Much of America has lost the habit of putting away money for the next few years, let alone the far-off future. And perhaps extra cash drains away especially easily in a place like Hawaii, with its sky-high cost of living.

If anything, Hawaii should be quick to enable a program such as Hawaii Saves, proposed in Senate Bill 1374, but for several years attempts to authorize one have fallen flat.

This year lawmakers appear poised to overcome that hurdle at last, which would be a benefit to those whose employer offers no program to save for retirement.

The bill is positioned to be settled in conference committee, and advocates feel cautiously optimistic that the ball will finally get rolling on the program. And this is a hopeful development for the general public: Retirees in better financial shape will be far less dependent on taxpayer-funded public assistance programs.

Passage of the Hawaii Saves program would be the high point on the Legislature’s work in support of the state’s elder generation. Already, two programs championed by the legislators’ Kupuna Caucus have deservedly earned a renewal, and the governor should enact them.

One allots $8.8 million for Kupuna Cares program services. Another measure expands funding for family caregiver stipends to $1.5 million for next fiscal year, increasing benefits to $210 weekly. It also wisely requires the Executive Office on Aging to develop a management plan to maximize the number of caregivers served.

Still left on the Legislature’s kupuna to-do list is the fate of Hawaii Saves, a program geared to help those still in the workforce to prepare for their senior years.

The conferees will have to decide how much money to set aside for the study that would precede the actual launch, perhaps by a few years. The Senate has proposed $400,000 to pay for due diligence needed for the rollout.

Whatever amount both chambers accept should be sufficient to conduct a professional study. That cost could and should be recouped with the fees collected in the program’s special fund.

What’s most critical is that the program not be rushed to implementation without basic questions resolved. Among the considerations: What kind of savings instrument would it be? Other states have employed a Roth individual retirement account — no tax break for contributions, but no taxes on earnings and withdrawals.

The bill as now written would include any employer “that has not offered to some or all of its employees a qualified retirement plan … in the preceding five years.”

Whether the threshold should be narrowed and allow more exemptions — perhaps for the smallest businesses — is something a preparatory study could establish. Hawaii could follow other states by phasing in the program to larger companies first allowing for problems to be discovered and worked out.

Also: The program is meant to be funded by the administrative fees to be collected by savers; the percentage is not yet set, although the legislation establishes the principle that fees be low to encourage participation. The program design should ensure that its management not burden taxpayers or employers.

Some aspects would be set out in statute, however, including the condition that savers be enrolled automatically at a default rate they could adjust; they also could opt out altogether.

There is much to learn from earlier adopters of these programs. Oregon, for example, reports that as of April 1, 72% of eligible employees are enrolled, underscoring the demand for it.

Clearly there is a potentially invaluable service for Hawaii’s public as well, justifying the time the state invests in working out all the details.