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

[Lursa]

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

Seems like an easy way for crack whores and addicts to make some $$. "Boyfriends" could even force or coerce women into it...and take the cash. Give birth to a kid with a very high risk of mental and physical defects and dump it for adoption. Bonus: "special needs" kids are even less likely to be adopted.

If you really want a kid, you'll have one. Anyone intelligent enough or informed enough to be a decent parent knows that $1000 goes almost nowhere in terms of what a kid needs. If $1000 changes your mind...um, either you're not in a financially stable position to have one yet...or you really just want the $.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

That's what SS was about too. But somehow at the time Republicans called it socialism. So what's the diff?

 

[bongsaway]

So you are against then?

On one hand we have DOGE killing people's jobs with zero proof of any savings, which this administration keeps harping on while they want to give away who knows how much for having a baby and the GOP also wants to raise the debt ceiling. Does that sound like a party trying to save America money?

I can only imagine the outcry from the gop is Biden had made this suggestion.

 

[Cope]

On one hand we have DOGE killing people's jobs with zero proof of any savings, which this administration keeps harping on while they want to give away who knows how much for having a baby and the GOP also wants to raise the debt ceiling. Does that sound like a party trying to save America money?

I can only imagine the outcry from the gop is Biden had made this suggestion.

So.....

Are you against it?

 

[bongsaway]

So.....

Are you against it?

I can't believe you are asking me again?

 

[JMR]

No clue, you would have to read the OP and go off what it says.

The question was meant to point out the silliness of the "only to Americans" rule.

 

[Greenbeard]

For all newborns.

Kids will reap greater long-term dividends from being able to get all of their immunizations than from a “Trump account.”

 

[Cope]

I can't believe you are asking me again?

Perhaps that is because 2 times, you have failed to answer.

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps that is because 2 times, you have failed to answer.

I saw his answer. Very clearly.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why?

Explain first why doing so is necessary.

It’s dumb because it’s an obvious attempt at vote buying, provides the government with an additional way of identifying children of possibly illegal migrant parents, and is simply unjustifiable expenditure of taxpayers dollars to fund accounts managed by the federal government, not the parents, just to start.

 

[bongsaway]

I saw his answer. Very clearly.

Thank you, I thought it was very clear where I stand on the issue.

 

[dockside]

Keep in mind parents can make yearly contributions I believe up to $5000.

Only parents who are wealthy would be able to do that. I imagine most parents who are just starting out in adult life, with a child or children will not have the funds to contribute $5000 for each of them. Maybe $500, if they are fortunate enough to have good paying jobs with benefits and not a slew of kids. My husband and I weren't able to start saving much until the kids were teenagers or out on their own, And, we both worked at decent-paying jobs.

 

[VySky]

It’s dumb because it’s an obvious attempt at vote buying

Trump is not running in 28.

provides the government with an additional way of identifying children of possibly illegal migrant parents

Oh boy...

and is simply unjustifiable expenditure of taxpayers dollars to fund accounts managed by the federal government

That's because you look down your nose at poor people.

 

[j brown's body]

Trump is not running in 28.

Oh boy...

That's because you look down your nose at poor people.

Don't count out Trump or what runs through his rancid mind.

Besides, he's got police actions in mind that would need public support to carry off.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trump is not running in 28.

I didn’t say he will (and he’s not saying he’s not), but other MAGAts will be.

Oh boy...

Entirely likely a primary factor.

That's because you look down your nose at poor people.

I only look down my nose at stupid people (Traitor Trump, Traitor Trump voters, MAGAts, etc.).

 

[Parker_Chess]

It's better than nothing. Still a bandaid to the real problem.

 

[redbeer]

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.

I'm sure there's plenty more details to follow, albeit I'm not a big fan of our federal government supporting its citizens whether through handouts or dependency, yet this one might be a good idea down the road. If anything, it will incentivize parents to save/invest for their children's future. Getting more parents to do this would be great for the future of our country, as it's not paying off anyone's obligations or just a free Covid check, etc.

 

[cpwill]

I'm sure there's plenty more details to follow, albeit I'm not a big fan of our federal government supporting its citizens whether through handouts or dependency, yet this one might be a good idea down the road.

If anything, it will incentivize parents to save/invest for their children's future.

That's part of what I'm pointing out - it does not do this. There is no advantage to doing so via this method; only disadvantages.

Getting more parents to do this would be great for the future of our country, as it's not paying off anyone's obligations or just a free Covid check, etc.

Again; I'm a fan of long term savings. But this offers no incentive to do so, does not offset the spending, and establishes a new entitlement.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

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

Crooked donnie trump SHO DO love to spend Other Peoples Money.

Why can't the parents provide for their own offspring?

What about ME?!?

 

[Cope]

I saw his answer. Very clearly.

What was it?

 

[Lursa]

What was it?

You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.

 

[Cope]

You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.

There was no answer. It was simply a rant about what someone else once did. He provided whataboutism's, which doesn't need addressing when discussing THIS thing.

And your inability to specify is much the same.

How about you, do you agree with this provision or no?

 

[Lursa]

There was no answer. It was simply a rant about what someone else once did. He provided whataboutism's, which doesn't need addressing when discussing THIS thing.

And your inability to specify is much the same.

How about you, do you agree with this provision or no?

You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.

 

[Cope]

Another non answer recorded.

If you can't or don't wish to answer, simply don't respond. But attempting to tell me not to talk to you is .... childish at best.

 

[Lursa]

Another non answer recorded.

If you can't or don't wish to answer, simply don't respond. But attempting to tell me not to talk to you is .... childish at best.

You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.