(Bloomberg Opinion) — If you are among 56% of American workers with a retirement plan, I have some bad news for you: Your 401(k) will be gone in 10 years, tops. Not the money, thank goodness – Americans have trillions of dollars in these accounts and there's an entire industry built around it – but the plans themselves.

There has been a growing intellectual movement to get rid of the 401(k) for several years, with researchers in both right and left questioning its value. And as the federal government gets more and more desperate for new sources of income, the tax treatment of 401(k)s is a possible target. There are good political reasons to end it, but the question remains: Will Americans still save for retirement?

401(k) is not tax free, but what is known as tax favored. Contributions made while working are not taxed, but participants pay taxes when they withdraw money during retirement. Whether there is a big tax saving depends on the tax rate in retirement – which is usually lower because retirees tend to have lower earnings. Savers also avoid capital gains taxes on returns.

All this cost the government a calculation $185 billion in 2019, or 0.9% of GDP. This is nothing. And in theory it's justifiable because it creates a powerful incentive to save for retirement. More retirement savings has a three-fold benefit: for the economy as a whole, as it boosts growth; for the government, as pensioners with income are less likely to be a burden to the state; and, of course, for workers who may not save enough today and regret it later.

Then again, maybe not. The first rumblings that the benefits of tax breaks may be overstated came in 2014 study of Danish savers. Without tax-advantaged accounts, it found that people simply put their money in another type of account. People saved more in retirement accounts, but that's mostly because of automatic payroll deduction. FOLLOW explorative in other countries found similar results. Not only did the tax incentive fail to encourage more savings; the biggest beneficiaries tended to be the wealthy.

To review: Neither conservatives nor liberals are particular fans of tax-advantaged retirement accounts, and savers seem indifferent to them. So what does a 401(k) mean? Expect more scrutiny in the coming years as more revenue is needed to fund entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. Eliminating the favorable tax treatment of the 401(k) is far less politically painful than raising taxes outright.

That doesn't mean employer-sponsored retirement accounts — and even employer contributions to them — will disappear. But no one will get any tax benefit. Eliminating the special tax treatment, however, raises a deeper question: If you're a worker, why bother with a retirement account at all? Especially if there is a penalty for early withdrawals?

insert employer-sponsored checking account. Like a retirement account, it's funded by payroll deductions, but unlike a 401(k), it allows employees to withdraw money without penalty when needed. As these accounts grow in popularity, they may displace the 401(k). More liquid accounts, similar to a Roth IRA, have been made popular in Canadaand Canadians are saving more in them than in tax-advantaged retirement accounts.

However, there is a case for the 401(k). The savings rate is not the only metric to judge the value of these accounts. There is a justification, for example, for the early withdrawal penalty: It prevents people from spending their savings too quickly. If you think this is a worthwhile social objective, then you might also support preferential tax treatment of accounts with an early withdrawal penalty.

Replacing the 401(k) with more liquid savings accounts means less money saved for retirement, simply because they make it much easier for people to spend their savings. I asked Andrew Biggs, co-author of a recent report about using retirement plan subsidies to patch up Social Security if he was concerned that the lack of a tax advantage would result in earlier withdrawals. He told me that retirement savings could be encouraged by tinkering with the capital gains tax rate. Besides, what if people really value spending today over saving for retirement tomorrow? In that case, the thrusts are wrong.

It's worth noting, finally, that nudges — misguided or not — can work in government, too. Retirement accounts also require the government to defer consumption because it gives up some tax revenue today in exchange for future income. Perhaps 1% of GDP is too much to pay for this little spending discipline imposed on government – ​​one that, in a higher rate environment, is more expensive and harder to justify. But this is almost the only way the government is saving. This too is nothing.

More from Allison Schrager on this issue:

For more Bloomberg Opinion, subscribe in our newsletter.

To contact the author of this story:
Allison Schrager at (email protected)