@DavidRMoran How successful does this sound to you?:

Around half of American households have no retirement accounts at all. No 401(k)s, no IRAs, nothing. You might think that’s because they’re all expecting pension income in retirement. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), around 29% of households age 55 and older have neither retirement savings nor a pension. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Not news, and not what I was saying about those who partook.
So good grief (favored locution with you), man, whose doing, or whose fault do you think this is? Not to sound like a wingnut anti-libtard, since you can take offense all you want but you fully know by now where I stand, is this the doing of gov, and / or / but what do you think gov role in all of this should be?
It is like the args made about lack of exercise and smoking and fat and health. I have a bil who works for Doctors Without Borders but used to be a cardio in Michigan with a preponderance of patients who were cheese-eating smokers, as his practice put it.
As he himself still says, talk about a collision of values / goals / efforts / freedom policies.
So ... what IS your point about the original provisions? How is success to be defined? You are the one who (wrongly, maybe) defined original intention. Read msf's links. I bet we are in violent agreement about future policy, or close.
But we are talking about the past, and I was commenting on all those who partook of this new legislation bigtime, including myself.

I think it was Bush II whose administration proposed privatizing a part of SS (25% IIRC) and making wage earners participate in 401K-like vehicles. I recall that idea going nowhere. It may be that many Americans who could benefit from investment savings have an unhealthy fear of the securities markets.
From my point of view, Americans are poor savers; public institutions and the private sector have long abandoned providing meaningful pension plans; we are going to live much longer than thought when ERISA was enacted; therefore something must be done to address these problems. Tinkering with RMDs isn't even a band-aid solution to the retirement savings problem and what the Administration is proposing would only exacerbate growing inequality.

The original intention language is indeed in ERISA (Pub. L. 93-406), right at the top, Title I, Subtitle A, Sec 2, "Findings and Declarations of Policy". That section was subsequently codified as 29 USC §1001.
Here's how the ICI summarized that language in 2005:

A little over 30 years ago, Congress enacted and President Gerald R. Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The purpose of the Act was to protect and enhance Americans’ retirement security by establishing comprehensive standards for employee benefit plans. The Act also created the Individual Retirement Account, or IRA.

The ICI goes on to note that the purpose of those IRAs was narrow - to fill the gap only for "individuals not covered by retirement plans at work."
"IRAs “have drifted very far from their original intent” of helping those who need them most, researchers for the Center for Retirement Research [at Boston College] conclude in a new study."
http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/iras-fall-short-of-original-goal/
That study complements the data Lewis cited by providing data for the IRA subset of all retirement accounts. Its summary:

The brief’s key findings are:

• IRAs were intended to give those without an employer plan access to a tax-deferred savings vehicle.
• Today, IRAs hold nearly half of all private retirement assets, but most of these funds are rollovers from 401(k)s, rather than contributions.
• The 14 percent of households who do contribute to IRAs include:
  • higher-income dual-earners who also save in a 401(k);
  • moderate-income singles or one-earner couples, often with a 401(k); and
  • higher-income entrepreneurs with no current 401(k).
• One way to turn IRAs back into an active savings vehicle – one used more for contributions – is to auto-enroll all workers without an employer plan in an IRA.

The summary, including links to data (with charts) and to the full study, can be found here:
http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/who-contributes-to-individual-retirement-accounts/

@DavidRMoran How successful does this sound to you?:

Around half of American households have no retirement accounts at all. No 401(k)s, no IRAs, nothing. You might think that’s because they’re all expecting pension income in retirement. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), around 29% of households age 55 and older have neither retirement savings nor a pension. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

>> original intention of providing ordinary Americans with a secure retirement
Was this intention language in the ERISA legislation?
Your understanding of 'no way' and 'atypical' is unlike mine.
But I would never say I am not or have not been very fortunate (rising markets also), as well as a saver.

@DavidRMoran Good grief, what’s with the “good grief?” You do realize that your personal experience is in no way like that of most Americans, right?:
https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-retirement-savings-are-you-normal
Just the fact you’re here on this board proves you’re atypical.

@LB
>> How successful have such tax deferred plans been at their original intention of providing ordinary Americans with a secure retirement?
Good grief, hugely successful is the answer, for me and for a great many people I know, also my parents, also my children. And just about everyone I ever worked with. That is, employed over a normally long career. Some started middle-class, some much lower and got to join the middle class. Some probably were rich young, but the careers and companies I worked for, including many public-sector, generally did not have rich kids at all.
I make no claim that it has been enough for some, nor that it should not have been done better, and more generously, but
>> If the answer is not very successful,
I disagree with that speculation 100%, without even thinking long about it.

How successful have such tax deferred plans been at their original intention of providing ordinary Americans with a secure retirement?

These numbers (from 2017) would suggest not very successful. If all retirees have to go with this is SS (no pension or employer provided health insurance), it would be tough living another 20-30 years on those amounts - even if savvy investors and even if the current exuberant market were to continue bubbling along.
Remember that these are tax deferred amounts - meaning a chunk of these savings will go to covering the deferred taxes upon withdrawal.
2017 Average 401K Retirement Plan Totals
Under age 25
Average 401(k) account balance: $4,773
Average 401(k) savings rate: 4.8 percent
Age 25 to 34
Average 401(k) account balance: $24,728
Average 401(k) savings rate: 5.9 percent
Age 35 to 44
Average 401(k) account balance: $68,935
Average 401(k) savings rate: 6.3 percent
Age 45 to 54
Average 401(k) account balance: $129,051
Average 401(k) savings rate: 7 percent
Age 55 to 64
Average 401(k) account balance: $190,505
Average 401(k) savings rate: 8.3 percent
Age 65 plus
Average 401(k) account balance: $209,984
Average 401(k) savings rate: 9 percent
https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/401ks/articles/2018-07-23/are-your-retirement-savings-ahead-of-the-curve
Above numbers based on a survey of actual 401K plan participants. Considering that fewer than half of all U.S. workers participate in a 401K plan (for a variety of reasons) the picture looks even bleaker.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-american-have-a-401k.aspx

@DavidRMoran I'm not sure my answer to your question to me would be welcomed on this board. But let me pose a different question: How successful have such tax deferred plans been at their original intention of providing ordinary Americans with a secure retirement? If the answer is not very successful, perhaps alternative means of providing that security are necessary.

I would have to concede, your method helps to address the overall retirement problem as well. I'm just questioning the need to exhaust the account when you could maintain the magic of compounding forever.

Sorry to be pedantic here, but why?
There is a public interest in seeing that people save enough for retirement, so that, in the old British vernacular, they do not go on the dole.
What is the public interest in seeing that wealth is transferred to offspring or other beneficiaries? Especially ones of working age?

To grow their balances for whom? For their retirement or for their heirs?

The idea of IRAs remains retirement. RMDs are a way of forcing the retiree to draw (most) of the money out of the tax shelter.
Would you use caps the same way, e.g. by lowering the cap each year for a retiree, and require anything above that cap to be withdrawn annually? That would certainly be more progressive. Everyone below the cap would be treated the same, but the more affluent would be deprived of a greater tax shelter (while still being able to keep their money, just post tax).

IMHO, the suggested rationale that RMDs be eliminated (or at least pushed back a few years, say, to age 75) because some people (a) are working now so don't need the money (b) will need the benefit of longer tax deferrals on those few years of RMDs they take before they retire, is a red herring.
If that really is a problem, it can be easily addressed without making broad changes in RMDs that affect everyone.
To some extent, it is already addressed. If someone over 70 works for an employer that offers a retirement plan accepting rollovers, the worker need just transfer the IRAs into the retirement plan. That gets rid of any RMD so long as the person continues working for the employer.
"The vast majority would still need to withdraw money on a regular cadence but allowing the untapped portion to further compound." Those workers in this "vast majority" withdraw money (RMDs or more) on a regular cadence and leave the rest of the IRA untapped to further compound. Done! That's the way things work now.
For the few (the "unvast minority"?) who don't need any money while working, they pay their taxes on the modest annual RMDs ("tax a little now") for a few years while they continue to work. They're not required to spend those RMDs. So they move their RMDs to taxable accounts, where they "benefit from additional time for their investments to compound"
There's no need to create more opportunities to abuse the system, merely to address what is to a large extent (i.e. for the "vast majority") not a problem. And for the few who are substantially affected, there are more targeted ways of helping them.

