.png&w=1280&q=75){kind=small}
I still remember the first time I heard Ted Benna tell the origin story: a one-and-a-half page addition to the tax code in 1978, ignored for a year, then remixed into something much bigger. In this post I walk through that genesis, the tweaks Benna added (matching, pretax deferrals), the price we now pay in fees and shifted responsibility, and what I think we should do differently. I write in the first person because I wrestle with these trade-offs too — I'm a saver, an occasional spender, and someone fascinated by how policy shapes everyday life.
1) The Legal Seed: Revenue Act 1978 and Early Context
Revenue Act 1978: a small change in tax law 1978 that mattered later
When people ask me how the first 401(k) started, I always begin with the Revenue Act 1978. It’s easy to assume it was designed to replace pensions, but it wasn’t. The key move in this tax law 1978 was simple: Congress added Paragraph K to Section 401 of the IRS code. Section 401 already covered many kinds of retirement plans, so this new paragraph looked like a minor update—about a page and a half of text.
Ted Benna: “It was actually passed into law in 1978… Section 401 of the IRS Code covers all types of retirement plans.”
The “effective date” gap: 1978 to January 1980
Another detail that shaped everything was timing. The law passed in 1978, but it didn’t take effect right away. As I explained in my conversation with Jax Crider, it “had an effective date until January of 1980.” That lag created a quiet window where the provision existed on paper but wasn’t widely used. January 1980 came and went without a rush of new plans, because almost no one expected this to become a major retirement tool.
Ted Benna: “There was only a page and a half long… it had an effective date until January of 1980.”
How the legal scaffolding became a real plan (1981)
By fall 1980, I was consulting with a bank client and helping redesign their retirement structure. That’s when I saw how Paragraph K could support deferred compensation in a practical way. The first working design that my firm implemented became effective January 1, 1981. Two features that later became “standard” were central in my approach:
Employer matching contributions
Pretax payroll deferrals (employees contributing before taxes from their paychecks)
ERISA enacted (1974) and why pensions were already under pressure
This didn’t happen in a vacuum. With ERISA enacted in 1974, employers faced tighter rules and higher compliance demands around traditional pensions. Add changing corporate accounting and long-term cost concerns, and many companies were already looking for alternatives—well before the 401(k) became widely understood in 1980–1981.
2) The Two Simple Innovations That Changed Everything
When I was helping a bank redesign its retirement structure, I noticed something important: the law allowed deferred compensation, but it didn’t spell out the practical features that would make regular people actually use it. So I added two simple ideas—both were missing from the original wording, but neither was prohibited. As the 401(k) creator, I’ve always seen these as the real turning points.
Ted Benna: “One was adding employer matching contribution, and the other was for employees to be able to put money in pretax out of their paychecks.”
Employer Matching: The Incentive That Made Saving Stick
Employer matching changed the psychology of saving. Instead of asking employees to sacrifice today for a distant future, matching made the decision feel immediate and rewarding. Research and real-world results showed that matching dramatically raised participation and savings levels—people who might “get around to it later” started contributing consistently.
It turned saving into the first priority, not an afterthought.
It made the plan feel like a shared effort between worker and employer.
It helped employees justify contributions even when budgets were tight.
In my own consulting firm’s early plan, a simple example was a 50% match up to 6% of pay. That kind of structure gave employees a clear target and a strong reason to hit it.
Jax Crider: “My wife said, ‘we can’t really afford to do that.’ No, we can’t afford not to either.”
Pretax Payroll Deferrals: Tax-Free Contributions in Practice
The second innovation was letting employees put money in pretax through payroll. These weren’t “tax-free contributions” forever, but they were tax-advantaged in the way that mattered most: contributions reduced taxable income now, while retirement savings grew over time. That made the plan far more attractive and easier to adopt at scale.
Early Resistance—and the First Real Launch
The bank’s attorney was hesitant because this approach was new, so that rollout stalled. I took the more aggressive path anyway and implemented the first plan inside my own small consulting company, effective January 1, 1981. Those two tweaks—matching plus pretax payroll deferrals—help explain why 401(k)s spread so quickly through the 1980s.
3) The Double-Edged Sword: Pensions, Risk Shift, and Fees
From pension plans to the modern retirement plan
When I look at how retirement changed in the U.S., it’s hard to miss the timing: the rise of the 401(k) happened as traditional pension plans faded. As Jax Crider put it,
"The 401K is such an interesting thing because now it sort of has taken over pensions..."
That matches what I’ve seen in real life. Many people had a pension early on—sometimes a small one—then watched it get phased out a few years into the job.
