In his op-ed “Australia’s Not-So-Super Retirement System” (July 22), Samuel Gregg correctly explains that Australia’s superannuation system offers both inspiration and caution for Americans seeking to reform Social Security. The most important lesson is that greater reliance on personal retirement savings can reduce strain on government budgets and the burden on taxpayers. By moving toward a lower, flatter benefit that provides a backstop against poverty, Congress can reduce reliance on Social Security for middle- and higher-income earners and free up resources for capital accumulation.

Unlike Australia, however, the U.S. shouldn’t mandate savings on top of Social Security. As Australia’s experience shows, this risks promoting the creep of special interests, politics and excessive regulation into retirement saving.

Americans are already saving successfully through voluntary retirement plans without government mandates. Among full-time workers, 83% have access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan, with four out of five covered workers participating. U.S. assets in voluntary retirement plans are substantial, delivering the highest income replacement share among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

A better model is New Zealand, which provides all retirees with a flat retirement benefit coupled with automatic enrollment in the KiwiSaver plan, but, unlike Australia’s compulsory superannuation system, workers are allowed to opt out.

The U.S. could learn from the Land Down Under: Embrace greater personal ownership and funded retirement saving while avoiding unnecessary regulation, political interference and compulsion. Retirement reform should empower workers to build wealth, not expand opportunities for government or special interests to control retirement savings.