The Enemy of the ‘Good’

A reader recently commented, “Nevin: You are continually berating those who question various aspects of 401(k) plans as if the current structure is ‘perfect.’ It isn’t.”

That comment was inspired by a recent column of mine critical of a proposal rumored to be under contemplation by the Biden campaign—one that would “trade” the current tax preferences of 401(k) deferrals for a flat government tax credit. It’s a proposal that is intended to direct more of the same amount of government expenditure (when the government doesn’t take money from your pay, it’s considered an expense) to lower income individuals, in that a flat dollar credit would ostensibly be worth more to lower income individuals than the deferral of taxes under the current system. 

Now that reader went on to offer a comment in support of that intent, explaining that “…one of the biggest challenges we face is getting lower paid people to participate. Credits will give bigger benefits to these people, and maybe, just maybe, spur increased participation,” closing by challenging me to “…work to make 401(k) plans BETTER, and not simply berate those who challenge the current system. It ain’t perfect, my friend. Far from it.”

Now, as it so happens I know this particular reader. And so I know that he cares deeply about retirement savings and retirement savers, that he’s one of the many out there who are truly working every day to make things “better.” 

That said, if he read my criticism of this proposal to be an assertion that the current system has no faults or shortcomings—well, that wasn’t my point. I have never said the current system was perfect, and in fact, dedicate any number of these columns to highlighting needs/opportunity to make it better.

Beyond that, my experience has been that when those kind of assertions are published[i] (even as an “op-ed”) by a reputable news organization—well, left unchallenged, the assertions are often assumed to be accurate. Indeed, every time something like this makes its way into circulation, I will hear from a half dozen different advisors (or more) telling me that the article has been passed on to them by plan sponsor clients (or participants), looking for comment, or response (and often asking me for assistance in that regard). Indeed, those are the kind of things that tend to get routed to those in academia and on Capitol Hill by those who see it as an affirmation of their notion that the current system is inadequate or biased in favor of the well-off. 

However, it’s one thing to press for change, but something else altogether to do so without fully thinking through (or at least acknowledging) the potential implications of that change—what are generously referred to as the “unintended” consequences, but sometimes seem more a willful and deliberate disregard. In this particular case a federal tax credit at the expense of having a workplace savings plan or an employer match doesn’t seem like a good trade-off to me. Moreover, making broad generalizations about fees (that don't seem supported by data) to justify a call for undermining valuable support for participants and employers doesn’t strike me as being a well-reasoned argument for change/improvement. 

To me the biggest shortfall of the current system is that too many working Americans don’t have the opportunity to take advantage of it. Oh, there are plans that still pay too much in fees, that either don’t avail themselves of the services of a plan advisor, or rely on the counsel of one that isn’t qualified, plans run by fiduciaries who either aren’t aware of that responsibility or fail to fulfill it. The system, in total, isn’t perfect—but those who pick at those imperfections to justify its wholesale demise should be challenged and held to account for misstatements and exaggerations, and they should be willing—and able—to consider and respond to questions—and data—about the ripple effect of unintended consequences. 

Never forget that “perfect” is often the enemy of the good.