Older companies often believed pensions were part of a lifetime promise. Ted Benna described that mindset clearly when he talked about meeting executives who said, in effect, “we take care of them for life.” But the shift from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution accounts changed the deal: employers reduced long-term obligations, and the risk moved to workers.
The upside: control, portability, and saving habits
The father of 401(k) didn’t design it as a replacement for pensions. The goal was to help individuals save for their own future—something that wasn’t common at the time. Benna’s best summary is simple:
"It helped turn spenders into savers by making the first priority."
I relate to that. Automatic payroll deductions and an employer match can make saving feel non-negotiable. You gain ownership, and the account can follow you from job to job. For many workers, that’s real progress.
The downside: risk shift and investment fees
But the same features that create freedom also create pressure. With a 401(k), I’m responsible for:
Market risk (my balance rises and falls)
Participation (some people never enroll or stop contributing)
Plan quality (options vary widely by employer)
Investment fees (often hard to notice, but always real)
Benna has also criticized what the system became—a “monster” of fees that can quietly reward the financial industry more than the saver. In practice, the retirement risk didn’t just move from company to employee; many costs did too. And without strong financial literacy, “control” can feel like being left alone with high stakes and fine print.
4) What I Do (and You Can Do): Planning, Ten-Year Income Goals, and Career Choices
When I think about retirement savings, I don’t start with investment picks. I start with a plan. Ted Benna said it best: “One of the keys is having a ten-year plan income-wise.” That idea changed how I approach financial planning because it turns a vague goal (“save more”) into something you can track.
Build a simple budget, then review it like a business
I treat my household like a small business: budget first, then measure results. In the transcript, the point was clear—track month to month and quarter to quarter, comparing income versus budget. That rhythm matters even more as you get closer to retirement, because small misses can compound.
Write a basic budget (fixed bills, savings, spending).
Set a 10-year income target (what I want to earn by year 10).
Check progress monthly; adjust quarterly.
Use the 401(k) match and treat it as part of your pay
If you have access to a 401(k), I try to start early and capture the employer match. I see it as “free” compensation inside my employee benefits. A disciplined framework (budget + 10-year plan) helps translate 401(k) access into sustainable retirement income, instead of random contributions that rise and fall with mood.
Make career choices with benefits and culture in mind
Income growth has felt tight for many people, and job changes are more common now—especially in volatile industries. That makes job selection about more than salary. I weigh benefits (401(k), healthcare, time off) and company culture. If I can, I’ll shadow someone for a day or talk to current employees to learn what the role is really like.
Ask: What’s the match? When do I vest?
Ask: How stable is the team and leadership?
Ask: Do people stay—and why?
Be intentional about education, side income, and betting on yourself
I also question the default idea that an expensive degree guarantees success. In one family you can see artists, engineers, mortgage professionals, and tradespeople—all valid paths. The goal is alignment: education and skills that support the life you want, without wasted debt. As Jax Crider put it:
If you bet on yourself, it's always a better bet.
5) Wild Cards: A Hypothetical Remix and a Personal Aside
When I think about the 401(k) today, I keep coming back to how much of the outcome is shaped by real life: job changes, income swings, and that constant uncertainty that makes planning feel heavy. People move more, careers are less stable, and liquidity needs show up fast. The law may set the rules, but human decisions still steer the ship.
A Hypothetical Remix: If We Rewired the 401(k) Today
What if we treated the plan like basic infrastructure instead of a perk you have to “earn” by navigating fine print? I can imagine three simple changes that would honor the retirement legacy of the 401(k) creator while fixing what’s clearly frayed.
First, put real caps on investment fees or require a default low-cost option that can’t be buried. Second, require a baseline employer contribution—something that shows up even if the employee can’t contribute for a season. Third, add a federal match for lower- and middle-income workers, so the system doesn’t punish people who are already stretched thin. None of this removes choice; it just lowers the penalty for being human.
“It was not intended to be a big thing... but it certainly worked very, very well in that regard.” — Ted Benna
My Personal Aside: The Match I Skipped
I’ll admit it: I once skipped an employer match. Not because I didn’t believe in saving, but because I needed cash for a house purchase and couldn’t handle one more deduction. It felt like the responsible move in the moment. Later, when the dust settled, I restarted contributions and built back up. That detour taught me that retirement outcomes aren’t only about rules—they’re about timing, stress, and trade-offs.
“Student loans are the albatross of our society.” — Jax Crider
The Garden Plot
I think of a 401(k) like a garden plot. The law gave us the land, Benna planted the seeds, and each of us decides what to grow. But fees are weeds, and neglect is real. If we want this system to work for more people, we need better plan design—and we need grace for the seasons when survival comes before saving.