"Cash on delivery; The movement to give every American a trust fund at birth" by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow | February 1, 2009
TRUST FUNDS, IN the popular imagination, go along with Park Avenue addresses, weekend jaunts to Paris, and summer as a verb. Like a private SAT tutor or a boarding-school diploma, a trust fund symbolizes the enormous edge enjoyed by the rich before adulthood even starts.
But a growing movement argues that every baby should be a trust fund baby: a modest trust fund should be a basic right, like education and adequate nutrition. By opening a savings account for every American newborn, the thinking goes, the government would give all citizens a foothold in the financial system, as well as access to a nest egg, however small.
Yup, get you HOOKED IN to this DISASTROUS FINANCIAL SYSTEM from BIRTH!!!!!
In the most commonly promoted version of the plan, the government would contribute an initial deposit at birth, with low-income families receiving a supplement. The family could add to the fund, which would accrue interest tax-free, and the government would offer some matching incentives. At 18, the accountholder could begin to withdraw money for higher education, homeownership, and eventually, retirement.
Seriously, WHERE are they going to get the MONEY to DO THIS? MORE TAXES?!!!!!!!!! So WALL STREET can HOLD ON TO IT?
As proponents see it, universal trust funds, or children's savings accounts, would confront major issues that current policy fails to address. They would foster a culture of saving in an era when the rising price of important goods, such as college, has made assets increasingly crucial to achieve the good life free of indebtedness.
As the GOVERNMENT that is going to TAKE CARE of YOU and SAVE for YOUR CHILDREN (with YOUR MONEY! Why they don't leave it with you is another matter) takes on a DEBT it (thus we) can NEVER REPAY!!!!!!!!
They would work against the rampant debt that has contributed to the current financial crisis. And they could help remedy the overlooked problem of wealth inequality, or disparity in assets, which dwarfs even the income gulf between rich and poor....
Yeah, let's take MORE TAXPAYER dough and SQUIRREL IT AWAY -- or SPEND IT ON WARS and BANK LOOTINGS!!! How about SPENDING IT on SERVICES like UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE and FREE COLLEGE EDUCATIONS??
*************
A few liberal critics have expressed concerns that the idea represents a step down a slippery slope toward a privatized social safety net. Others worry that it will divert money from under-funded programs like Head Start or primary education. Conservative opponents, meanwhile, see it as another expensive government outlay that would add to the already massive bill for entitlements like Social Security and Medicaid.
"All you're doing is borrowing from the future and giving to the present," says Michael Tanner, a fellow at the Cato Institute, who has studied the idea.
In certain ways, now may be an inopportune time for this policy. The government is already committing to an immense stimulus package, and the consensus is that spending at the household level, not saving, is needed to reinvigorate the economy. Furthermore, the sudden drop in the value of investments over the past several months has made some kinds of assets look distinctly less appealing.
But in the long run, supporters contend, saving is exactly what Americans need to do to avoid future financial disasters - or to cushion themselves in the event that they occur. As of now, some say, there is a serious problem with the way most Americans approach money. Universal children's savings accounts could begin to change that approach, reviving, to some extent, the more prudent and farsighted ethic of our forebears....
I'm starting to feel insulted by this agenda-pushing piece of shit!
Universal trust funds might sound radical, but the government has been in the business of helping Americans build their assets for decades.
I guess that's what all the UNBEARABLE TAXES are for, huh?
Yeah, I've had it with this agenda-pushing piece of shit!
The popular mortgage interest deduction, for example, is a way to steer people toward homeownership instead of renting. And starting in the early 1970s, a series of tax-advantaged accounts has been introduced to encourage saving - IRAs and 401(k)s for retirement, 529 plans for college tuition.
As DEFINED and GUARANTEED PENSIONS are eliminated, yup!
These plans, however, chiefly benefit the middle class and the wealthy. The unemployed, or fast-food workers, will not be offered 401(k)s. And since low earners pay little or no income tax, they don't benefit from tax-deferred savings. In some cases, public policy has even discouraged the poor from saving money by limiting the assets they can accumulate while remaining eligible for public assistance....
But GOVERNMENT is HELPING YOU BUILD YOUR ASSETS!!! I'm so sick of this shit government that does nothing but serve the rich -- and themselves!!! Time for some fucking heads to come off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Today, the problems of wealth inequality are even more acute than when Michael Sherraden, director of the Center for Social Development at Washington University, started his research. According to a recent paper by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, in 2004, the top quartile of households held 87 percent of the nation's wealth, while the bottom quartile, taking debt into account, had no assets at all. An estimated 20 percent of Americans do not even have bank accounts.
Trust funds starting at birth, Sherraden and other supporters say, could help to redress these imbalances. They would accrue interest for years before they could be used, creating wealth and providing a shelter for any money the family added. While it may seem wasteful to offer them to the wealthy as well, universal social programs have a history of greater stability and popularity than those targeted strictly at the poor.
But UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like in Sicko isn't a good idea! It's only a good idea when some AGENDA is being PUSHED by the shit papers!!!
And THAT is why I am instantly suspicious and TOTALLY REJECT any "Ideas" they may have!! I am SO SICK of AGENDA-PUSHING BULLSHIT when THEY DO NOT -- or ever have -- CARED ABOUT US!! Otherwise, they WOULDN'T BE TELLING LIES about 9/11, Iraq, and the WEATHER!!!!!
Perhaps the most important philosophical argument for universal trust funds is basic fairness. Americans are willing to accept unequal outcomes, says Ray Boshara, director of the asset building program at the New America Foundation, but "We all believe in equal opportunity."
Bruce Ackerman, a professor at Yale Law School and coauthor of "The Stakeholder Society," says that these accounts shouldn't be considered charity for the less fortunate, but rather the "citizen's inheritance" of a prosperous nation. Every American, he says, deserves to benefit from the efforts of previous generations. "The schoolteacher, the policeman build this country as much as the stockbroker," he says. He calls this ideal the "polar opposite" of Republican efforts to eliminate the estate tax.
In his support of children's savings accounts, Boshara compares them to other great American policies such as the 1862 Homestead Act, which gave 160 acres to anyone willing to live on the land and work it for five years, or the 1944 GI Bill, which sent veterans to college and helped them buy houses. These programs, Boshara has written, "equalized the distribution of wealth in America - not by punishing the rich but by expanding opportunities and the ownership of assets."
Anybody check with the Native Americans living on those Homesteads? Didn't think so. And I don't want to punish the rich; I want to eat them because I'm down to one meal a day and I'm hungry.
In the modern economy, another argument for the accounts is their educational value.
You mean their INDOCTRINAL VALUE!!!
According to Barbara Butrica, an analyst at the Urban Institute in Washington, the accounts would serve as a tool to help children understand the basics of personal finance. Once every student had an account, schools would be likely to incorporate financial literacy, now woefully lacking, into their curricula.
They truly are INSTITUTIONS of BRAINWASHING!
The goal of simply connecting all Americans to the banking system may seem humble, but, according to some proponents, providing that infrastructure is a crucial step. "If you put the platform in place, people will save," says Fred Goldberg, former commissioner of the IRS, who strongly supports the idea.
Some critics characterize the idea as well-intentioned but misguided. In a paper for the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner and Jagadeesh Gokhale estimated that accounting for population growth, it could cost as much as $266 billion over the next 75 years. They wrote that such a policy could have unpredictable and unwelcome repercussions - for instance, causing parents to save less and consume more of their own money.
What parent can save these days, and if so.....
Others question whether the savings would really add up to meaningful capital. Although Butrica supports the policy for its instructional value, her research suggests that the assets would likely fall far short of the amount needed for the intended purposes.
Oh, government wouldn't live up to its promises? Your kidding?
Still, in recent years, growing numbers of academics and policymakers have taken an interest in the idea of children's savings accounts....
Yup, STILL, BUT, COULD BE, IF, MAY BE, etc, etc, etc. I'm SICK as SHIT at seeing those WORDS in my "news"paper!
When I SEE THOSE WORDS, I know SOME AGENDA is being PUSHED!
Family and friends can also contribute to the account. The money is locked up until age 18, at which time it can be withdrawn and used without restrictions....
I don't like that idea at all because WHY SHOULD YOUR MONEY be LOCKED UP at all? What if you NEED IT NOW? It's YOUR MONEY, right? What right does this shithole government have to keep you from it!?
This is like I said: A way of the government to HOLD ON TO TAX DOLLARS and flip you a high, hard one, Amurka!!!!!!!
In Oklahoma, Sherraden's center is affiliated with a pilot project in which more than 1,000 randomly selected newborns received "seed accounts" with a $1,000 initial deposit invested in a mix of stocks and bonds.
I TOLD YOU WALL STREET was going to get the $$$? Now WHY did this shitbag WAIT until DAMN NEAR the END to let us in on that?
The family is eligible for some matching money, depending on income. At 18, the accountholder will be able to use the funds for higher education. The project, funded primarily by the Ford Foundation, started in 2007, and the beneficiaries will be monitored to see if the accounts increase their likelihood of attending college....
Yup, it's a GLOBALIST PROJECT, and thus deserves REJECTION OUT of HAND!!!!!!!! Which is why it is an IDEA to the AGENDA-PUSHING PRESS!!!!!
The power of savings to break the cycle of poverty may also be partly psychological. Rajiv Prabhakar of the London School of Economics, author of "The Assets Agenda: Principles and Policy," says that owning an asset "causes people to think differently about the world - to plan for their own future, to take responsibility."
This is REALLY INSULTING and I am REALLY GETTING ANGRY!!!!
Research by Columbia University professor Fred M. Ssewamala indicates that assets lead to a lower propensity to engage in risky activities. Other research, published by the British Institute for Public Policy Research, suggests that simply having an asset - any asset - at a young age makes people less likely to get divorced or to smoke later in life. These effects appeared to be largely independent of income and even the size of the asset.
I guess that's why all the Hollywood stars have so many drug problems and divorces, huh? And how does that explain George W. Bush?
I mean this is disgusting propagand of the worst sort.
In recent months, better-off Americans have seen their 401(k)s and other investments deteriorate, a sobering sight for supporters of asset accumulation - although bank savings accounts have been safe.
Yeah, don't mind THAT market meltdown!! Pfffffttt!!!!!
"You get some abrupt disruptions like you have right now," acknowledges Sherraden. But, in his view, the greater risk is that more than half the population doesn't have a 401(k). "Let's put everybody in the same game."
Yeah, let's ALL OF US take the RISK even if a FEW RICHERS are the ones that lose -- like the banks!!
That's TAXPAYER DOLLARS they want to INVEST, right?
That the GOVERNMENT will HOLD ON TO for 18 years?
How many IOUs in that Social Security Trust Fund, America?
