Connect with us

Government

What’s stopping automatic retirement savings for more workers?

As the nation begins to grapple with the shape of its post-COVID-19 economy, policymakers are exploring how to better (if belatedly) support the millions of low-wage, essential workers that kept the country functioning during the pandemic. In March, our..

Published

3 years ago

on

By Robert Maxim, Mark Muro

As the nation begins to grapple with the shape of its post-COVID-19 economy, policymakers are exploring how to better (if belatedly) support the millions of low-wage, essential workers that kept the country functioning during the pandemic.

In March, our colleagues Molly Kinder and Laura Stateler laid out an impressive agenda for paying, protecting, and empowering low-wage, essential workers, including suggestions on how to boost worker pay and income stability. To these urgent needs, we’d add one more policy consideration: massively expanding retirement savings for low-wage workers.

A significant share of American workers lacks access to retirement savings. And, like many other economic trends in the U.S., access to retirement benefits hinges largely on income. While 90% of the highest-paid workers have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, just 30% of the lowest-paid workers do.

Fig1

Additional divides exist as well, with part-time workers, nonunion workers, and workers at smaller companies all having less access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. In short, as low-wage service work continues to proliferate across the country, millions of workers lack access to a benefit once seen as standard for the middle class: the promise of a financially secure retirement. Action to establish that benefit for all is necessary.

Back in 2017, Brookings Metro wrote about how the Trump administration and congressional Republicans had stymied progress on developing a common-sense solution to the nation’s retirement crisis: the automatic individual retirement account (auto-IRA). As noted then, this effective, nonpartisan policy was developed by researchers J. Mark Iwry of Brookings and David C. John of the Heritage Foundation to help low-wage workers without access to an employer-sponsored plan save for retirement. Today, the idea’s relevance has only grown.

How does an auto-IRA work? When a worker is hired in a state with such a program, if their employer does not offer a retirement plan, they are automatically enrolled in a defined-contribution IRA sponsored by the state and managed by a professional financial services company. Evidence shows that “automatic” enrollment in benefits such as retirement plans encourages higher participation by workers, with particularly large participation gains among young, low-income, and minority workers. The default contribution is typically 5% of a worker’s paycheck. And because the plan is structured as an IRA, it is portable—meaning employees can keep their retirement plan even if they change employers.

Given these selling points, congressional Republicans’ attempt to sabotage promising state and local progress on enacting auto-IRAs in 2017 was discouraging. Specifically, they used a somewhat obscure law known as the Congressional Review Act to repeal an Obama administration regulation that laid out guidance for states to establish auto-IRAs without running afoul of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Without this so-called “safe harbor” regulation, cities’ and states’ newly established auto-IRAs were left open to legal challenges.

So far, the sabotage effort has failed. Despite the risk of lawsuits, nine states and the city of Seattle had passed legislation creating an auto-IRA program as of the end of 2020, and several other states had introduced legislation. And these plans seem to be working: In Oregon, where all companies with five or more employees are now participating in the state’s OregonSaves auto-IRA, early estimates showed that over 70% of workers chose to remained enrolled in their IRA plan. In other states, between 65% and 70% of workers have chosen to remain enrolled.

But without safe harbor protection, these plans have been the targets of lawsuits—most notably, California’s CalSavers program. However, courts to date have ruled in favor of CalSavers, and the Biden administration recently announced that the federal government would no longer support the lawsuit seeking to end the program.

Now that the model has been proven, more states should adopt auto-IRAs. And, spurred on by California’s legal victories and the Biden administration taking office, several are. In late February, Virginia passed legislation to establish a state auto-IRA, and even deep-red Oklahoma is exploring the creation of one.

Auto-IRAs are becoming less partisan, and the federal government has a strong incentive to encourage them. However, there’s no guarantee that state auto-IRAs will continue to win in court. An adverse legal ruling or a future presidential administration that is more hostile to auto-IRAs could impede this progress.

With a current presidential administration that has explicitly committed to improving worker welfare and endorsed automatic retirement benefits enrollment through its Unity Task Force, now is the moment for Congress to expand retirement security. To permanently end the threat of legal challenges and give more states the confidence to move forward, the federal government should take steps to legalize auto-IRAs nationwide.

One option would be a single, national automatic IRA act. In recent years, the concept of automatic enrollment has become something of a bipartisan issue, with Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) introducing the Securing a Strong Retirement Act last year, which would require all new employer-sponsored retirement plans to have automatic enrollment. The Automatic Retirement Plan Act, introduced by Rep. Neal in 2017, would go a step further and require that most employers offer their workers a retirement plan and make enrollment in those plans automatic. However, it’s not clear whether that act would be eligible for the filibuster-averting reconciliation process. If not, it may be a long shot in the Senate absent any sort of filibuster reform.

In the absence of a single national plan, Congress could instead support more cities and states enacting their own auto-IRAs. To provide permanent legal clarity, it would be helpful to re-establish the safe harbor created during the Obama administration. However, the Biden administration can’t do this on its own; once a regulation is overturned under the Congressional Review Act, the executive branch is forbidden from issuing a new rule that is “substantially in the same form” as the overturned rule unless specifically authorized by law. In other words, Congress needs to explicitly re-authorize it.

In addition to re-establishing safe harbor, Congress could provide federal funding to help cover the upfront costs for cities and states that choose to establish auto-IRA programs. This approach may be able to garner some bipartisan support as more purple and red states consider enacting state-run auto-IRAs, depoliticizing the issue on the state and local level.

Meanwhile, other income-boosting policies Congress is considering can make auto-IRAs more effective. For example, some workers opting out of state-run auto-IRAs may be low-wage workers with immediate financial needs who feel they do not have enough money to save for retirement. Income-boosting policies such as a minimum wage increase, an Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, or the recent expansion of the Child Tax Credit can give workers the extra income they need to contribute to their retirement. In this regard, income-boosting policies don’t just give workers more short-term spending power, but can also foster greater long-term economic security.

With the COVID-19 pandemic hopefully nearing its end, 2021’s job growth projections are optimistic. But as the U.S. has seen in recent years, job growth isn’t worth much if the jobs don’t have good pay or benefits. This is a unique moment to shore up the financial security of the millions of American workers without retirement savings. Congress must give cities and states the green light to help workers trapped on the wrong side of this fault line of American inequality.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 12, 2024

By

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.”

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 12, 2024

By

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###

Journal

Aging-US

DOI

10.18632/aging.205602

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort

Article Publication Date

26-Feb-2024

Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 12, 2024

By

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.

Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax

Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.

Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other

The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.

Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS

While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending