I always knew there'd be someone who would come out in favor of Hillary Clinton's "$5k for every child" bonds. And now, Mark Green is the target of my wrath.
One way to increase opportunity for middle-class families is to allow their children to enjoy the magic of compound interest just as wealthier offspring do. This isn't about making everyone rich or letting young adults go on graduation trips and buy big flat-panel TVs; it's about partially leveling the playing field and returning to the meritocracy that has long defined our democracy. Take it from author and self-made multi-millionaire Peter Barnes: "I was lucky enough to have parents who paid for my education at Harvard, helped me purchase my first home and invested in my first startup. Now I've established trusts funds for my sons to do similar things. But what about the millions of American children who aren't as fortunate as mine?"
Well that's Peter's "success story". Mine was; I worked my ass off. Got a shitty apartment. Saved my money. Got a full time job. Paid attention in college. Got a better job. Didn't live above my means. Didn't throw my money away on frivolous things like Ipods and expensive cars.
Who's to say that the money won't be used for graduation trips and flat panel tv's? Where's the restrictions? Why should people who chose not to have kids have to pay for those who did? Why should someone who didn't live responsibly get to benefit from those of us who did?
Since all sides of the political spectrum believe in economic opportunity, let's help 18-year-olds with a modest nest egg to start their adult lives.
I believe in opportunity and helping those who wish to help themselves, NOT just giving away "free" money. How does that give a person a sense of fiscal responsibility?
In 2005, 1 in 5 American families had zero or negative net wealth. America has the steepest inequality of any Western economy. If we wisely help those at the sunset of our lives with Social Security and Medicare, how about at the dawn of our lives with Baby Bonds?
Because throughout our lives, we PAY for Social Security. I pay directly towards my benefits. The next generation pays for theirs and so on. The people in the middle will be forced to pay for their Social Security and be forced to pay for those they aren't responsible for.
If you wanted to create a pre-tax savings bond program so that PARENTS could save for their child, I'm ok with that. But it's not my responsibility or YOURS to give away money to everyone who decides to spit out a baby.
We may have the "steepest inequality", but there's a reason for that. In America, you're given a blank slate. You can be as successful or as much of a failure as you'd like. Besides, just because you're poor, doesn't mean the rest of us owe you anything. Just like being wealthy or middle class doesn't mean that the poor or anyone else owes us anything.
You want your kid to go to college? Great, save your money and pay for it. Can't afford it? Tell Junior to get a job and save for it. Otherwise, tell Junior that I would like fries with that.
Travis
Dear Travis,
ReplyDeleteYou make a lot of very good points.
You miss something. I'm not in school, but am happy my taxes pay for schools, even if I never have children.
There are things that we can do by ourselves, and things that we need everybody's help to do.
You make a lot of good points.
-Rob
Thanks for your comments Rob.
ReplyDeleteOne of my main problems with the "baby bonds" issues, was that Hillary was trying to instill a sense of saving money in children, but in essence, she's simply giving money away.
Parents can already save for their children's college education tax free, so I fail to see why anyone should have to pay for someone else's college education beyond what is set up now.
There are loans, grants, and other ways of paying for college, and if it's worked for the last 225 years in this nation, why is it so necessary to change it now?
To give you an idea, I'm around 100k in debt from my wife's bachelors and masters degrees. No one helped us out. We took out loans, grants, and I worked several side jobs to pay for her education.
However, that 100k was an investment. She will make many times more then that over the course of her career.
We already reward smart students with grants and government backed, capped interest rated loans, so an extra 5k to everyone, regardless of if they actually go to college or not, is a slap in the face to tax payers.
It would be one thing if it were strictly for college, but Hillary said that she wouldn't mind if it went towards the person buying their home.
I lived in a shitty apartment and saved my money to buy my first home. If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for future generations.
Thanks again for your comments Rob, and welcome to the site!
Travis