Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

Who Will Get Your Employer's 401(K) Contributions?

Politician.jpgToday's Rude Opinion Poll: Which description best characterizes our elected representatives in Washington, regardless of party affiliation?
  • They are hapless boobs, constantly passing laws that contradict each other.
  • They are scheming miscreants, relentlessly seeking new ways to increase taxes and spend more of our money.

If you think the choices offered are unkind, please bear with me. We'll examine a little legislative history. You'll see how it will work to take today's employer contribution to your 401(k) plan and transfer most of it to the federal government during your retirement years.   


When we are done, I believe you will agree that two choices are sufficient. Here's the story:
 

The 401(k) plans that now dominate retirement saving were launched in 1981. That's when the IRS set out the first formal rules describing the plans. Employers quickly started to add 401(k) plans to their employee benefits. The plans became very popular with employees, particularly when employers provided some matching funds. Plan balances are now one of the largest pools of untaxed assets in our economy.
   

In 1983 a presidential commission recommended that Social Security benefits be taxed. The recommendation became law in 1984. At the time, few retirees were affected because benefits were only to be taxed when other sources of income were quite high. With the initial income level set at $25,000 for a single return and $32,000 for a joint return, it was expected that only 1 percent of beneficiaries would pay any taxes on their benefits.
   

But there was a catch. The income levels weren't indexed to inflation. As inflation and economic growth increased the level of benefits for future retirees, more and more retirees would pay the tax.
   

For a couple, the taxation of benefits begins when your other sources of income plus one-half of your Social Security benefits exceeds $32,000. Today the average Social Security check is $1,048 a month or $12,576 a year. So an average two-earner couple may have benefits of $25,152. Subtract one-half of this amount from $32,000 and you have the amount of income they can have from other sources before benefits become taxable -- $19,424.
   

Once their other income exceeds $19,424 every additional dollar causes either 50 cents or 85 cents of benefits to be added to their taxable income.
   

Now let's fast forward about 17 years. According to the recently released Social Security trustees report, the average worker retiring in 2008 will receive benefits of $16,260 a year. By 2024 the average worker will receive benefits of $19,972, measured in today's dollars. Assuming a 3 percent inflation rate, this will mean cash benefits of $32,954.
   

Apply the formula for taxation of benefits and guess what happens? The average two earner couple that retires in 2024 will start paying taxes on their Social Security benefits with the first dollar they take from their 401(k) plan. Workers who are about 50 years old today can expect to pay income taxes on their Social Security benefits from day one. Workers who are younger than 50 can expect the same result even if their incomes are lower than average.
   

Now let's consider the composition, and disposition, of each dollar that goes into a typical 401(k) plan. In a typical plan, every dollar of employee contribution is matched by 50 cents of employer contribution. So each dollar going in is 67 cents of employee money and 33 cents of employer money.
   

Query: What is the composition of each dollar coming out?
   

Answer: There are four levels, depending on your tax status. Here they are:
   

Level One. At this level no Social Security benefits are taxed. Each dollar is likely to be 85 cents to the employee and 15 cents to the IRS. That's a good deal that's rapidly disappearing.
   

Level Two. At this level 50 cents of Social Security benefits are taxed for each dollar withdrawn. And the likely tax rate is 15 percent. So 77.5 cents of each dollar will go to the employee and 22.5 cents will go to the IRS. Basically, about two-thirds of the employer contribution goes straight to the IRS.
   

Level Three. Here, 85 cents of Social Security benefits are taxed for each dollar withdrawn and the basic tax rate is 15 percent. So 72.25 cents of each dollar goes to the employee and 27.75 cents of each dollar goes to the IRS. About 84 percent of the employer contribution goes to the IRS.
   

Level Four. Like level three, 85 cents of Social Security benefits are taxed for each dollar withdrawn, but the basic tax rate is 25 percent. As a consequence, 53.75 cents of each dollar goes to the employee and 46.25 cents goes to the IRS. In effect, the entire employer contribution (33 cents) plus 13.25 cents of the employee contribution has gone to the IRS.
   

How this tax mess will affect you depends on your income level and your age. If you are young, odds are your employer contribution will never buy you a slice of bread. It's really a fund for the IRS.
   

This takes us back to our Rude Poll. Are politicians hapless boobs or schemers?

