Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Mandates vs. tax subsidies: Which encourages more saving?

Tax subsidies and mandatory savings systems are both policies designed to promote saving and investing, but which is more effective?

By Guest blogger / September 5, 2012

In this May 2012 file photo, an American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees union member wears a protest message on his shirt while rallying against the proposed pension legislation in Springfield, Ill. Gleckman argues that mandatory savings systems such as pensions are more effective than tax subsidies in promoting saving.

Seth Perlman/AP/File


Most policymakers and economists agree that Americans don’t save enough. But which government policy does a better job encouraging saving and investment: tax subsidies such as 401(k)s, or mandatory savings systems such as traditional defined benefit pensions or auto-enrollment defined contribution accounts?

Skip to next paragraph

Howard Gleckman is a resident fellow at The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the author of Caring for Our Parents, and former senior correspondent in the Washington bureau of Business Week. (

Recent posts

An important new study finds that if the goal is boosting total savings–as opposed to merely raising retirement savings—mandatory programs win hands down. Tax incentives do increase retirement savings, but largely by encouraging a limited number of sophisticated, high-income people to shift funds from taxable accounts to tax-subsidized retirement plans.

This conclusion isn’t new. For instance, my Tax Policy Center colleague Eric Toder looked at these alternatives in a 2009 paper.

But the new research is especially important because it is based on a huge sample –45 million observations—and on a series of government policy changes that tested whether tax subsidies or mandates were more effective.

The downside is that the study was not done on changes in U.S. policy—it measured reforms in Denmark. In addition, the nature of the changes themselves may complicate the results. Still, it is powerful evidence of how these incentives work.

The authors—Raj Chetty and John N. Friedman of Harvard and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Soren Leth-Petersen and Torben Nielsen of the University of Copenhagen— looked at a series of highly-targeted savings reforms  enacted in Denmark in the late 1990s.  Their paper was presented at the Retirement Research Consortium conference in August.

In 1998, Denmark adopted a mandatory pension savings requirement that remained in effect until 2003. In 1999, the government cut a tax subsidy for contributions to 401(k)-like plans by top-bracket taxpayers.  

When the government required people to contribute 1 percent of their gross earnings to a pension account, 90 percent of the direct impact of that mandate was reflected in total savings. By contrast, when the government trimmed the tax break for high-income people, their overall response was very small—they reduced total savings by only about 10 percent.

In effect, while high-income Danes contributed less to those retirement accounts that saw the tax subsidy cut, they put more into other pension plans that retained their tax benefit.

The results are powerful evidence of how mandates and tax subsidies can affect savings. But the study also raises lots of unanswered questions. Among them: Do Americans respond the same way as Danes and do the short-term effects found by the authors apply over the long-run?

At the RRC conference, Dartmouth economist Jon Skinner called the study a “landmark.” But in a response to a recent blog post about the results, Skinner argues this paper says nothing about the effectiveness of 401(k)s in the U.S.

Still, as U.S. policymakers think about incentives in the context of issues ranging from tax and health reform to long-term care insurance, they ought to keep these findings in mind. Tax subsidies don’t always accomplish what some policymakers hope they will. Remembering that lesson could prevent reformers from making some multi-billion dollar mistakes.     

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on

  • Weekly review of global news and ideas
  • Balanced, insightful and trustworthy
  • Subscribe in print or digital

Special Offer


Doing Good


What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change...

Danny Bent poses at the starting line of the Boston Marathon in Hopkinton, Mass.

After the Boston Marathon bombings, Danny Bent took on a cross-country challenge

The athlete-adventurer co-founded a relay run called One Run for Boston that started in Los Angeles and ended at the marathon finish line to raise funds for victims.

Become a fan! Follow us! Google+ YouTube See our feeds!