A New York Times article on a supposed Republican plan to drastically reduce 401(k) annual contributions may not be telling the full story.
Speaker Paul Ryan’s office tells RedState that the article, which seems to solely cite Democrats and lobbyists, is indeed “poorly sourced.”
At issue is a proposal that could limit contributions to a 401(k) to as little as $2,400 per year. Such a move would essentially be a tax increase on working-class families, as any other retirement plan would tax contributions up front, whereas a 401(k) taxes upon withdrawal.
However, it appears that the proposal is just that – it’s an idea that is being tossed around along with a great deal many others. The House Ways and Means Committee is not commenting to the media with anything more than a quote given to the Times.
Republicans drafting the tax bill have kept its details closely held, and they would not comment on Friday about whether 401(k) changes were under discussion. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee “are developing pro-growth tax reform policies that will encourage and support retirement savings for all Americans,” a committee spokeswoman said.
The tax reform bill is still being written, and until it is, we’re told, no one is commenting on what’s in it.
While that isn’t an official confirmation or denial that the proposal is part of the bill, it does seem to indicate that there are many ideas on the table, and several of those will not make the final cut.
While we can’t confirm what is or isn’t in the bill, the fact that the Times waits until the end of the story to reveal that its incomplete, and provides little more than speculation about whether or not it exists within the structure of the bill itself. The Times story, when you consider all the facts, seems to be little more than a Democrat- or special interest-orchestrated hit piece on a tax plan that is not even ready yet.
If this proposal does end up in the bill, you can bet that conservatives, including those of us here at RedState, will stand opposed to it. But, right now, it is foolish to say this bill is dangerous based on unconfirmed reports of a proposal that may or may not be in the bill.