A lot of folks have considered a 401k rollover this year, due mainly to the financial crisis (just in case you've been living under a rock for the past year). Those who are sticking it out I think are trying to make money online through their discount brokerage accounts (you save on the fees, don't you know?).

I propose a more radical idea. Most financial professionals look at me like I'm from another planet when I suggest that nobody use Government sponsored plans. It's even worse when I suggest cashing out and paying the tax and penalties to start over with a more rational approach to saving money.

Yet, when I prove over and over again that 401K plans are not helping employees, the resistance grows more serious from both planners and employees.

It's hard to kick old habits, and reality can be a bitter pill to swallow. I've written quite a lot on 401k plans and exposed them as both unsafe and undesirable for most people. True, there are tax breaks. True the employer match makes qualified plans look awfully nice, but in the end it's just pretty looking bait.

All traditional qualified plans are just tax traps that you dump money into (and the plan is subject to change without your consent!).

What about Roths?

Certainly, the tax trap that plagues traditional 401k plans doesn't create a problem for the Roth 401k or Roth IRA, right? Right…at least not for now. The main disadvantage to both of these plans has nothing to do with taxes, but rather with control (as is the case with all qualified plans).

Qualified plans come with a high price: you are taught that you will need to retire, that you will need to save money…that the best places to save money for your retirement are qualified plans. But in order to use these qualified plans, you must give up the right to use your money at any time before the Government says you can use it or face a stiff penalty for cashing out (which is simply not possible sometimes). You must ask permission for the use of your money (in 401(k) accounts) and can be denied access to it!

What happens if you need to use that money before the Government says it's OK to do so? You have either limited access or no access at all to it. This places a peculiar conflict in front of the individual. You want to save money for your future, but you can't be certain of what the future holds. Do you "lock up" your money for many years for your future benefit or do you not save money at all?

I believe that this presents the individual with false alternatives. There is no conflict between saving for the future and living for today. It is a recognition that you are enhancing your life later and that this is a value to you. You are not "sacrificing" you are prioritizing your values. This is true whether you are saving money for your future, planning a career, writing a will, or taking out burial insurance or doing anything that is forward looking.

What we need as Americans is not to be told what to do and when to do it…we don't need to be treated like children – being told to save money under a bizarre agreement that we give up our right to have access to our savings when we want and need it. What is needed in America is financial education.

Some financial planners say that if people have access to their savings, they will spend it and have nothing left for the future. That may be true for those without a solid financial education and discipline (both of which can be taught), but then again providing that education to prevent a nation of spendthrifts is the financial planner's job. Perhaps what we really need are better financial planners.