 

ON THE WEB:
    A history of 401(k) plans from the Investment Company Institute:
   
   A brief history of the taxation of Social Security benefits from the Social Security Administration:
  
   Tables of projected benefits, in current dollars, from the 2007 Social Security trustees report:
  
   



Comments

 

mrodman said:

Hello, Scott.  What an eye-opener. I have a question: Are SS benefits taxed in this way if the distibutions come from a taxable account instead of a 401(k)? Thanks.

Mark R

Austin, TX

May 26, 2007 10:04 PM
 

Ralph said:

Scott,

Do you ever get any comments from the lawmakers defending their positions?  How do they do it?

May 27, 2007 9:55 PM
 

therajs_r2i said:

Hello Scott,

Long time reader. First question:

What if the distributions are from a Roth IRA? Does it still trigger SS benefit taxation?

May 28, 2007 3:35 AM
 

wdahm said:

Scott,

So you're saying It's not worth maxing out your 401k?

It seems the next best savings tool would be the Roth IRA: no required minimum distribution to trigger the SS tax and you'd be paying with today's after tax dollars  instead of some ridiculous amount by the time you retire. BTW, by time I retire, i'm pretty sure i along with most people will trigger the SS benefit tax anyway.

So, my last question is should I even bother with the 401 since the biggest reasons why I elected to participate in a 401k in the first place was because of the employer contributions which, we now know are pretty much nil.

May 28, 2007 10:36 AM
 

BC said:

"What if the distributions are from a Roth IRA? Does it still trigger SS benefit taxation?"

I think so.

IRS form 915

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p915.pdf

Summary below

IRS TAX TIP 2007-30

How much, if any, of your social security benefits are taxable depends on your total income and marital status. Generally, if social security benefits were your only income, your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a federal income tax return

If you received income from other sources, your benefits will not be taxed unless your modified adjusted gross income is more than the base amount for your filing status. Your taxable benefits and modified adjusted gross income are figured in a worksheet in the Form 1040A or Form 1040 Instruction booklet.

Before you go to the instruction book, do the following quick computation to determine whether some of your benefits may be taxable:

First, add one–half of the total social security you received to all your other income, including any tax exempt interest and other exclusions from income;

Then, compare this total to the base amount for your filing status.

The 2006 base amounts are:

$32,000 for married couples filing jointly  

$25,000 for single, head of household, qualifying widow/widower with a dependent child, or married individuals filing separately who did not live with their spouses at any time during the year

$0 for married persons filing separately who lived together during the year

For additional information on the taxability of social security benefits, see IRS Publication 915, Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits. Publication 915 is available on the IRS Web site at IRS.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).

May 28, 2007 10:39 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

And then there is level 5

I have paid into the SS system for 51 years—since I was 14—and am now getting about $1,800 a month.  However, I am still working and paying in.  If I make the “max” this year, they will take about $14,500 from me in SS taxes.

On a rough computation, assuming a 30% tax rate, it appears that the gov’t will get over 90% of my “benefit.”  I will wind up with about $135 net each month for a lifetime of payments.

Thanks for bringing these scams out in the open, but we both know it won’t do any good.

May 29, 2007 8:22 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I am surprised at the inflammatory tone of your article. It takes a look at

a small portion of the 401K concept but omits several justifying facts.

I think the 401K concept is brilliant in that starts a redistribution of

income to the government in the future based on immediate and ongoing

benefits to the individuals and corporations. You are right about the tax

bite coming up that is big for a historically large segment individuals but

will provide a stream of income essential to funding of the government.

But the 401K concept avoids the reality of actually dealing with the future

cost of social security!

Brilliant!

That problem is so disturbing that the Texas legislature will officially NOT

follow the guidelines requiring states and municipalities to at least

calculate & disclose the value of benefits promised to workers - retired and

active. These cowards are absolutely afraid to face the truth - or really

big numbers.

I don't know of anyone that is not aware of the need to pay taxes on 401K

accounts. We boomers certainly will pay more tax dollars than ever before,

but it comes from a much bigger pot than ever before.The 401K concept's incentives were 1) immediate tax savings to individuals

and corporations and 2) for corporations, a way minimize long term benefits

obligations.  Those individual tax savings and the employer contributions

acts as a multipliers to build the total value of the 401K account.

I recommend calculating several examples of how this multiplier effect works

(at different income levels) and for different retirement incomes levels. The 401K is a social engineering strategy that will soften the blow of the

inevitable down sizing of social security and the shrinking number of

taxpayers.

Carol

Posted from Email

May 29, 2007 8:38 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Interesting article on 401-K plans. It gives pause for thought. However,  it seems your analysis does not take into account the value of  tax-deferred income growth in the 401-K.  The analysis makes no assumption for growth of  investments over time. It assumes that what you put in is what you take out.

