Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
Featured Savings Rates
Featured Accounts

Lifetime Savings Accounts Bill Is Being Considered In Congress

Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 7:08 AM
From the Investment News
A House bill idling in committee would create so-called Lifetime Savings Accounts for every newborn child in America. Called the Aspire Act of 2010, HR 4682 would create an LSA with an initial balance of $500 for each child at birth.

More background on this bill is available at this AOL News opinion article.
2
Ken TuminKen Tumin5,469 posts since
Nov 29, 2009
Rep Points: 125,077
1. Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 11:28 AM
In my opinion, this is where they go really wrong. If the parents want to put $500 of their money into a savings account for their child, fine, do so, good idea. But why ever should taxpayers be paying people to have children?! And, if you understand economics, then you will understand that it would not give anyone any benefit in the end as it would become the new bas, not something that gets you ahead. 
5
me1004me1004370 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,572
2. Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 5:25 PM
In my opinion, this is where they go really wrong. If the parents want to put $500 of their money into a savings account for their child, fine, do so, good idea. But why ever should taxpayers be paying people to have children?! And, if you understand economics, then you will understand that it would not give anyone any benefit in the end as it would become the new bas, not something that gets you ahead. 

Yup! Why should I pay for people to have babies when we all know (or should know) that overpopulation is one of the biggest root problems for mankind from which many if not most of the other major problems (energy/oil, water shortage, desertification, loss of ecological diversity, pollution, urban sprawl, etc.) derive. This is just insanity at work.
-1
darkdreamer4udarkdreamer4u174 posts since
Jun 11, 2010
Rep Points: 632
3. Friday, July 9, 2010 - 3:21 PM
I remember when we purchased our first home. We purchased a home with 3 bedrooms,  a den, breakfast room, dining room, 2 glassed in porches, aluminum siding,  new furnace, new roof, white picket fence and a garage for 1 1/2 times what my husband made in a year in a paper mill. Our house payment with taxes, insurance, and utilities was one weeks take home pay after 1/4 of our car payment was taken out. We were able to save one weeks paycheck or more a month. Kids do not have this same opportunity that we had.

Since the 80's there has been one gimmick after another to boost the economy. The wives have had to go to work when wages started to drop, then they pushed credit cards, then in the late 80's they pushed home equity loans after they took away the deduction interest of a car loan, credit cards and all interest except for homes, also  taxes were lowered several times in the 80's and the 2000's, tax laws on homes sales were changed in the last 90's. It used to be that everyone paid taxes on all the profits of a home sale unless we invested all the money into another home. Think there might have been a partial exemption if you were over 65. Now a single person can make $250,000 profit and a couple $500,000 profit before paying any federal income taxes on that home sale. You can do this once every 5 years I believe.

When I was young the top rate of income taxes was 91% but few people paid it because everyone made decent wages and had enough to live on. If you were layed off you got your job back when things picked up. I know for 2-3 months the first of the year my husband worked only 2-3 days a week. He always got his job back when things got busy again. Now the top tax rate is 35% and most wages, and taxes keep dropping. A lot of people no longer have the health benefits and pensions for the family like we had. Why can't we more accomodating to the young helping them with better wages or helping them with raising their children by paying more taxes so they can get benefits to be able to afford children, or why don't we babysit  while they work. Why aren't we willing to sacrifice for the young children like our parents sacrificed for us. Were we too spoiled? Why do we always want more?
1
Ally6770Ally6770914 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,658
4. Friday, July 9, 2010 - 9:27 PM
Since the 80's there has been one gimmick after another to boost the economy. The wives have had to go to work when wages started to drop, then they pushed credit cards, then in the late 80's they pushed home equity loans after they took away the deduction interest of a car loan, credit cards and all interest except for homes, also  taxes were lowered several times in the 80's and the 2000's, tax laws on homes sales were changed in the last 90's. It used to be that everyone paid taxes on all the profits of a home sale unless we invested all the money into another home. Think there might have been a partial exemption if you were over 65. Now a single person can make $250,000 profit and a couple $500,000 profit before paying any federal income taxes on that home sale. You can do this once every 5 years I believe.

When I was young the top rate of income taxes was 91% but few people paid it because everyone made decent wages and had enough to live on. If you were layed off you got your job back when things picked up. I know for 2-3 months the first of the year my husband worked only 2-3 days a week. He always got his job back when things got busy again. Now the top tax rate is 35% and most wages, and taxes keep dropping. A lot of people no longer have the health benefits and pensions for the family like we had. Why can't we more accomodating to the young helping them with better wages or helping them with raising their children by paying more taxes so they can get benefits to be able to afford children, or why don't we babysit  while they work. Why aren't we willing to sacrifice for the young children like our parents sacrificed for us. Were we too spoiled? Why do we always want more?
 

 

You speak of gimmicks. Yes, absolutely so. And that's all this is! All the gimmicks did was raise prices. That's all this will do too. Poeple had to spend everything they had to get a house. Now, with their higher pay bigger loans, they still have to spend everything they have for a house. They don't come out better; the prices just go up.

Also, this $500 is for kids at birth, not post-high school people coming into the work force! I would venture to guess the idea is that with interest, it will amount to something later in life -- and justify eliminating Social Security! In other words, they will not be ahead for this. Besides, if everyone gets this money, then prices go up accordingly. And that becomes the new zero.

They will NOT be ahead for this, but the federal budget sure will suffer for it, and so will I who will have to pay it. And EVERYONE'S kid gets it, not just poor kids; kids of affluent, wealthy and even billionaires get it too! Its just another bad gimmick.
3
me1004me1004370 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,572
5. Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 11:38 AM
Many countries have these child savings accounts. Canada, since the 90's, United Kingdon, Singapore and even South Korea etc. This is not something new or untried.
1
Ally6770Ally6770914 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,658
Reply