20250405 - Do we want Roth retirement plans to be more generous than traditional plans

• 分类: 根目录笔记
• 创建: 2025-04-05
• 标签: 退休计划, 罗斯401(k), 罗斯IRA, 税收优惠, 必要最低分配, Secure 2.0法案

20250405 - Do we want Roth retirement plans to be more generous than traditional plans?

摘要

本文讨论了Secure 2.0法案取消罗斯401(k)账户的必要最低分配（RMD）对退休计划的影响。文章指出，这一变化使得罗斯账户的价值大大增加，因为账户持有人可以在73岁之后继续享受免税收益。文章还通过比较传统401(k)和罗斯计划的税收优惠，解释了这一变化对政府税收的影响，并建议国会应为罗斯IRA引入RMD并恢复罗斯401(k)的RMD，以增加收入并使税收优惠更加公平。

要点

• Secure 2.0法案取消了罗斯401(k)账户的必要最低分配（RMD）。
• 罗斯账户的资产在账户持有人达到73岁后仍可产生免税收益。
• 传统401(k)和罗斯计划在税收优惠上被认为是等价的，但取消RMD改变了这种等价性。
• 目前，82%的雇主提供罗斯401(k)选项，但只有17%的参与者选择这一选项。
• 建议国会为罗斯IRA引入RMD并恢复罗斯401(k)的RMD，以增加收入并使税收优惠更加公平。

正文

1. Home
2. Retirement
3. Taxes  税收
4. Encore  再来一次

Encore  再来一次

Opinion: Do we really want Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs to be more generous than traditional retirement plans?

观点：我们真的希望罗斯 401(k)和罗斯 IRA 比传统退休计划更慷慨吗？

Eliminating required minimum distributions makes Roth 401(k)s much more valuable

取消最低限额分配使罗斯 401(k)变得更加有价值

Published:   发布：April 1, 2025 at 3:01 p.m. ET

Something snuck by me: The Secure 2.0 Act eliminated required minimum distributions for Roth 401(k) accounts.
有一件事我没注意到：Secure 2.0 法案取消了 Roth 401(k)账户的必要最低分配。

At first glance, that change seems relatively harmless. After all, the account holders paid taxes up front, so why force them to withdraw their money? What that rationale ignores is that the assets in the Roth continue to generate tax-free returns, even after the account holder reaches 73 — the age when required minimum distributions, or RMDs, kick in for traditional plans. That ability to continue to save tax-free makes Roth accounts considerably more valuable.
乍一看，这个变化似乎相对无害。毕竟，账户持有人已经预先支付了税款，为什么要强迫他们提取资金呢？这种理由忽略了一个事实，即 Roth 账户中的资产在账户持有人达到 73 岁——传统计划开始必要最低分配（RMD）的年龄——之后，仍然可以产生免税收益。这种继续免税储蓄的能力使得 Roth 账户的价值大大增加。

A quick refresher on the so-called equivalence between traditional and Roth plans may be a good way to clarify what has happened. Under a traditional 401(k) plan, the government does not tax the original contribution nor the returns on those contributions until the funds are withdrawn from the plan. In contrast, initial contributions to Roths are not tax deductible, but interest earnings accrue tax-free and no tax is paid when the money is withdrawn.  
关于传统计划和 Roth 计划之间所谓的等价性进行一个快速回顾，可能是一个澄清所发生事情的好方法。在传统的 401(k)计划下，政府在资金从计划中提取之前，不对原始贡献及其收益征税。相比之下，Roth 的初始贡献不可扣税，但利息收益免税累积，并且提取资金时无需纳税。

Although the traditional and Roth plans may sound quite different, the conventional argument is that they offer virtually identical tax benefits. Unfortunately, the easiest way to demonstrate this point is with equations. Assume that t is the individual’s marginal tax rate and r is the annual return on the assets in the plan.
虽然传统计划和罗斯计划听起来差异很大，但传统的论点是它们提供几乎相同的税收优惠。不幸的是，证明这一点的最简单方法是用方程式。假设 t 是个人的边际税率，r 是计划中资产的年回报率。

If an individ­ual contributes $1,000 to a traditional plan, then after n years, the balance would have grown to $1,000 (1+r)ⁿ. When the individual withdraws the accumulated funds, both the original contribution and the accumulated earnings are taxable. Thus, the after-tax value in retirement is (1-t) $1,000 (1+r)ⁿ.
如果个人向传统计划缴纳 1000 美元，那么在 n 年后，余额将增长到 1000 美元(1+r) ⁿ 。当个人提取累积资金时，原始缴款和累积收益都需要纳税。因此，退休后的税后价值是(1-t) 1000 美元(1+r) ⁿ 。

Now consider a Roth. The individual pays tax on the original contribution, so he puts (1-t) $1000 into the account. After n years, these after-tax pro­ceeds would have grown to (1+r)ⁿ (1-t) $1,000. Since the proceeds are not subject to any further tax, the after-tax amounts under the Roth and traditional plans are identical:
现在考虑一个罗斯账户。个人对原始供款纳税，因此他将 (1-t) 美元的 1000 美元存入账户。经过 n 年，这些税后收益将增长到 (1+r) ⁿ (1-t) 美元的 1000 美元。由于收益不再纳税，罗斯计划和传统计划下的税后金额是相同的：

Note that a key assumption in this exercise is that n — the number of years of accumulation — is the same in both cases. That used to be true. In both cases, RMDs limited tax-free accruals. Now “n” is no longer the same for traditional and Roth 401(k)s. Owners of traditional plans have to start taking their money out at 73; owners of Roths never have to take their money out. (Postdeath minimum distribution rules still apply.) 
请注意，此练习中的一个关键假设是 n——积累的年数——在两种情况下是相同的。这曾经是正确的。在两种情况下，RMDs 都限制了免税的累积。现在，传统和 Roth 401(k)的“n”不再相同。传统计划的所有者必须在 73 岁开始取出他们的钱；Roth 的所有者永远不需要取出他们的钱。（死后最低分配规则仍然适用。）

One argument for changing the RMD rules appears to have been to make the treatment of Roth 401(k)s consistent with the treatment of Roth IRAs, which have never been subject to RMDs. Consistency is a good goal. Congress simply flipped the wrong way. 
改变 RMD 规则的一个论点似乎是为了使 Roth 401(k)的处理与 Roth IRA 的处理一致，后者从未受到 RMD 的约束。一致性是一个好的目标。国会只是选择了错误的方向。

Flipping the wrong way costs the government money. Right now, even though 82% of employers offer a Roth 401(k) option, only 17% of participants take up the offer (see Figure 1).
错误的选择会使政府损失金钱。目前，尽管 82%的雇主提供罗斯 401(k)选项，但只有 17%的参与者接受这一选项（见图 1）。

As more workers recognize the advantages of no RMD, that percentage will increase. As a result, the tax expenditure for retirement plans — a wasteful expenditure under any regime — will increase. If Congress is looking for money, introducing RMDs for Roth IRAs and restoring RMDs for Roth 401(k)s would not only make the tax benefits fairer but also raise revenues. That has to be a good thing.
随着越来越多的工人认识到无需最低分配额（RMD）的优势，这一比例将会增加。结果，退休计划的税收支出——在任何制度下都是一种浪费的支出——将会增加。如果国会正在寻找资金，为罗斯 IRA 引入 RMD 并恢复罗斯 401(k)的 RMD 不仅会使税收优惠更加公平，还会增加收入。这肯定是一件好事。