I suggest another article for you. Compare the relative virtues of tax deferred plans (IRA, 529, 403-b, profit sharing, 401k etc)  and paying income taxes on withdrawal vs owning stocks and paying 15-20% dividends upon sale.

Thanks.

Joe

May 29, 2007 8:38 AM
 

scottb said:

@ Carol

I agree that 401(k) plans are a good idea. They were a better idea before the taxation of Social Security benefits worked to discourage people from saving in 401(k) plans. What I don't like about the legislative reality is that our friend in Congress function as "crazy-makers"--- people who constantly give mixed  signals.

May 29, 2007 8:40 AM
 

scottb said:

@Joe

Thanks for your note. The column does NOT assume there is no growth. It only examines the sources of each dollar going in and the destination of each dollar going out. There can be plenty of growth in between, but having too high an effective marginal tax rate will seriously reduce the retirement income of participants who have saved regularly. The higher future tax rate is a good reason to look for other venues for retirement saving such as the Roth IRA and Roth 401k--- except, of course, that we can’t really trust Congress to keep withdrawals from such plans tax free.

I’ll work on the column you suggest. Probably get it done during the summer.

May 29, 2007 8:40 AM
 

NVReader said:

On the Roth, if you check the 1040 instructions, a qualified ROTH distribution is reported on line 15a (pensions), with a distribution code of Q or T (which relates to whether the custodian knows you've had the 5 year holding period).  The taxable amount is reported as 0, but the line 15a (distributions) is included in the test for the $25K or the 32$ amounts.  Following up on the earlier comment on form 915.

May 29, 2007 12:59 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

From your column in BGlobe, Sun 27 May: I'm a little slow in economics so I don't really see how so much of the employer's 401(k) contribution goes directly to Treasury via IRS.

But I do know that Congress squanders the social security payroll tax (which has no relation to benefits). Now you tell us that Congress is also tossing our 401(k) money, which we thought was really our own, down the same rat hole. And, the same President who promised not to reduce soc sec benefits, but the raised the taxable amount to 85%, never had any surplus because the National Debt increased every year he was in office.

The irony is the Democratic Pres and the Republican Congress all wanted to crow about a surplus.  (With, sadly, only a few exceptions.) The tragedy is that the media resolutely refused to  make them eat that crow.

Regard,

Paul

Posted from email
May 29, 2007 2:08 PM
 

scottb said:

Not all media. I’ve been writing about phony government accounting for years. I would like to blame the problems on Democrats because that would make it possible to assume the Republicans were worth something. When you examine the long history of this particular mess, however, the initial taxation of Social Security came during a Republican administration (Reagan) and the idea to NOT index the formula for taxing benefits came from David Stockman. Later, under Clinton, the top taxable amount was raised from 50 percent to 85 percent of benefits. So you could say it is a bi-partisan hosing.

May 29, 2007 2:11 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Over the years, I have come to appreciate more and more the wisdom and insights you bring to financial matters. And this is from someone who spent many years in the life insurance business, often railing against your candid “raking over the coals” of the abuses and tactics of many insurance people (not all, as you were quick to point out). I am now happily situated in a fee-based advisory practice, and continue to recommend insurance planning for the right reasons.

Your column today was jarring. While I have for years advised people that the estate tax is purely voluntary, and can be minimized with the proper amount of planning foresight and effort (“effort” – that’s the key word), what you disclosed with crystal clarity about the IRS vacuum-cleaner-in-the-pockets of the countless millions of people who are in 401(k) plan participants is disheartening because the confiscatory structure is fixed and you really can’t get around it. My vote, after reading about the horrific cross-section of transgressions by members of the US Congress (infidelities, tax evasions, bribery, payola, running companies into bankruptcy, etc) and the joke that is the now historical session of the Texas Legislature, comes down to this. Many, many elected representatives are hapless boobs and evil schemers. The only thing entrepreneurial about these clowns is that they seem to have the intelligence it takes to strive for membership in an employer with the best pension and health plans in the world.

You have gained an avid and respectful reader – thank you for cutting through the garbage.

 

Thanks,

 

Chistopher 

Posted from Email

May 29, 2007 2:14 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Thanks for your article on the taxation of Social Security. I have been  retired for five years and discovered the situation you described while doing my taxes several years ago. You don't really notice the scam unless you use tax software and can add fixed amount to the equation and observe the results. When I try to explain this I,m met with remarks like "I have someone do my taxes" and "So what can I do about it".

