What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill

[VySky]

Hopefully this is not a duplicate thread but after a brief search I see this has not been discussed.

A 1K account for all newborns. An investment in our children for the future.

What do you think?

=================================

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill​

The Trump administration wants to kickstart wealth creation for American children by creating $1,000 "Trump accounts" for babies born during President Trump's second term in office.

Originally called "money account for growth and advancement," or "MAGA" savings accounts, the renamed accounts would be managed by banks or investment firms, and operate like traditional investment accounts.

Here's what to know about the proposed "Trump accounts" for newborns.

What are they called?​

House Republicans on Wednesday submitted an amendment to Mr. Trump's domestic policy bill to ditch the original "Maga" acronym and rename the accounts "Trump accounts," after the president himself.

Who would get one?​

Every child born in the U.S. between Jan. 1, 2025 and Jan. 1, 2029 with a Social Security number, and whose parents have Social Security numbers, would be automatically enrolled in the program. The U.S. Treasury would set up and fund the accounts.

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill

House Republican's budget bill would create $1,000 "Trump accounts" for babies born between January 2025 and January 2029.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[daeler]

Complicated, It is one way for conservatives to actually be pro-life. But it really depends on how or when the money could be used.

Also is this going to babies born to rich people? Why? I would say increase the amount and set a maximum earning for the parent/s.

 

[bongsaway]

It's a blatant attempt to buy votes.

 

[redbeer]

A great plan for children's future and also like this part where parents or third party members could also invest each year:


"The government would contribute $1,000 to every eligible child's account, which would be invested in the stock market on their behalf. Families and third parties could also contribute up to $5,000 a year to a child's account. "


This is a great way to help them beginning their adult life with a down payment on a home or business venture or payoff school loans.

 

[Grand Mal]

Hopefully this is not a duplicate thread but after a brief search I see this has not been discussed.

A 1K account for all newborns. An investment in our children for the future.

What do you think?

=================================

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill​

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill

House Republican's budget bill would create $1,000 "Trump accounts" for babies born between January 2025 and January 2029.

www.cbsnews.com

For all babies born on American soil? Cool!

 

[BirdinHand]

Symbolic at best.

And the big beautiful bill is unlikely to even get through the senate.

 

[daeler]

For all babies born on American soil? Cool!

It's only for those born of American parents.

 

[Grand Mal]

It's only for those born of American parents.

But babies born in America are Americans, right? Entitled to all the benefits of American citizenship.
Doesn't sound legal otherwise.

 

[daeler]

But babies born in America are Americans, right? Entitled to all the benefits of American citizenship.

Yep, but this idea put forth is only for those born to American parents with SS #s.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Hopefully this is not a duplicate thread but after a brief search I see this has not been discussed.

A 1K account for all newborns. An investment in our children for the future.

What do you think?

Unnecessary and dumb.

 

[Grand Mal]

Yep, but this idea put forth is only for those born to American parents with SS #s.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Babies born in the USA are Americans, but some are more American than others.
Sounds, uh, provocative.
But provocation seems to be becoming a theme in this administration.

 

[Greenbeard]

A 1K account for all newborns. An investment in our children for the future.

Hmm, massive cuts to SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, education, and biomedical research while adding trillions to the debt vs. a measly $1,000.

On net, massive disinvestment in our children.

 

[Cope]

It's a blatant attempt to buy votes.

So you are against then?

 

[Greenbeard]

This is a great way to help them beginning their adult life with a down payment on a home or business venture or payoff school loans.

Watching Boomers try to guess how much things cost today (even before projecting forward 20-odd years to when these unborn kids are paying for such things) is like watching Rain Man guess the price of a candy bar.

 

[redbeer]

Watching Boomers try to guess how much things cost today (even before projecting forward 20-odd years to when these unborn kids are paying for such things) is like watching Rain Man guess the price of a candy bar.

Apparently the reality of tax deferred monies growing through compounded interest escapes you. It would be interesting to know if they set an age limit on these accounts or not for the magic really begins between 30 to 40 years.

 

[Bucky]

Symbolic at best.

And the big beautiful bill is unlikely to even get through the senate.

A modest initial investment at a 7% annual return could grow to over $15,000 in 18 years through compounding, assuming no additional contributions. This could provide a meaningful nest egg for young adults.

Unlike direct welfare programs, the accounts leverage market growth rather than ongoing taxpayer funding, making it a potentially sustainable model for long-term wealth creation.

The Trump account is a powerful initiative and a potential game-changer.

 

[Bucky]

Apparently the reality of tax deferred monies growing through compounded interest escapes you. It would be interesting to know if they set an age limit on these accounts or not for the magic really begins between 30 to 40 years.

A lot of parents are bad with their finances, so this amazing Trump account gives young children at birth the ability to participate in the market.

 

[Greenbeard]

A modest initial investment at a 7% annual return could grow to over $15,000 in 18 years through compounding, assuming no additional contributions.

You must be the one doing the math on the BBB for the GOP.

 

[VanceMack]

Not a fan...but if they are going to consider something like this they should do it right. 5k at an expected compounded growth rate of 10% would be worth 2.545 million in 65 years, assuming no additional funds were added into the account at current rates. So...replace Social Security with an up front investment account that the individual couldnt touch (except to add to) and eventually cancel Socials Security...or rather let it die its own death...which it will likely do anyway.

 

[redbeer]

A lot of parents are bad with their finances, so this amazing Trump account gives young children at birth the ability to participate in the market.

Yes, and having an account set up for the parents children would create great incentive for them to invest in their child's future. By not having to start it, will cause many to begin to invest and down the road will create an atmosphere of less younger people having to fall onto the cycle of government dependence. It's a brilliant move.

 

[j brown's body]

Good God, what a narcissistic parasite Trump is attaching his name to this policy.

 

[Allan]

Hopefully this is not a duplicate thread but after a brief search I see this has not been discussed.

A 1K account for all newborns. An investment in our children for the future.

What do you think?

=================================

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill​

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill

House Republican's budget bill would create $1,000 "Trump accounts" for babies born between January 2025 and January 2029.

www.cbsnews.com

On the surface it looks like a good idea. I'm concerned where the money would be invested. Is Trump going to direct the money into his own or his friend's holdings? Would it go into DJT or his crypto venture?

He was vague yesterday when asked about it.

 

[JMR]

Yep, but this idea put forth is only for those born to American parents with SS #s.

Would it be required to prove paternity?

 

[Grand Mal]

A modest initial investment at a 7% annual return could grow to over $15,000 in 18 years through compounding, assuming no additional contributions. This could provide a meaningful nest egg for young adults.

$15,000?
Do you know how easy it is to Google 'compound interest calculator?

Unlike direct welfare programs, the accounts leverage market growth rather than ongoing taxpayer funding, making it a potentially sustainable model for long-term wealth creation.

The Trump account is a powerful initiative and a potential game-changer.

 

[cpwill]

A great plan for children's future and also like this part where parents or third party members could also invest each year:


"The government would contribute $1,000 to every eligible child's account, which would be invested in the stock market on their behalf. Families and third parties could also contribute up to $5,000 a year to a child's account. "


This is a great way to help them beginning their adult life with a down payment on a home or business venture or payoff school loans.

It's not a tax shelter, though, so, there is only downside to using this account vice a regular brokerage.

The only upside is the "free" (paid for with increased debt) $1000, which, at a 7.5% inflation-adjusted combined annual growth rate, would come to $3,676 by age 18.

3.6 million kids born each year = 36 Bn over a decade, which isn't much, comparatively, but it's still a new entitlement, and so, will only expand.

Which, given that it's cribbing off of a Hillary Clinton idea, perhaps shouldn't be surprising.

Plus, the requirement for both parents to have a social security number seems to make it vulnerable to legal challenges.

I am all in favor of long term savings, but this seems like an unpaid-for gimmick with the potential to turn into an unpaid-for monster. This needs to be structured better, and replace other programs.