Posted on 07/03/2019 7:33:31 AM PDT by reaganaut1
For too many politicians and presidential hopefuls, a free college education is a cure-all for inequality in America—so long as the federal government can pour enough money into it. Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), for instance, has opted to make “baby bonds” the centerpiece of his campaign.
Under this policy, fleshed out in recent weeks, lower-income children would be given a large nest egg by the federal government which could be used for eligible expenses, such as a college education. But whether through redistribution or bloated administrative policies, pumping more money into America’s universities will simply drive college costs higher without actually increasing opportunities for millions of disadvantaged children.
Booker, and the rest of the political class, can do better to work toward an education policy that benefits everyone.
Under Booker’s proposal, every child would be given $1,000 upon birth, to be put into an account with extremely conservative investments. Additionally, the federal government would add annual contributions of up to $2,000 for children in the lowest-income households (defined as families making less than $25,100 per year). Those annual additions phase out as family income increases, halving for families making middle-class incomes (about $44,000), and stopping entirely when families make more than $126,000.
This program, designed to make Booker stand out from an increasingly crowded field of Democratic candidates, might appeal to the progressive wing of the party, but it betrays a fundamental naivete about how investment decisions and major life decisions happen. It’s no great secret that a child born to wealthier parents will, on average, do better than a child born to poorer parents. But an infusion of cash from taxpayers won’t close this gap or improve the situation of America’s genuinely struggling working poor.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
And after the Progressives tax the taxpayers out of existence then who’ll be paying?
The homeowner exclaims "I'm an M.D. and I can't make this kind of money!"
The plumber responds "Neither could I when I was an M.D."
Oh man. 18 years to not figure out how to use it. I went for the first $1k and then he lost me. I say put that $1k in the S & P 500 upon birth and not let ANYONE touch it for 50 years. Then allow for the 50% stocks rule where the other 50% goes into bonds/bills. That way everyone from childhood/young adulthood/middle age could see what investing does and hopefully leave well enough alone.
Dems sure are good at setting up Ponzi schemes.
Social Security. They tax you when you earn the money, then when you reach retirement, they tax you on it again when they give part of it back to you. Nothing like DOUBLE taxing. Didn’t we once fight a war about taxing?
You forgot, they also tax it if you die. And, Lizzy Warren wants to cap (at a high starting rate, but these things tend to creep) what you can accumulate during your lifetime because she can’t wait for you to croak and pay estate taxes.
It’s the principal of the thing (mis-spelling deliberate).
Another boondoggle
>
Dems sure are good at setting up Ponzi schemes.
Social Security. They tax you when you earn the money, then when you reach retirement, they tax you on it again when they give part of it back to you. Nothing like DOUBLE taxing. Didn’t we once fight a war about taxing?
>
Don’t forget the BIG one: you die and the govt gets to KEEP (it) all (of ‘my $$, *I* paid into’, so say some here on FR)!!
If lower income children get a large nest egg, then they are NOT LOWER INCOME!
Another thing that annoys me: if you earn 60k, the gov takes 20-30k from you, but you are still considered to have an income of 60k! Even if they take 70%, you are still considered “high income.”
Cradle to Grave, baby!
Fedzilla has you covered and smothered.
Put a thousand in at birth and the person cannot touch it until retirement. At that point the money can only be used by the recipient to pay for supplemental health care.
Offend a Progressive: celebrate inequality
Nothing is more expensive than the cost of “free.”
.
Everything is free!
Why get up in the morning?
Why go to work?
Bring it on!
.
How about the cost of senfing your kid to left wing schools and then to college, to have their minds removed?
.
That’s included in the cost of “free.”
That's not a Bug, That's a Feature.
Always try to croak around the 10th of the month. My Mom passed on the 28th and we all had to chip in just a little to pay the final expenses.
Colonial Penn and all those others that hype the final expense plans don't tell you that the coverage drops to zero shortly after age 85. Mom's mind was sharp until the last week of her life. I don't regret helping her live that long but, man, how you get penalized for it!
Colleges have been bilking people for decades.
Big Ed needs to be defunded.
(Found your candidate for 2020 yet, NeverTrumper?)
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.