The situation you describe holds for any increase in income no matter what source. If I take any money out of my IRA it is taxed at up to 28%. If my expenses required me to work the tax on my wages would be 28% plus SS and Medicare of 9% in addition to state and local tax of 5%. If the job is minimum wage I could hope to take home $3.00 an hour. That should cover a gallon of gas.

The kicker is if you are single you can expect the tax on your IRA withdrawal to be up to 48%. If the money is from working the total would be around 60%. Is there something in George's tax breaks for the rich that covers this obscene tax structure.

Keep up the good work.

Frank

May 29, 2007 2:19 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I enjoy your columns.

I would rather consider the positive aspects of both the Federal taxation of Social Security benefits and the alternative minimum tax.

I believe the unintended consequences from both of these schemes could lead to constructive reforms in both entitlement programs and the Federal Income tax.

The Social Security program is wildly popular because everyone receives a benefit with an unusually high rate of return.  However, the progressive taxation of the benefit is simply a stealth means test.  When the citizens become conscious and recognize that the program is just a transfer payment scheme, popularity will drop and the whole program will be ripe for reform.  We could actually have private savings accounts for earners and a caring welfare system for those that cannot care for themselves.

Similarly, as the alternative minimum tax eliminates the preferences, allowances and deductions that often have dubious or perverse economic value.  I think the total of the allowed preference items will drop from about $75,000 to $45,000 this year which will throw millions of additional taxpayers into the AMT grinder.  This will open the door for a flat tax.  Unfortunately, the highest marginal initial rate will likely quickly rise over time unless there are some limits on spending, but at least the overall tax scheme would be more comprehensible than the present one.

Thanks,

Bob

posted from email

May 29, 2007 2:24 PM
 

scottb said:

@ Frank

You nailed it. You’ve got the math. Sadly, I’ve written many columns on this and most people still don’t get it--- probably for the reason you cited.

May 29, 2007 2:27 PM
 

scottb said:

@ Bob

I’ve had moments when I’ve had similar hopes, particularly turning on the declining rate of return on employment tax contributions as something that would radicalize the young. I’m also encouraged that the darkest horse among the democrat presidential candidates, Mike Gravel, is an advocate of both the Fair Tax and the creation of private accounts for Social Security. I’ll be meeting him this coming Sunday in Manchester, NH.

Does he have a chance? Not likely. But any voting response is likely to get the attention of both of our utterly worthless parties.

May 29, 2007 2:29 PM
 

davidh said:

I'm 56, and attempting to plan for the next decade until retirement. I'm worried enough about the "Coming Generational Storm" aftermath enough to seriously consider that our politicians would renege on promised mechanisms for retirement planning .... i.e. applying Roth distributions to a social security means test or something similar. If that is the case, then I'm debating whether or not I'm better off just bailing out of the IRA/401k/403b plans as best I can by stopping current contributions and withdrawing as as fast as I can to put dollars in investments for long term gains. This strategy complicated by the AMT, but seems do-able- just use my favorite index fund as the LTCG vehicle.

Do my fears have any basis in political reality? Can any politician even discuss such an option without being instantly voted out of office?

May 29, 2007 2:40 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

I disagree with how you calculate how much of the employer's contribution goes to the IRS.  I would look at the employee contribution and the employer contribution separately.  For Level 2, let's assume the employee withdraws $1,500 ($1,000 from his contribution and $500 from the employer contribution).  The tax on his $1,000 withdrawal is $225.  The tax on his withdrawal from the employer's contribution is $112.50.  The tax rate (22.5%) is the same on both parts of the withdrawal.  It is deceptive to allocate the full tax to just the part relating to the employer's contribution.  If he was in a plan without an employer match, he is still liable for the tax on his withdrawal.  So the correct way to determine the tax is to look at incremental taxes on each component of income.

Sincerely,

Robert

May 30, 2007 11:39 AM
 

scottb said:

@ Robert

Thanks for your note. There are several ways this issue could be discussed. I chose to use composition of dollars in versus composition of dollars out. While your dissection of tax liabilities is accurate it does little to demonstrate the de facto reduction in spendable retirement income that has hit middle income households since the imposition of the tax on Social Security benefits--- and that is what I was trying to demonstrate.

May 30, 2007 11:46 AM
 

ABModerator01 said:

Check the forum thread here for more comments on this article.

http://assetbuilder.com/forums/thread/1470.aspx

May 30, 2007 4:08 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

OK now that I seem to be hot on your trail I wanted to say in regard to your "Taxes take more and more from retirement" column that you seem to have found one of the few, maybe the only, real advantages to being one of the have nots. Stay under those $25,000 for a single and $32,000 for a happily married couple magic income numbers and you get to keep the whole Social Security income enchilada. Maybe poor financial planning does have a reward.

I am still wrestling with how to answer your pole question, boobs or schemers. Seems like a toss up to me. Either way you get penalized for having a good income. Then even if we could get these boobs/schemers to index for inflation taxes on Social Security income that opens up another whole can of worms. We don't have near enough tax revenue as things are now to support our "American Lifestyle". How in the heck are we going to replace taxes not paid if that indexing of SS payments became a reality? I think they summed this up in a movie a few decades ago...Catch-22. Here is a possible "way out", for an individual at least. Put all of your money into gold and silver coins, store them somewhere safe, not in a bank, and hire a private army to protect you when things totally fall apart.

May 30, 2007 4:36 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

In your article, "Why Your Retirement Won't Be So Bad", you mentioned expenses that won't be incurred in retirement.

While I agree with all of your points, my biggest expense each month isn't included - saving for retirement!  My wife and I try to save at least 25% of our income each month - as much as possible in tax deferred accounts and the rest in after tax vehicles.  Of course, with 4 kids that will be off the payroll, I am pretty confident that we can live on about 40% of our current income.

I read all your articles in the DMN and like them.  Thanks.

Posted From Email

June 8, 2007 11:16 AM
 

scottb said:

The basic replacement rate study done at Georgia State factors in a savings rate based on national surveys--- about 4 percent. They’re also aware that savings is a powerful feedback loop--- the more you are saving, the lower the replacement rate you need in retirement. Your saving, which is amazing, is the biggest lever you can pull to line up your earning year spending with your retirement year spending, kind of like uniting two railroad tracks.

June 8, 2007 11:18 AM
 

EMF said:

A few comments:

A Roth IRA distribution results in taxation of SS benefits?  News to me.  And my read of IRS Pub 915 suggests that is NOT the case.

There will have to be a good deal of inflation before every penny of tax-deferred income would be taxed.  For a single person, SS benefits would have to exceed $50,000/year and for a couple $64,000 before this is true.  And even then no tax would be paid on the first dollar because the resulting AGI would have to exceed deductions plus personal exemptions.  

I read on another blog where a person retiring in 10 years planned to convert every penny of her tax-deferred savings to Roth IRAs before retiring.  Just plain stupid!!!! On the other hand, my tax-deferred savings are at the point where taxation of Social Security is a concern.  As a result, I am converting tax-deferred funds to Roth IRA, last year I converted $13,000 and plan to convert more this year.  But I still intend to have part of my retirement savings tax-deferred.

Also to be considered is the extremely likely possibility that the boobs in Washington will have to raise taxes to pay for King George II's military adventurism in the Mideast and other missteps.  Another reason for me to perform my Roth conversions now.

In spite of all this, there may be a net advantage to tax-deferred savings, when you consider the annual tax drag that may occur on investments.  Some of this can be taken care of by long-term capital gains, if you're willing to hold a stock or other investment for decades.    

Actually there is a Level Five: for someone whose taxable income is so high that 85% of his Social Security benefits are already taxed, his effective marginal tax rate drops off to what is in the tax tables.   I would love to be at this level now!!!  (but don't expect to be, at least not until in my 90's after a good deal of inflation.)

July 15, 2007 4:10 PM

About scottb

Scott Burns has covered the changing world of personal finance and investments for nearly 40 years. Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. Scott began his career as a newspaper columnist at the Boston Herald in 1977 where he was also the financial editor. Nationally syndicated in 1981 and now distributed by Universal Press, the column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. In 1985 he joined the staff of the Dallas Morning News where his column quickly became one of the most widely read features in the paper. He left the Dallas Morning News in 2006 to become one of the founders of AssetBuilder and its Chief Investment Strategist. Burns is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1962). He has written four books, including "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) coauthored with economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff. His fourth book, also coauthored with Kotlikoff, was published in 2008 by Simon & Schuster. The paperback edition will be available in January, 2010.  "Spend Til' the End" uses consumption smoothing to demonstrate the errors of conventional financial planning. His business experience includes working as a staffer for a major consulting company and service as a director and audit chairman of a NASDAQ listed manufacturing company. He and his wife now live in Dripping Springs, a "hill country" town about 25 miles outside of Austin.


Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075