IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jpenef/v24y2025i3p392-413_3.html

Retirement tax shields: A cohort study of traditional and Roth accounts

Author

Listed:
  • Goodman, Lucas
  • Meiselman, Ben S.

Abstract

In this paper, we study the relative tax advantages of traditional and Roth retirement accounts in the United States by examining the retrospective tax benefits of each account type for the 2003 cohort of retirees. We use the actual history of marginal tax rates at the individual level to estimate that the average tax shields of traditional and Roth retirement accounts‒the excess value of retirement consumption financed by those accounts relative to brokerage accounts‒were 68 percent and 47 percent, respectively. Traditional accounts were better for this cohort largely due to tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Under a counterfactual with inflation-adjusted 2019 law, the average tax shields for traditional and Roth accounts would have been much closer (33% and 30%, respectively), and nearly half of savers would have achieved higher retirement by saving in Roth accounts rather than in traditional accounts. This is the first paper to apply the history of marginal tax rates‒informed by administrative income records‒to compare Roth and traditional accounts for a particular cohort of retirees.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodman, Lucas & Meiselman, Ben S., 2025. "Retirement tax shields: A cohort study of traditional and Roth accounts," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 392-413, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:24:y:2025:i:3:p:392-413_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474747225000083/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:24:y:2025:i:3:p:392-413_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pef .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.