Five Things We Heard About Making the Saver’s Match Work for 69 Million Workers

There is no single “Saver’s Match-eligible person.” And that means that implementation will need to balance nuance with scale.

Across the three conversations held under Chatham House Rule, one message came through clearly: There is no single “Saver’s Match-eligible person.” And that means that implementation will need to balance nuance with scale. 

The EBRI analysis underpinning our discussions estimates that roughly 69 million Americans will be eligible for the Saver’s Match based on income. Yet these savers start from very different places. About 19 million already participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Roughly 3 million have an IRA (Roth, traditional, or state-facilitated). And the vast majority—about 50 million—have none of the above and will need to open an account and begin saving before they can claim a match. 

Over time, policymakers should also consider ways to strengthen the Saver’s Match—including expanding both the income eligibility threshold and the size of the match—so that more workers can benefit and the incentive is meaningful for those with limited capacity to save. And it is worth stating that retirement saving will be difficult, if not impossible, for many of the people eligible for the Saver’s Match today—a challenge that is particularly acute in an environment of persistent affordability pressures and changes to Medicaid and other public benefits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will further constrain the resources available for retirement saving. Nonetheless, successful implementation of this policy can still support millions of people in their efforts to build retirement security.

To maximize saver participation, implementation needs to account for multiple “front doors” into the Saver’s Match—and minimize the friction at each one.

Five things we heard from the experts we convened

1. We need to design for three different saver profiles—and user journeys.

There is no single Saver’s Match use case. For someone already contributing to a 401(k), the path to the Saver’s Match may be relatively straightforward: make a qualifying contribution, receive information through an employer or plan, and claim the match through the tax system via a “destination number” that could, conceivably, be automatically populated on a W-2.

For someone with an existing IRA, the experience will look different. They will likely need to go find their destination number and add it to a new form (Form 8880-A) as part of their tax-filing process. There are nuances here, too, depending on whether the origin and ultimate destination accounts are traditional or Roth IRAs—especially since going from a traditional to a Roth IRA will be treated as a taxable event. If that sounds complex, our roundtable experts agreed. And, while much of the operational complexity could be absorbed by tax preparers on the back end of tax filing software, experts cautioned that users and tax pros alike will require a high degree of education and explanation.

The goal should not be to make every saver follow the same path. It should be to make each saver’s path as simple as possible.

And for someone without any retirement account, the process of receiving the Saver’s Match will start with finding an account, then opening it, then making a contribution, and only then navigating the process of claiming the Saver’s Match. This last group presents the biggest implementation challenge—and potentially the biggest opportunity. Participants in our community roundtable questioned how realistic it is to expect a low- or moderate-income saver who has never opened an IRA to navigate a series of new steps at tax time, though they were encouraged to hear about the IRS’s ongoing mailer outreach campaign to eligible savers. Still, tax preparers raised similar concerns about how these steps will work for taxpayers who arrive at tax time without an existing account or who have old or dormant retirement accounts they have not interacted with in years. 

This suggests that policymakers and stakeholders should think about different “front doors” for different savers. Employers and retirement plans may be an important entry point for some. Tax preparers may be another. The IRA Marketplace could play an important role for people without workplace access. And community organizations will be critical to reaching people before tax season.

The goal should not be to make every saver follow the same path. It should be to make each saver’s path as simple as possible.

2. The best implementation may be the one the saver barely notices.

A recurring theme across all three roundtables was friction and how to reduce it for all parties.

The proposed “Registration Path”—one of three options floated in Notice 2026-48—would allow providers to register with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and receive a Saver’s Match destination number that can be used to direct payments. That infrastructure is necessary. But participants emphasized that the complexity of the back-end system should not become the complexity of the front-end experience.

If someone goes through the effort of claiming a benefit and does not receive it, they may be less likely to try again—or to continue saving.

For tax preparers in particular, every additional question, number, form, or handoff creates another opportunity for a taxpayer to drop out. Participants suggested that the process should be designed so that as much information as possible can be pre-populated, verified electronically, or exchanged directly between Treasury, tax-preparation platforms, and financial institutions.

There was also strong interest in using technology to make the system work behind the scenes. For example, participants discussed API connections that could allow major tax preparers to validate account information without requiring taxpayers to manually track down and enter multiple identifiers.

This is especially important because a failed first experience could have consequences beyond a single missed match. One theme that emerged across the conversations: If someone goes through the effort of claiming a benefit and does not receive it, they may be less likely to try again—or to continue saving. For a program intended to build a durable culture of saving, getting the first experience right matters.

