Alpha Consumer

Should Newborns Get $500 Each?

By Kimberly Palmer

Posted: October 9, 2009

A proposed bill that would give each American baby a $500 savings account rubs a lot of people the wrong way: After my recent story on the legislation, dozens of readers wrote in to express their dismay. Sam from Massachusetts wrote, "Enough is enough. This would be insanity. Who gives the government the right to tax us all and pay for this." Katie of Missouri agreed: "What happened to supporting your own family? This is outrageous and I would like the names of the Republicans that support such idiocracy."

George from California dubbed it a socialist policy; Seth from South Carolina preferred the term "nanny state." Even Jay Leno got in a jab at the bill during his monologue last night. He joked that illegal immigrants would be lining up to give birth in this country if each baby received $500.

Lost amid much of this superficial debate is the research behind the proposal. As I wrote in my article, studies have found that even an amount as little as $500 can get people started on a path towards savings. People who receive such a savings account at birth are more likely to save more money and invest in their own futures, as well as feel more in control of their lives. They are more likely to participate in civic activities, earn more money, and achieve more in school. There's also evidence that holding assets, paired with financial lessons in school, leads people to have a better grasp of basic money concepts, which can serve them well for the rest of their lives.

Of course, the cost of the program—an estimated $37.5 billion for the first 10 years—is a sticking point. At a time of such concern over the federal deficit, it's hard to make the case that we should be spending even more money on an experimental program. The verdict is still out on how it would work on a large scale, but because Great Britain started a similar program in 2002, we won't have to wait too long for answers. The bill's supporters, though, are hoping that Americans will get behind it later this year, instead of waiting to see how it works out in Britain.

What do you think—should newborns receive $500? Do you think it would help set them on a path towards savings and education?

Here is a video from ABC News Now of me discussing the proposal:

For more, see: "Coming Soon: $500 for Every Newborn?"

Frenchie

Does anyone on here read the US Constitution. Please show me where the Constitution provides for this type of legislation? That is our problem -- we discuss and discuss endlessly, but if it is not in the Constitution it doesn't muster and should not even be proposed.

There should be no discussion on this -- if it is passed vote out those politicians and then get all involved into a lawsuit that this is un-constitutional. We will never solve the problem

Every since FDR we have become a socialistic country -- social security, medicare, aid for farmers and other groups. Education, student loans, health care, housing breaks, credits etc. It just does not end. Read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution!!

Art of MO @ Oct 17, 2009 23:44:35 PM

More Bailout Money for Bankers

Not concerned for the children because they'll never see a penny of it. Another scam for the bankers to collect, invest, and profit.

A $500.00 coupon sponsored by the "American Tax Payer" See terms and conditions on back with magnifying glass. Bankers reserve the right to cancel or change terms at anytime.

Too predictable to see savings unredeemable by unreasonable conditions or restrictions to ever collect (if not listed in the bill already, then will change later). This is just another scam feeding on false hopes.

The future controversy will be a lame arguement between some Americans saying they have every right to collect savings while banks will say it was goverment money and never earned money. Nevertheless, this dumb idea will pass. We have no vote.

Steve of CA @ Oct 14, 2009 12:44:54 PM

No idiots, just politicians...

Please do some research prior to insulting one group (a major problem in the United States - attack before you know). Both sides of the table introduced this bill primarily for low-income children. I have helped those who need help my entire life, either through work, taxes, volunteering, or donation.

This is one bill I do not want to pass. It takes responsibility away from the parents. Let the parents not have children they cannot afford, and let them encourage education and hard work, rather than welfare and handouts as a way of life. Then, when it is time to go to college, let the parents show that their child tried hard in school, volunteered in the community, had a summer job (or volunteered if a summer job was not available), and did everything they could to better themselves. Then let the child's grades and work earn them scholarship.

Let the parents teach their children what it means to work for something. If the parents are on welfare, let them show their children how they are trying to get off welfare, etc... And yes, I've seen it. I taught in the inner-city. I taught students who had one set of clothing and were absent one day a week, the day when their mom could do wash. I taught a child with leukemia whose mom had to fight for chemo (I would go to his house to drop off work when he wasn't doing well). I've seen the fight within to stay in school, not drop out and to do well. I've seen it fail, and I've seen it pay off with scholarship. And I've seen that scholarship unable to be used because the family did not have enough funds for the additional costs. That family did not give up and the child is successful in his life.

Five hundred dollars is not going to help. Where is the money going to come from to add to it? Another tax, and then another? How am I to send my children to

of @ Oct 14, 2009 11:36:02 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Alpha Consumer

Alpha Consumer

Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, writes about how to save money, avoid scams, manage debt, and be a savvy shopper. Send your personal finance questions to her for expert money advice.


advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!