Alex Sanchez, Florida Bankers Association President and CEO, is worried about corporate welfare.

The problem with modern American credit unions boils down to a simple question: why should a family of four pay more income taxes than a $90 billion financial institution? That’s the total amount of assets held by Navy Federal Credit Union. Yet it is exempt from federal and state corporate income taxes, as well as sales taxes (and, in my home state of Florida, intangible taxes). This is corporate welfare.

He’s right that this isn’t a balanced approach to taxation, but he’s wrong about it being corporate welfare.  The answer isn’t to start levying income taxes on credit unions.  Since customers, American citizens, are the ones who end up paying the vast majority of a business’ taxes, the right answer is to reduce the income taxes on all businesses to the credit unions’ rate.

I agree, too, that even in a zero corporate income tax regime, personal income taxes are too high.  The present temporary personal income tax cuts should be made permanent—as most of our politicians now recognize; it’s only the Progressive-Democrats who not only oppose permantizing the current rates but want to raise them to Kennedy-era rates. Following closely on making those rates permanent, we then should debate lowering them further.

A family of four should pay a higher income tax rate than a multi-billion dollar business, or even a mom-and-pop business, pays, especially since that family already is paying those business’ taxes.

That family just should not be paying as much more.

Congress is considering RESA, the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, a bill that would represent a massive change to our retirement system, in particular our 401(k) system.  This bill would, among other things,

encourage more small employers to offer retirement savings plans and make it easier for companies to offer annuities that turn workers’ savings into a guaranteed annual income.

Among specific things that the House wants in such a bill are

• a universal savings account, funded with post-tax dollars but with tax-free earnings and more flexible withdrawal rules than existing retirement accounts.
• allow[ing] small employers to band together to offer 401(k)-type plans. By joining a so-called multiple-employer plan, or MEP, small companies can spread plan administrative costs over more participants, lowering fees.
• encourag[ing] 401(k)-style plans to offer annuities, which help participants transform their balances into a lifetime income stream.

And

[Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Kevin (R, TX)] Brady said any new ability for people to tap into tax-preferred savings would be “very limited.”

Despite the support of AARP, the same organization that full-throatedly supported passage of Obamacare, this is a good start.

The ability to convert a retirement savings plan, if left to the option of the saver, can have advantages, even if I do continue to hold that annuities are not as good, in the long run, as investing.  However, once retirement starts, stability and predictability of income becomes important, and the long run will be shorter.

Too, the general moves toward making it easier, mechanically and fiscally, to save for one’s own retirement should be heavily supported.  And controlled to prevent bells and whistles to satisfy this or that Congressman’s (or lobbyist’s) pet wish from being added, cluttering the reform to the point of prevention.  The more we as individuals save for our own futures (and by extension, the futures of our families), the less dependent we’ll be on a failing social “safety” net of Social Security and Medicare.  And the more we’ll be exercising our own responsibilities instead of relying on others.

Finally, as long as we’re modifying our retirement plans, of large importance to me is the removal of existing limits to contributions on IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, and 401(k)s—both traditional and Roth.  Let us put by as much as we want without Government limits.