3. We need to meet savers before tax season.

Many government benefits follow a familiar sequence: People learn that a benefit exists, determine whether they are eligible, and then take steps to claim it. The Saver’s Match (with its multiple front doors) can scramble that sequence. For example, a saver who does not already have a retirement account may need to hear about the match, decide to save, open an account, make a contribution, and only later claim the match on their tax return. That means an effective public education strategy cannot begin and end during tax season.

Participants emphasized the importance of pre-tax-season outreach to help people understand the benefit, identify whether they already have a retirement account, find the information they will need, or establish an account if they do not have one. Employers and retirement plans could play an important role for existing participants, while tax preparers, states, retail banks and credit unions, fintech apps, and community organizations can reach people who may not otherwise interact with the retirement system.

Participants also pointed to the potential value of a broad, government-led awareness campaign. Rather than asking Americans to keep track of a long list of individual tax credits and benefits, the Saver’s Match could be communicated alongside other tax-time savings opportunities. Maryland’s experience with broad-based outreach around the Earned Income Tax Credit was raised as one possible model.

And importantly, 2027 should be viewed as the beginning of a long-term financial infrastructure build-out, not a one-time enrollment window. The Saver’s Match is intended to become a permanent part of the retirement savings landscape. Awareness efforts therefore need to create urgency around the first year, without giving people the false impression that they have only one chance to participate (a myth that is reportedly already beginning to spread among the public).

4. The IRA Marketplace can help close an access gap—but only if it makes opening an IRA easier.

The IRA Marketplace has a particularly important role to play for the millions of workers who do not have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. The Executive Order establishing TrumpIRA.gov directs Treasury to create a website providing information about eligible, low-cost IRAs, with a particular focus on the 56 million American workers without workplace retirement access.

Our conversations suggested that the Marketplace could become an important bridge between awareness of the Saver’s Match and the ability to actually receive it. But simply listing IRA providers will not be enough. For someone who has never opened an IRA, choosing an account, understanding the difference between traditional and Roth IRAs, determining what information is needed, and completing the account-opening process can itself be a significant barrier.

Participants suggested that the Marketplace should therefore be designed as a tool for action, not simply as an information repository. Clear explanations, tested messaging from the perspective of a first-time saver, plain-language FAQs, eligibility and match calculators, and an easy path from learning about an IRA to opening one could make a meaningful difference.

There is also an important opportunity to connect the Marketplace to the tax system. Participants noted that, in some circumstances, a taxpayer could potentially open an IRA, make a contribution for the relevant tax year, and claim the Saver’s Match while completing their tax return. That creates the possibility of turning tax preparation into a moment when someone can learn about the benefit, take action, and immediately see the value of saving.

5. Simplify the plumbing so savers can focus on saving.

Many of the issues raised in our conversations were highly technical: destination numbers, W-2s and Form 8880-A, batch payments, conduit IRAs, etc. And these technical details have real consequences for whether a saver experiences the program as simple or confusing.

One example is the proposed use of Saver’s Match destination numbers. Participants generally saw value in providing a clear, standardized way to direct payments, but raised questions about where savers would find the correct number (especially in an age of ChatGPT) and how to avoid confusion, particularly when an IRA provider offers both traditional and Roth IRAs.

The timing of Form 5498 was another concern. Because the form is generally issued after the normal tax filing deadline, participants questioned whether it would be useful as the primary source of an IRA’s destination number during tax season. At the same time, IRA providers noted that including the destination number on annual account statements could give savers a clear, familiar, and authoritative place to find it. 

These may seem like small design decisions. They are not. Every piece of the back-end architecture should ultimately be judged by whether it makes the front-end experience easier.

That principle also argues for making use of existing financial-institution reporting and technology wherever possible. The IRS and Treasury themselves identified minimizing cost and administrative burden, simplifying the claiming process, and encouraging plans and IRAs to accept the federal contribution as overarching implementation goals in Notice 2026-48.

Designing for the people who are hardest to reach

The Saver’s Match represents an important shift in the role our federal government plays in helping people build retirement savings. But its success will depend on more than just the generosity of the match itself.

For the people who already have a retirement plan or account, the challenge will be making sure they know about the benefit and can claim it with minimal additional effort. For people without an account, the challenge is much bigger: helping them move from awareness, to opening an account, to saving, to claiming the match. Those differences matter.

The implementation challenge before Treasury, the IRS, financial institutions, tax preparers, employers, community organizations, and others is not simply to build a system that works. It is to build a system that works for the people who are least likely to encounter the retirement system on their own. And as implementation takes shape, policymakers should also look toward strengthening the Saver’s Match itself—including increasing both the size of the match and the income threshold for eligibility—to reach more workers and provide a more meaningful incentive to save.

If we can reduce the barriers at each front door, the Saver’s Match can do more than provide a federal contribution. It can help bring millions of people into the retirement savings system—and give them a reason to keep saving once they get there.