Bipartisan bill would create retirement plans for those with no 401(k)
A shrinking but persistent share of America's workforce lacks access to employer-provided retirement plans, research shows. Now, a bipartisan bill introduced in Congress earlier this month looks to close that access gap.
The Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA), introduced by Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania, would create a new program called the American Worker Retirement Plan. The tax-advantaged retirement savings accounts, similar to the federal government's Thrift Savings Plan, would be for workers who currently lack access to workplace retirement accounts.
If enacted, the RSAA would enable the federal government to match contributions of up to 5% for low- and middle-income workers — comprising a 1% non-elective contribution and a 4% safe harbor match — with the match gradually phasing out at the median income level.
READ MORE: Maximizing IRAs, 401(k)s in a fast-shifting retirement space
This marks the third time that the RSAA has been introduced to Congress. Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado first introduced the bill in 2022, and did so again in 2023 along with Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Roughly 69 million workers, 55.5% of the U.S. workforce, lacked access to employer-provided retirement plans in 2021, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data conducted by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan public policy organization.
Secure 2.0 helped expand access to 401(k)s for some part-time workers, but experts say it falls short of addressing the larger gaps in access.
Financial advisors say that 401(k)s and other employer-provided accounts are powerful tools for retirement planning. However, research shows that access to such accounts is disproportionately limited in rural and low-income populations.
READ MORE: Forget the 4% rule: Why fixed-rate retirement withdrawals fall short
A new study from the Economic Innovation Group found that half of Americans in rural areas lack access to a retirement savings plan through their employer, compared to 41% in urban areas. After accounting for differences in things like education, income and company size, researchers found that a typical rural worker is 13% less likely to have access to an employer-provided retirement plan than an equivalent urban worker.
As a result, rural workers have nearly half the average retirement savings of urban workers, data shows.
Factors like income, the industry a person works in and the size of their company can go a long way toward shrinking the access gap between urban and rural workers, researchers found.
Income played one of the most influential roles in determining access to an employer-provided retirement plan. Holding all other factors constant, rural workers in the highest income decile actually have greater retirement plan access than their urban counterparts.
The industry in which a person works plays a similar role. The entertainment, accommodation and food services industries have the lowest rates of retirement plan access, while the finance, insurance and real estate industries have the best access. Among workers in these "best plan access" industries, the urban-rural divide shrinks from 13 percentage points down to just 2 percentage points.
Still, there's no doubt that "living in a rural area is generally associated with having restricted access to retirement savings plans for many different kinds of workers," the researchers wrote. The Economic Innovation Group has lobbied for the RSAA, arguing that while the "legislation would benefit workers everywhere, our findings suggest that the access and incentives provided by RSAA would disproportionately benefit rural workers."
But short of major policy changes, what can be done to improve retirement savings for workers who lack access to employer-provided plans? According to financial advisors, quite a lot.
Retirement planning without access to retirement accounts like 401(k)s is far from ideal, but financial advisors say it's still possible.
"Not having access to a 401(k) plan doesn't really mean you can't build a solid retirement plan," said Chuck Cavanaugh, head of financial planning for Citi U.S. Consumer Wealth Management. "It just means you have to get a little creative and proactive."
READ MORE: Crafting the perfect retirement portfolio: A financial advisor's dilemma
For most workers, saving for retirement without a 401(k) means opening a traditional or Roth IRA. These accounts offer many of the same benefits as 401(k)s, but advisors say they also have one major drawback: contribution limits.
After a worker maxes out their annual IRA contributions, advisors point to a few other strategies they can use to help clients maximize their retirement savings.
"If someone owns a small business, they can open a SEP IRA or a SIMPLE IRA," said Margaret Doviak, founder of DM Wealth Management in Norman, Oklahoma. "If they have employees, a SIMPLE will likely create less funding liability with higher deferral limits than an IRA."
SIMPLE IRAs strike a middle ground in terms of retirement account contribution limits, allowing employees, sole proprietors and self-employed workers to contribute up to $16,500 a year.
Annuities and whole life insurance policies can also be useful retirement savings vehicles for clients who lack access to employer-provided accounts, but their use cases are not as broadly applicable as simple investment accounts like an IRA, advisors say.
