US Senator introduces ‘baby bonds’ bill to give newborns a $1K savings account
politico.com
politico.com
Instead, an alternative should be financial literacy so that people _want_ to do this organically. This sort of leadership is more likely to 'stick' and promote long term lasting effects rather than forced behavior under the threat of duress. It also removes any incentive for bad behavior by political parties "yeah, if you don't drive the right car, or get the right degree, or do xyz, we'll withhold access to your baby bond account"
And are you suggesting that tax evading milionares and billionaires are the reason for high incarceration rates, instead of racial and class injustice, bad incentives through privatisation of the justice system, and a failed drug policy?
"If they don't have bread, they should eat cake."
Imagine if every newborn in the US was an investor in the stock market. I wonder what effect this would have on the market and global economy.
In this case, if the graduating class right after you got a big leg up, that means they're more competitive and coming for the same jobs / opportunities as you. 2020 grads were competing with (and still are) the same new grad jobs as the 2021 grads with the pandemic. College loan forgiveness means those 3-5-10 years behind you now have a big cash leg up on you with years less work and investment. This $1,000 check at 18 means the 19 year olds may very well fall behind as those younger roll over them.
I'm not saying all these concerns come to fruition, but a leg up to your peers can have negative ramifications for you, even if the aggregate and future prospects for the aggregate is good.
Economically, inflation is equivalent to a tax on dollar-denominated held wealth, though. So it basically amounts to the same thing as taxes, but is paid for by bondholders, pensioners, people with fat savings accounts, and folks who lack bargaining power in their wages (i.e. most service & manufacturing workers) rather than high-earners.
Planting a tree is an investment in the future. Paying someone to dig up a tree and replant it in your yard is not.
If I were tweaking the program, I'd make it so that you could withdraw 5% of the value of your savings account each year from 18-22, 10% from 22-25, and get the balance at 25. Give people a chance to learn how the real world works and get scammed with lower dollar values before dumping all this money on them. I'd also consider just making it an outright grant at the time the money goes to the person, rather than a savings account with an accruing balance. This cuts down on the amount of graft that the financial industry can manage, makes the government expenditures more predictable, and eliminates potential injustices based on how well the money is invested.
In principle, just giving new adults the money directly to light on fire as they see fit shouldn't be inflationary.
I see that the article completely omits the possible source for this funding.
We've had exponential growth for 100 years now.
We're a thousand fold more productive, goods are a hundred times cheaper to produce. Yet we still work 40 hour weeks.
So you tell me, where does all that extra value go? Why can't the young generations pay for houses, education, having children?
Follow the productivity, the value, the money. That's where the funding comes from.
We need financial education in high school.
'Booker, who introduced the legislation along with Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said that because the “opportunity accounts“ would be interest bearing — paying around 3 percent annually — a child could have up to $50,000 by the time they turn 18.'
Maybe a non-amish equivalent of Rumspringa.