Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1 Watch-Out For 'Baby Bonds' 
    Senior Member cadillac shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    4,681
    Let's shoot-down Cory Booker's wealth-distribution scheme right now. Before he starts to run with it.

    Booker’s idea is this: When an eligible child is born, an account would be opened with a $1,000 deposit from the taxpayer. Each year until the child turns 18, the government would deposit a means-tested sum rising to a maximum $2,000 contribution. The funds in these accounts would generate returns free of tax but could not be withdrawn until the child turns 18. After that point, the money could be accessed but only be used for specified investments, such as down payments on a house, college tuition, professional training, or retirement savings. The eventual sums could be significant, with a maximum of nearly $50,000 for someone in receipt of the highest annual contribution and returns of 3 percent per year.

    But

    Being solely a public scheme, it amounts to pure redistribution — transfers from taxpayers to those on low incomes. As such, it has little to offer conservatives. The argument it will encourage saving or show children the power of investment is bogus. Saving is about deferring consumption — sacrificing today to fulfill other goals tomorrow. But this is pure taxpayer support: taxing or borrowing to take from Peter to pay Paul, with no sacrifice on the part of those enjoying the rewards.
    It’s actually worse than that. Precisely because it amounts to pure redistribution, Booker would naturally impose conditions on what the funds could be used for. He recognizes, correctly, that taxpayers would be loath to grant young adults a huge lump sum at age 18 to blow on a fast car or an around-the-world travel excursion. Yet by restricting what the “savings” from the accounts can be used for, the program really amounts to just a backdoor subsidy for home-buying, college tuition, or retirement.


    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ment-subsidies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Banacek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Connecticut
    Posts
    12,674
    I'd be curious about how large a bureaucracy would be needed to make sure that the money only goes to the "allowed" expenditures
    Unknown philosopher at a St. Patrick's Day celebration 1967

    1 beer between 3 guys is better than no beers between no guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Dlr Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    So. Cal
    Posts
    5,616
    If this happens, I want to be able to claim all recipients of money for "tuition " as dependents on my state and Federal tax returns

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    "Even if Trump didn't pay Russian hookers to pee on one another to defile a bed the Obamas once slept on it sounds like something he would do and that's all that matters." DemocratSinceBirth, Wed Jan 11, 2017, 09:32 AM

    "Enemy. The word you are looking for is enemy. When the ideals of someone are antithetical to yours, you can say the word "enemy". DUmmy ret5hd Fri Aug 24, 2018, 05:10 PM
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •