Opinion

Do You Have Emergency Savings to Get You Through a Crisis?

Half of Americans have no retirement assets, and those who do often neglect their rainy-day fund in favor of longer-term goals.

National Journal
Justin King
Add to Briefcase
Justin King
July 23, 2014, 8:32 a.m.

The stock mar­ket is boom­ing, but $57 bil­lion dis­ap­peared from 401(k) ac­counts in 2011. Why? Without emer­gency sav­ings, mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans who found them­selves out of work, on the verge of los­ing their homes, or fa­cing oth­er fin­an­cial emer­gen­cies were forced to raid their re­tire­ment ac­counts. In ad­di­tion to in­cur­ring the stand­ard pen­al­ties and taxes re­quired when a work­er does so, these in­di­vidu­als dam­aged their long-term eco­nom­ic pro­spects.

Today, half of Amer­ic­ans have no re­tire­ment as­sets, and those who do of­ten neg­lect their rainy-day fund in fa­vor of longer-term goals. Pres­id­ent Obama wants to make a dif­fer­ence, and he an­nounced the cre­ation of a new “starter re­tire­ment ac­count” — the “myRA” — in his State of the Uni­on ad­dress earli­er this year. Yet des­pite the best in­ten­tions, the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s cur­rent strategy to boost sav­ings will likely fail. That’s be­cause Pres­id­ent Obama over­looks, as does Con­gress, a cru­cial point: The first step to­ward in­creas­ing re­tire­ment se­cur­ity is to stop think­ing, and talk­ing, so much about re­tire­ment sav­ings.

The loom­ing re­tire­ment-sav­ings crisis is well doc­u­mented. The Na­tion­al In­sti­tute for Re­tire­ment Se­cur­ity es­tim­ates that the na­tion faces a sav­ings de­fi­cit of $6.8 tril­lion to $10.4 tril­lion and that the av­er­age work­ing house­hold has just $3,000 saved for re­tire­ment; just $12,000 in the case of near-re­tire­ment house­holds. Low-in­come work­ers, work­ers of col­or, and those who are work­ing part-time or for very small em­ploy­ers are less likely to have an ac­count at all. Even for those lucky enough to have an em­ploy­er-based ac­count, hard times mean tough choices. Ac­cord­ing to per­son­al fin­ance firm Hel­loWal­let, about one-fourth of all house­holds will “breach” their re­tire­ment sav­ings to pay for non-re­tire­ment needs.

For the or­din­ary Amer­ic­an, the na­tion’s re­tire­ment sav­ings crisis is just a sav­ings crisis. Three in ten Amer­ic­ans don’t have a ba­sic sav­ings ac­count. More than 40 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans don’t have an emer­gency fund big enough to let them sur­vive for three months at the poverty level if they were to lose their job.

The gov­ern­ment shouldn’t be telling work­ers without a sav­ings ac­count to put their money in­to a re­tire­ment vehicle. Yet next year, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is set to spend nearly $150 bil­lion sub­sid­iz­ing re­tire­ment sav­ings and ab­so­lutely noth­ing sup­port­ing emer­gency sav­ings. That money largely ac­crues to those with high in­comes and provides little be­ne­fit to the vast ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­an work­ers. In­di­vidu­als with high­er in­comes are more likely to work for an em­ploy­er that spon­sors a plan and more likely to par­ti­cip­ate in that plan. But that’s not the end of the story. The tax be­ne­fits of re­tire­ment sav­ings are skewed to­ward the wealthy. In 2012, 80 per­cent of the tax be­ne­fits — ac­tu­al tax-bill sav­ings cre­ated when in­di­vidu­al work­ers par­ti­cip­ate in 401(k)s and sim­il­ar plans — went to the 20 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans with the highest in­comes, ac­cord­ing to the Cen­ter for Re­tire­ment Re­search at Bo­ston Col­lege. The bot­tom 60 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans re­ceived just 8 per­cent of the tax be­ne­fits.

Still gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials and fin­an­cial ad­visers al­most uni­ver­sally ad­vise work­ers to pri­or­it­ize re­tire­ment sav­ings, even those who do not have an emer­gency fund. Then, for these same work­ers, our policy choices make emer­gency with­draw­als from re­tire­ment ac­counts in­ev­it­able when un­ex­pec­ted fin­an­cial needs and crises arise. Worse still, the ma­jor re­tire­ment sav­ings ini­ti­at­ives that have been pro­posed in this Con­gress primar­ily ex­pand ac­cess to cur­rent sav­ings ar­range­ments, rather than fix­ing this flaw in the sys­tem. In­stead of push­ing more work­ing-class Amer­ic­ans to save ex­clus­ively for re­tire­ment, poli­cy­makers need to re­cog­nize the ne­ces­sary link between hav­ing flex­ible emer­gency sav­ings and build­ing suf­fi­cient re­tire­ment sav­ings.

This is why myRA holds so much prom­ise. Pres­id­ent Obama and his team have ag­gress­ively mar­keted myRA as “starter re­tire­ment ac­count,” but the ac­counts are built on a Roth IRA-like plat­form which al­lows with­draw­als of con­tri­bu­tions at any time without tax, fee, or pen­alty. MyRA fills a crit­ic­al niche for a huge num­ber of work­ers, from the low-wage em­ploy­ee without a sav­ings ac­count or re­tire­ment ac­count, to the middle-in­come earner with a small 401(k) but only $1,000 ex­tra in the bank.

The low-wage em­ploy­ee can start to build re­tire­ment sav­ings with the con­fid­ence that the money is there if her car breaks down. The high­er-wage earner can cre­ate a more ro­bust per­son­al safety net so that if something goes wrong she won’t need to crack open her re­tire­ment nest egg.

Un­for­tu­nately, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is stuck push­ing the myRA as a re­tire­ment ac­count, and it is un­likely to make much im­pact.

In a new pa­per re­leased in May, my col­leagues and I lay out a plan to make myRA work. First, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion needs to ac­know­ledge that myRA’s flex­ib­il­ity is a strength and not a li­ab­il­ity. Many work­ers pass up a re­tire­ment plan be­cause they ra­tion­ally fear they might need the money for emer­gen­cies and do not want to put it in a re­tire­ment ac­count, where it can’t be ac­cessed without pay­ing taxes and pen­al­ties. For them, flex­ib­il­ity is a selling point. Second, the gov­ern­ment should of­fer the ac­counts to em­ploy­ers wheth­er they of­fer a 401(k) or not, and mar­ket myRA as a sup­ple­ment­al ac­count that pro­tects their work­ers from emer­gency 401(k) with­draw­als. Third, the ad­min­is­tra­tion should max­im­ize myRA’s reach by mak­ing the ac­counts avail­able to the self-em­ployed, con­tract work­ers, and oth­ers with un­steady work­place con­nec­tions. Ac­counts could be opened dir­ectly on the tax form to cre­ate an ac­cess point for mil­lions.

Fi­nally, no sav­ings ac­count will work at full scale un­less it is auto­mat­ic. Auto­mat­ic ac­count open­ing max­im­izes par­ti­cip­a­tion and min­im­izes eco­nom­ic and ra­cial dis­par­it­ies in par­ti­cip­a­tion. The ad­min­is­tra­tion should ask Con­gress to al­low em­ploy­ers to choose auto­mat­ic en­roll­ment for their em­ploy­ees, as em­ploy­ers that provide 401(k)s are al­lowed to do.

There’s wide­spread agree­ment among poli­cy­makers that Amer­ic­ans need to save more, but Wash­ing­ton’s single-minded fo­cus on re­tire­ment sav­ings ig­nores the fact that the bot­tom rungs on the house­hold eco­nom­ic-se­cur­ity lad­der are miss­ing for tens of mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans.

Amer­ic­ans need emer­gency sav­ings and re­tire­ment sav­ings, but the former must come first. MyRA can help, but only if poli­cy­makers stop fo­cus­ing so much on re­tire­ment, and start fo­cus­ing on sav­ing.

Justin King is the policy dir­ect­or of the New Amer­ica Found­a­tion’s As­set Build­ing Pro­gram.

HAVE AN OPIN­ION ON POLICY AND CHAN­GING DEMO­GRAPH­ICS? The Next Amer­ica wel­comes op-ed pieces that ex­plore the polit­ic­al, eco­nom­ic, and so­cial im­pacts of the pro­found ra­cial and cul­tur­al changes fa­cing our na­tion, par­tic­u­larly rel­ev­ant to edu­ca­tion, eco­nomy, the work­force, and health. Email Jan­ell Ross at jross@na­tion­al­journ­al.com.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×