Hacker News Reader

Comment by carshodev | Hacker News Reader

Every person born in the US was once a child, not having children in no way makes you more responsible, it just makes you opting out of a major part of society, which is a fine personal choice but if this was implemented when you were a child you would have benefited the same as anyone else.

Also, other peoples children WILL be taking care of you when you are old ,because they will be the doctors, firefighters, manufacturing line workers, delivery drivers and everyone else that carry out services that you will still need. They will also be contributing to the tax base that provides social services (social security is paid for by the current generations tax revenue not the original contributors', as bad as this is)

View on HN

If you're having children you can't afford, you are irresponsible. That is simple and easy for anyone to understand. If you then take your irresponsiblity and pay for it with the tax money of responsible people, you're rewarding the irresponsible people and punishing the responsible ones.

The part where I didn't have children I couldn't afford is what makes it particularly galling. I gave up something and they didn't, but I'm punished and they are rewarded.

This is an account for the child once they turn 18. This is not money for the parents.

It appears that it's limited even after 18.

    After the growth period (that is, starting January 1st of the calendar year in which the child turns 18), most of the rules that apply to traditional IRAs will generally apply to the Trump account. For example, this means that distributions from the Trump account could be subject to the section 72(t) 10% additional tax on early distributions, unless an exception applies with respect to the child (such as for distributions for higher education expenses or first home purchases).

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i4547

Does that mean that anyone who contributes their own money to their child’s Trump account is contributing post-tax dollars but the money gets taxed again when distributed (presumably less the basis of the contribution, which will be negligible by the time the money is distributed)?

fine but the tradeoff is you are not getting any benefits or services from people younger than you. deal or no deal?

>You will not be allowed to have goods and services if you don't give me your money which you would need to buy goods and services.

Either way you steal the goods and services from me. Not only immoral, but self-entitled about it. Disgusting.

Mr. Rand, not just goods and services. also anything that taxes pay for, done by younger people than you. roads laid, cleaned, police, firefighters, public parks, etc. deal or no deal? there is no third option. if you're really mad about it i can make up a third option specially for you but you won't like it, probably.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com