Aleta Sprague
Fellow, Family-Centered Social Policy
Yesterday, the Center for American Progress unveiled a of its Secure, Accessible, Flexible and Efficient (鈥淪AFE鈥) Retirement Plan, it could both reduce costs for employers and provide more security for workers. Similar to Sen. Tom Harkin鈥檚 proposal and a , the SAFE plan stems from a growing recognition that we need to turn back the tide on a retirement savings system that has increasingly pushed all the risk onto individual workers 鈥 setting them up for what many are calling a .
Many of the features of the SAFE plan are similar to those of the (鈥淐SC鈥) that we wrote about earlier this year. For example, both plans offer:
One notable difference is that the SAFE plan explicitly provides for automatic escalation of workers鈥 contributions, which was a recommendation we offered for California鈥檚 initiative in our . Automatic escalation has been found to be an to help workers effortlessly increase their savings in pace with their earnings. Another key distinction is that the SAFE plan does not provide a guaranteed return, which is a unique feature of CSC. Nevertheless, the SAFE plan provides for a 鈥渃ollar鈥 that would help smooth out years of particularly high or low returns. This feature would provide a similar benefit as the proposed 鈥済ain/loss account鈥 in CSC, which would help protect workers from market fluctuations.
However, just as the SAFE plan features many of the same strengths as California鈥檚, it may also benefit from some of the same additional considerations. For example, like Sen. Harkin’s plan, the SAFE plan automatically pays out benefits through an annuity fund to help ensure that retirees don鈥檛 exhaust their savings prematurely. This is an important objective. Nevertheless, at a time when a of Americans are dipping into their retirement accounts for everyday or immediate expenses, it鈥檚 important to consider families鈥 broad range of saving needs when assessing a plan鈥檚 design features. As we noted in our paper,
[O]ne obvious solution to account 鈥渂reaches鈥 is to make accounts inaccessible to beneficiaries until retirement and to require annuitization, as with traditional pensions. Yet without access to liquid savings that can address more immediate needs and changes of circumstance, many workers may feel understandably reluctant to lock away their savings for the future at the cost of increasing their financial vulnerability in the present.
In other words, an unintended consequence of requiring annuitization鈥攔ather than, say, establishing it as the default with an opt-out鈥攃ould be to deter participation in the first place, thus undermining the plan鈥檚 objective. To both maintain high rates of participation and forestall 鈥渂reaches,鈥 initiatives like CSC and the SAFE account would ideally be complemented by proposals and mechanisms to simultaneously support shorter-term savings. One policy recommendation we鈥檝e offered to help low and moderate-income families save for both immediate needs and future security is the , which Rep. Jose Serrano in the House. Together with proposals like SAFE or CSC, the Financial Security Credit (or, similarly, CAP鈥檚 ) could help ensure that families have a savings cushion set aside for a range of needs and goals across the life course.
You can read CAP鈥檚 full report , and our California issue brief . To learn more about the Financial Security Credit, check out this overview.