Missouri’s legislature has approved nearly $2 billion in tax incentives for Boeing after a House vote today, and the plan awaits Governor Nixon’s (D) signature. We’ve written on this issue extensively, following it from...
- The Tax Policy Blog
- On the Center for American Progress’s Proposed Plan for Retiremen...
On the Center for American Progress’s Proposed Plan for Retirement Savings
There are many things to like about the Center for American Progress proposal for American retirement saving. They pay attention to the high burden of management fees. They acknowledge that Americans don’t save enough for retirement. They understand the difficulties of annuity pricing on the individual market.
They also recognize the importance of tax treatment. Their retirement plans would get around investment taxation, similar to the way a 401k plan does. Taxing the account more than once is non-neutral. It subjects saving to a higher tax burden than the burden on immediate consumption, discouraging retirement saving and making it more difficult. CAP is right to want this sort of tax status for their retirement plan.
But why stop there? Why not allow that tax treatment for Americans who want to save for other purposes? Some people need to save to get together a down payment on house. Some people save to plan for a wedding. Some people save to start their own business.
Tax-neutral saving should be for everyone, not just CAP’s pet projects.
Buy this blogger a cup of coffee!
Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go
About the Tax Policy Blog
The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.