"401k plans are just one of many ways to save and invest for retirement," said Nancy Listiawan, founder of Vera Wealth in Pasadena, California. "What matters most isn't the specific investment vehicle, but rather your consistent saving habits and discipline over time."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who are the United States Supreme Court Justices?
Politics in the United States in recent years have surrounded the position of the president. But that has not changed the American political system. It's still all about checks and balances in the United States, which includes the judicial branch and Supreme Court. That arm of the U.S. government has nine justices seated on the bench, all of which were appointment by presidents at one point or another. Their jobs are for life and the group of nine is led by one chief justice. As of 2025, here is the full list of the nine justices in the United States Supreme Court. Date appointed: Sept. 29, 2005. Appointed by: President George W. Bush. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Oct. 23 1991. Appointed by: President George H. W. Bush. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Jan. 31, 2006. Appointed by: President George W. Bush. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Aug. 8, 2009. Appointed by: President Barack Obama. Political affiliation: Democrat. Date appointed: Aug. 7, 2010. Appointed by: President Barack Obama. Political affiliation: Democrat. Date appointed: April 10, 2017. Appointed by: President Donald Trump. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Oct. 6, 2018. Appointed by: President Donald Trump. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: Oct. 27, 2020. Appointed by: President Donald Trump. Political affiliation: Republican. Date appointed: June 30, 2022. Appointed by: President Joe Biden. Political affiliation: Democrat. This article originally appeared on The List Wire: List of United States Supreme Court Justices
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Migrants and ICE officers contend with heat, smog and illness after detoured South Sudan flight
WASHINGTON (AP) — Migrants placed on a deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. The men's lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius), according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. ___ Associated Press writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this story.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 in 10 Republicans worried Medicaid cuts would hurt their communities: poll
At least 4 in 10 Republicans are worried about the consequences of Medicaid cuts on their families and communities, according to a new survey. The KFF poll, released Friday, found a partisan divide in the level of concern. Still, about 40 percent of Republicans said they were concerned Medicaid cuts would lead to more adults and children becoming uninsured and negatively impact hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers in their communities. The findings also show how politically fraught Medicaid is and the dangers for Republicans who are seeking to cut billions of dollars from the program to pay for President Trump's domestic policy agenda. The House-passed legislation would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid, primarily by requiring childless adults up to age 64 to prove they are working, going to school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It also puts a freeze on provider taxes, a practice used by many states to get increased federal reimbursement that often goes towards paying for Medicaid. The politics of the health insurance program for low-income Americans are changing, and Republicans now risk alienating their own voters. Lower-income, working-class people who rely on Medicaid are now a major part of the GOP base, which has become more populist since the emergence of Trump. While most Medicaid beneficiaries under age 65 are either Democrats or independent, 27 percent said they are Republicans or lean Republican, including 19 percent who identify as Trump's MAGA supporters, according to KFF. Among those GOP Medicaid recipients, the poll found three-quarters are worried that sweeping changes to the program would hurt their family's ability to get and pay for care, and nearly 70 percent are concerned the cuts would lead to an increase in the uninsured and negatively impact providers. Overall, Democrats and independents said they were much more likely than Republicans to worry about potential negative consequences of Medicaid cuts. But nearly a third of Republicans and 26 percent of MAGA supporters who aren't on Medicaid said they were concerned about their or their families' own access to health care, the survey found. Medicaid is also key to keeping many rural providers from closing. In Missouri for instance, which was the most recent state to expand the health program, industry experts said about 10 rural hospitals closed in the years leading up to the expansion vote. Ever since, there haven't been any closures. Overall, about seven in ten rural residents said they were worried Medicaid cuts would lead to more adults and children becoming uninsured, or that it would negatively impact health care providers in their communities, according to the poll. Nearly half of rural Republican respondents said they were worried about providers, while 37 percent of rural Republicans said they were worried Medicaid cuts could affect their access to care. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 7.8 million people could lose Medicaid coverage and become uninsured over the next decade. The survey was conducted May 5-26 among 2,539 U.S. adults. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.