Takes on Global and Local Goliaths: Profile of a Lifelong Multi-Movement Organizer
Binoy Kampmark
Size Matters: the Demise of the Airbus A380
February 20, 2019
Anthony DiMaggio
Withdrawal Pains and Syrian Civil War: An Analysis of U.S. Media Discourse
Charles Pierson
When Saudi Arabia Gets the Bomb
Doug Johnson Hatlem
“Electability” is Real (Unless Married with the Junk Science of Ideological Spectrum Analysis)
Kenneth Surin
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Another Boondoggle in Virginia
John Feffer
The Psychology of the Wall
Dean Baker
Modern Monetary Theory and Taxing the Rich
Russell Mokhiber
Citizens Arrested Calling Out Manchin on Rockwool
George Ochenski
Unconstitutional Power Grabs
Michael T. Klare
War With China? It’s Already Under Way
Thomas Knapp
The Real Emergency Isn’t About the Wall, It’s About the Separation of Powers
Manuel García, Jr.
Two Worlds
Daniel Warner
The Martin Ennals and Victorian Prize Winners Contrast with Australia’s Policies against Human Dignity
Norman Solomon
What the Bernie Sanders 2020 Campaign Means for Progressives
Dan Corjescu
2020 Vision: A Strategy of Courage
Matthew Johnson
Why Protest Trump When We Can Impeach Him?
William A. Cohn
Something New and Something Old: a Story Still Being Told
Bill Martin
The Fourth Hypothesis: the Present Juncture of the Trump Clarification and the Watershed Moment on the Washington Mall
February 19, 2019
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Troublesome Possibilities: The Left and Tulsi Gabbard
Patrick Cockburn
She Didn’t Start the Fire: Why Attack the ISIS Bride?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Literature and Theater During War: Why Euripides Still Matters
Maximilian Werner
The Night of Terror: Wyoming Game and Fish’s Latest Attempt to Close the Book on the Mark Uptain Tragedy
Conn Hallinan
Erdogan is Destined for Another Rebuke in Turkey
Nyla Ali Khan
Politics of Jammu and Kashmir: The Only Viable Way is Forward
Mark Ashwill
On the Outside Looking In: an American in Vietnam
Joyce Nelson
Sir Richard Branson’s Venezuelan-Border PR Stunt
Ron Jacobs
Day of Remembrance and the Music of Anthony Brown        
Cesar Chelala
Women’s Critical Role in Saving the Environment
February 18, 2019
Paul Street
31 Actual National Emergencies
Robert Fisk
What Happened to the Remains of Khashoggi’s Predecessor?
David Mattson
When Grizzly Bears Go Bad: Constructions of Victimhood and Blame
Julian Vigo
USMCA’s Outsourcing of Free Speech to Big Tech
George Wuerthner
How the BLM Serves the West’s Welfare Ranchers
Christopher Fons
The Crimes of Elliot Abrams
Thomas Knapp
The First Rule of AIPAC Is: You Do Not Talk about AIPAC
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail