Posted on 04/16/2018 7:46:37 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
My idea was to award every newborn with a $1k deposit in the S & P 500-no withdrawals until age 59. The Wall Street Journal(via Real Clear Politics) has a better one. A $5k low interest loan payable in 50 years. Invest in worldwide index funds. Limited withdrawals only for college. It's called skin in the game. Even Chuckie Shumer is mentioned positively.
So the long-suffering American taxpayer shells out for those who don’t need it? The feds are supposed to dictate now what is invested for whom where?
I see this as an all-around horrible idea.
All that would do is apply a bias that would negate the money.
Why even a tax credit?
We already have bad legislation from Ivanka in the tax cut package: subsidizing child care for Jivanka’s rich friends on the Upper East Side with scads of nannies—but it distorts the market all the way down: 1) making it harder for mothers to simply stay home with the kiddos, and 2) removing both fairness and incentive from the system by favoring parents over simply using low marginal rates to encourage the economy in general.
We don’t need more bad policy!
Welfare and various government assistance entitlement programs, as we know them, are rife with fraud, injurious to those taking advantage of them, and fundamentally broken.
I have long thought I would be open to alternatives, and even gave a thought to guaranteed minimum income. (Full disclosure: I would never, ever have even given it a second thought, except for hearing the Milton Friedman was an advocate, so I gave it a fair hearing in my mind!)
The reason I am NOT for a guaranteed minimum income, and I am NOT for this scheme, is that even though I would consider either of them if ALL those other programs would disappear and go away, with all the bureaucracy associated with them...but we know that they won’t. Like a inactive spores or even an open cancer, they will live on, and things like this will NEVER be enough...so programs will pop up to “fill the gap” and so on.
And not only would we be back to square one, we would have billions on top of all that.
Redistribution in any way, shape, or form is still just that, a barnacle on the hull of a ship.
And no, it is just a furtherance of the welfare state—but one that conveniently builds a forced new, big business for the bankers that the WSJ caters to.
Don’t fall for this crap!
And NO inner city parent would EVER fail to invest or allocate that money properly... and NO sector of government would EVER direct that money towards their personal investments... and getting government involved in monetary guarantees (like college tuition or home loans or health insurance) has NEVER led to skyrocketing prices and improper risk-taking based on "social justice" goals...
Ahem...
There is nothing worse for a work incentive than a guaranteed minimum income. Why would you be for it?
9YearLurker, did you read my post?
I specifically said the ONLY reason I even looked at it was because Milton Friedman was for it, and I respect Milton Friedman.
Then, I specifically said I was NOT for it.
Sorry, yeah—you caught me—only scanned the beginning of your post.
Friedman was great, but not perfect—which I understand now you also have concluded.
LOL, it bothers me that Milton Friedman believes in it (at least from the video I saw) and I don't, but...he assumes that if someone was given a minimum basic income, ALL the agencies that administer, monitor, enforce them would go away as well, saving millions.
Great in theory, but those of us who observe government at work know full well we would see things like:
"...Government sources today have acknowledged that there are shortfalls in the income levels provided by the minimum basic income. Protesters have been marching, demanding a 50% increase so they can afford Internet Access and transportation costs. A new Federal program is being proposed, the Department of Equal Money for Spending (DEMS) that will monitor all programs being formed as adjunct to the Minimum Basic Income..."
As sure as the sun rises in the East.
How about the kids’ parents do the “awarding”?????
I was for a guaranteed income after reading Charles Murray’s book. Came back down to earth. Under Federal Baby Bonds the Fidelity’s and Vangards would get the money to invest so there’s something in it for them. The government would be left out. Teach the po’ folk there’s no guarantees(downturns). Sure, it would grow the government. Think of it as Reagan’s ‘build down’, modernizing weapons systems while cutting back.
Kids parents could pay off the SMALL loan at it’s inception. Bingo.
As this topic winds down I now know the feelings of Bob Corker and Floyd Flake.
Yep—as if a state adding a sales tax ever eliminated its income tax.
And I’d argue that it’s not even great in theory. The best incentive is a bunk in a dorm and beans and rice until someone finds a way to make their own life work.
We don’t quite go there overtly, but the farther we get from that the worse the incentive equation.
It all boils down to the fundamental concept of giving something to someone for free (not a personal gift).
Giving someone something they did not earn, and to which they feel entitled, diminishes and demeans the person receiving it.
Working for something gives value to it, and ensures the person will use it wisely, be it a car, or money.
All of these things are based on the fallacy that long-term gifts of other people’s money helps people in need. It hurts them more than it helps, and they often don’t even know it.
It is corrosive and destructive to both the person who receives it and the person who gives it.
You are totally correct.
Why is “college” the only worthy - eligible - investment for which a young person would be able to draw on these special savings accounts? The overwhelmingly popular idea that such massive “rewards” to 18-25 year olds belong primarily for bailing out the education industrial complex is one of the main errors of this society.
But I skipped the main ingredient. The main ideas are wrong to being with. Get the government - taxes - more and more off of everyone’s back, and quit using government to bail out extravagant costing industries - education & health care - and you’ll get more money left in everyone’s pocket and more decisions based on natural market choices instead of pie-in-the-sky utopian “government can solve this” “solutions”.
Issue “Border Wall Bonds.” I’d buy some of those.
U R right. College should not be a good reason for withdrawal. Childbirth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.