Comments on: Who Will Pay for Baby Bonds and How?

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:11:01 +0000

Sounds like baby bonds won’t get a lot of support from this crowd : )

I checked out your response Patrick, I agree that there are many questions that would have to be answered about the details of this one. Your point about the kids paying for the “free” money later is a good one. If the money they get is paid for by the government going into more debt, those same kids will inherit a bigger national debt.

nickel, I see what you’re saying about the “flat family rate”, it doesn’t seem fair to everyone else in the plan. I wonder if someone with 8 kids would be able to afford anything other than a flat rate. Of course, they did choose to have 8 kids….

By: The Financial Blogger

The Financial Blogger — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:49:54 +0000

I guess the only way you are going to finance this program is to imitate your northern neighbor; The Canadians

The US gov could raise your taxes and give it away to those who are in needs. In a few years, you will end-up with a tons of social programs and 50% tax rate…hum… maybe it’s not the best idea of all after all!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:08:50 +0000

I don’t like the idea at all. I started writing a response, then realized it was too long. I posted it today on my site. I just think it is her way of attemoting to attract voters, but I don’t think most people will go for it.

Thanks for sharing this article.

By: fivecentnickel.com

fivecentnickel.com — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:06:36 +0000

I think this is a stupid idea, and guess what? I have four kids. I’m also not a big fan of the child tax credit, as I don’t think we should be paying people to have kids. If it’s on the books, I’ll take it, but I’m not a big fan of these sorts of things. As an aside, I also think that people with more dependents should pay more for insurance, rather than the flat “family” rate that most employers use — such a rate structure means that people with 1 kid are subsidizing my family’s insurance.

By: Akhtar

Akhtar — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:15:07 +0000

I agree with nokids & plonkee that they’ll raise taxes elesewhere and that the parents will buy what they want (new shoes etc) UNLESS the cash is placed in an high interest account whereby the baby will have access to it when it grows up and reaches the age of say 20.

By: plonkee

plonkee — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:07:54 +0000

I imagine that they will pay for it by raising tax elsewhere. That’s how the British (stingier) version was paid for, I’m sure.

By: nokids

nokids — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:53:46 +0000

Well, they already give money to parents who have children in the form of tax deductions. And most likely that realized money is not spent on the kid’s education but rather on a new hummer or on TVs. Maybe instead give the money to the kid itself?

By: bill

bill — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:21:58 +0000

Just another vote-buying scheme. Must be an election around the corner.

By: KMC

KMC — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:38:15 +0000

A lot of people are going to think ‘baby bonds’ are a crackpot, liberal idea, but I remember reading about the idea some time ago. The author was a fiscal conservative, but I can’t for the life of me remember who it was.

The author (and you) pointed out that time and compounding is really the key to saving a lot of money.