@larryB: I understand the question of fairness in regards to the rich using a retirement account in a manner not as beneficial to those with less. To some this may be viewed as an abuse. My first thought is allowing savings to grow, tax differed, will only create a bigger source of tax revenue at some point in the future (point of sale). However, I believe a practical compromise may be capping the allowance for tax differed treatment (overall account balance) a more practical approach.

Many Americans have found themselves working well beyond the typical retirement age. Many of these people are over the age of 70. The reasons for this situation matter, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll restrict my comments to the question of whether or not changing mandatory withdrawals is a good thing. I imagine there are some who would take advantage of the ability to avoid mandatory withdrawals but there are others who would benefit from additional time for their investments to compound. The vast majority would still need to withdraw money on a regular cadence but allowing the untapped portion to further compound, tax deferred, in my view is good policy. Any abuses of the policy can and should be addressed. Furthermore, even if the IRA was to somehow morph into a Legacy Trust, eventually the money has to come out. Tax a little now, or tax more later?

The benefits for high-net worth investors if required minimum distributions (RMDs) are eliminated are hard to miss.... “Often times, these clients would prefer not to get taxed either because their income is very high or they would prefer to keep this money tax deferred for the next generation.

Agreed that the rest of the stuff is just noise. But some of the noise is worth listening to, such as the thought that sometimes simplifying things is a good idea.
So let's simplify the rules for inherited IRAs by eliminating stretch IRAs altogether. Five years and out (take the money from inherited IRAs over five years or less). The point of an individual retirement account tax shelter is to shelter your retirement assets, not your legacy. The opposite, getting rid of RMDs altogether, would just distort the retirement purpose even further.
Kitces:

From a tax policy perspective, the tax code provisions allowing tax-deferred growth for traditional retirement accounts (and tax-free growth for Roths) were created to help individuals and couples save for retirement, not their heirs. While this challenge is at least partially ameliorated by the fact that beneficiaries themselves are subject to Required Minimum Distributions after the death of the original retirement account owner, the fact that many/most retirement accounts are left to younger individuals of the next generation means that often the tax preferences for retirement accounts apply even longer for beneficiaries than for the original contributor!

https://www.kitces.com/blog/proposals-for-eliminating-stretch-iras-repealing-nua-and-the-3-4m-retirement-account-cap-in-the-fy2016-treasury-greenbook/

The IRA/401k system of retirement savings is really a regressive form of taxation that benefits the wealthy with the most to contribute to their plans the most and the poor with nothing to contribute the least or in reality not at all. The longer you extend that tax deferral of such retirement plans, the more regressive the tax system becomes. So if the RMD of 70 1/2 is eliminated the wealthiest investors get to defer their taxes indefinitely, creating a permanent tax shelter for them. The purpose of the original legislation was to encourage people to save for their own retirement and then USE the money they withdraw in retirement in lieu of having a tradional centrally managed pension plan. Eliminating RMDs would shift the whole intent and purpose of such plans to make them permanent tax shelters for the rich.

In 2011 the English government (using data from England and Wales) conducted a study to estimate the probability of an individual 50 years old in 2011 to reach 100 years of age. The results were 11.4% for males and 17.0% for females. These numbers if applied to the US, would imply that we might be significantly underestimating the income requirements during retirement.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223114/diffs_life_expectancy_20_50_80.pdf

FYI: A presidential executive order that could lead to investors keeping their money longer in tax-deferred retirement accounts? What’s not for investment advisors to like?
Especially intriguing to advisors is the language in President Trump’s new executive order calling on the Treasury Department to review its rules for required mandatory withdrawals from 401(k)
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/trump-calls-for-review-of-rule-requiring-rmds-at-70-1-2-40625.html?print