Peter Gulia Posted yesterday at 12:06 PM Posted yesterday at 12:06 PM Assume an employer lacks money to make employer-provided contributions to Trump accounts. Assume the employer, in its circumstances, does not fear any effect about coverage or nondiscrimination for any retirement plan, health plan, other employee-benefit plan, or fringe-benefit plan. Should an employer provide the convenience of an employee’s voluntary payroll-deduction contributions to Trump accounts? Why or why not? Should an employer provide information about Trump accounts? Is it best for an employer deliberately to do nothing about Trump accounts? Your thoughts? Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com
ErnieG Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago Peter: Based on your assumptions it becomes a business and administrative decision. Unless the owner(s) believe it will help attract, retain and reward employees I don't believe they should do nothing. There may also be a political side to this with the "Trump" name on it which the owner(s) may not approve (considering the state we are currently in). Peter Gulia 1
Peter Gulia Posted 9 hours ago Author Posted 9 hours ago Thank you for the always wise reminder that a starting point for thinking about an employee benefit, fringe benefit, or convenience is whether it helps the employer attract or keep workers. Peter Gulia PC Fiduciary Guidance Counsel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 215-732-1552 Peter@FiduciaryGuidanceCounsel.com
Artie M Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago Permitting voluntary payroll deductions only is inexpensive and employee-friendly but it seems to provide little incremental value to the employer. That is, as an employee "benefit" it is relative weak, at least in my view (e.g., it works "better" if the employer has a relatively younger workforce as older employees won't benefit from it) Thus far when consulted by our clients we have been framing this as not simply looking at whether they should adopt a 128 plan (being politically neutral in the nomenclature) but looking at it as whether they should adopt the 128 plan in favor of another tax-favored benefit. We of course go through the legal aspects but if the employer has a fixed annual benefits budget (which they all do), should the question be is better to spend the up-to-$2500 per participant cost on a 128 plan or is it better to spend it on an increased 401k match, expanding dependent care, contributing to HSAs, etc.? That is, some/many/a few? employees would simply prefer a pay bump. or another broadly available benefit. Peter Gulia 1 Just my thoughts so DO NOT take my ramblings as advice.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now