As a way to encourage individuals to save for retirement, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 established the first Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), which eventually gave birth to other tax-favored retirement plans such as 403(b)s, 401(k)s, SEPs etc. The basic format for these qualified retirement programs is a tax deduction on deposits and tax-free accumulation; distributions taken in retirement are then taxable as ordinary income.
Over the past three decades, the ongoing logic for participating in qualified retirement plans has been straightforward. Because retirement is projected to be a period of lower income, distributions taken from IRAs or similar accounts will be taxed at a lower rate. Thus, receiving a tax deduction now (against a higher tax rate), and paying tax later (at a lower rate) is a financial advantage. At some time, every proponent of qualified retirement plans has intoned “You should have an IRA because you’ll be in a lower tax bracket in retirement.â€
The financial advantage of IRAs was predicated on several present-event biases. First, that income tax rates would remain the same. Second, that retirement living expenses would be less than while one was working. Over time, both of these variables have changed. Income taxes have both increased and decreased for segments of the population. And retirement expenses, especially medical costs, have dramatically increased.In short, what was thought to be always the same has changed.
In response to these on-going changes, government has continually tweaked the rules, trying to keep IRAs and other qualified retirement accounts beneficial for participants. But often, even the best government responses are a step slow.
Take for example the recently implemented one-year reprieve in required minimum distributions (RMDs). In order to capture some of the tax eventually due on IRAs, previous IRA regulations required individuals over age 70½ to make mandatory minimum withdrawals from retirement accounts each year. But in December 2008, lawmakers suspended this provision for 2009, hoping to give investors a chance for their “accounts to rebound after a brutal year in the markets,†according to a February 11, 2009 Wall Street Journal article (“New IRA Law Bewilders Investorsâ€). Instead of being forced to sell investments to take their RMD, account holders will be able to sit tight and wait for a possible recovery of their account values.
However, retirees still had to take their RMD for 2008 or face a stiff penalty from the IRS. Thus, in a year when major US stock indexes had declines of 30% or more, account holders still had to sell out at low prices to meet the RMD requirement. In other words, a one-year suspension of RMDs might have been more beneficial last year instead of this one.
In addition, the one-year RMD suspension has created both aggravation and confusion for account holders. Financial institutions holding IRA funds are scrambling to establish procedures for contacting RMD recipients (some are contacting only those receiving monthly checks, others not planning any contact until April, 2009, and still others are automatically suspending payments). Company administrators of 401(k)s are trying to determine if they first must amend their plan documents. In addition to the unresolved detail, there is uncertainty as to whether the reprieve will be extended for 2010.
Because IRA policy is often present-event driven, more changes – and more uncertainty – seem likely in the future. (Although assuming that government will “always†be a step behind might be a present-event bias as well. Maybe one day, the politicians will get it right in advance.)
