Estabamos equivocados con nuestro lider. Al final resulta que es un visionario y se le critica por avanzarse a su tiempo.

Coming Soon: $500 for Every Newborn? - Yahoo! Finance

USA considerando un cheque bebé

Imagine a world where every baby received a trust fund at birth. It might sound like a fairy tale, but being born into money--or at least into a $500 savings account--could soon become reality for all children born in the United States. Lawmakers are considering a bill that would give each newborn just that, with the goal of promoting savings that would later be used for education, a first home, or retirement. Here's what you should know about the ASPIRE ("America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education") Act:

[Slide Show: The Top 10 Fall Deals.]

How would this program work?

The ASPIRE Act would give each child born in the United States a $500 savings account. Recipients could then use that money once they were older to pay for education, a first home, or retirement. Low-income children would receive additional funding, and all participants could add to their accounts over time.

Would it really help people save more money? Five hundred dollars isn't much.

The purpose of the accounts, says Reid Cramer, director of the Asset Building Program at the New America Foundation, is to get people invested in their future. "Having an asset has the potential to change the way people think and plan for their future, and sometimes those effects can be generated just from small asset holdings," he says, adding that it's possible for people to build up significant savings over time. The ASPIRE Act also pairs the creation of the accounts with financial literacy programs in schools.

Indeed, pioneering research by University of Michigan professor Michael Sherraden suggests starting individual savings accounts for lower-income people can lead them to feel more confident about the future. Recipients of such accounts also report feeling that they have greater control over their lives, including the ability to plan for education and retirement costs. Further studies have shown that owning assets is associated with greater empowerment and civic participation, increased income, and positive educational outcomes.

Why not just give the money to low-income people who really need it?

Entitlement programs that benefit everyone, such as Social Security and Medicare, tend to enjoy more widespread support and therefore last longer. Programs aimed exclusively at lower-income groups, such as welfare programs, often attract more controversy and receive less political support.

"The important thing is that everybody gets an account," says Cramer, and that it's opened automatically so families don't need to take much action. It would still be a progressive program, he adds, because as the ASPIRE Act is currently written, poorer families would receive additional funding.

[See also: Credit Card Fees: 5 Things You Should Know.]

Don't we already have a lot of policies in place that encourage savings?

Yes, but they tend to mainly help people with higher incomes. According to Sherraden, two thirds of retirement tax benefits go to households that earn incomes of $100,000 and higher. Policies that encourage homeownership, such as tax deductions on interest payments, similarly benefit those who can already afford to purchase homes. Other savings systems, such as 529 accounts for college savings, depend on parents opening the accounts and making deposits. The ASPIRE Act is different because each child would have an account and receive an initial deposit.

Has this been tried anywhere before?

Yes--in Great Britain. Since September 2002, children born in the United Kingdom have received a $500 savings account, just as the ASPIRE Act would provide in the United States. Recipients can withdraw the money after the age of 18; unlike in the proposed U.S. version, there are no restrictions on how they can spend the money. About one quarter of the recipients add extra money to the account, and, according to calculations by Cramer, most of the accounts go up in value so they are worth over $600. (The money is invested in a diversified portfolio of stocks, much like college savings, or 529, accounts in the United States.) Since the program's first enrollees are now only 7 years old, it's too early to say how they will spend the money once they turn 18.

Could this really become law in the United States sometime soon?

Lawmakers are expected to reintroduce the ASPIRE Act before the end of the year, and it already enjoys bipartisan support. The main challenge for supporters will most likely be over how to justify the cost at a time of great budget deficits and competing demands for federal dollars. Critics argue that the program would simply create another costly entitlement program. Writing for the Portland-based think tank Cascade Policy Institute, policy analyst Sreya Sarkar says the program would provide benefits to one generation by taxing another.

How would this program be paid for?

Over the first decade of its life, the program would cost around $37.5 billion, and would start at around $3.25 billion per year. Cramer argues that because the money would be invested through the savings account, it would help spur economic growth. Lawmakers sponsoring the bill have said they would pay for it by making other cuts, but the bill doesn't specify what those cuts would be.

__________________

los genios suelen ser incomprendidos y a veces fotogénicos,sus hijas suelen ir de negro incluso a las más coloridas fiestas de disfraces,aunque no fuera una fiesta de disfraces,y suelen tener una provisión ilimitada de bolas de cristal marca acme defectuosas

__________________

año 2014

el intrepido y harto inteligente presidente Obama inagura un Memorial en honor al maximo ideologo de la izquierda y los miembros del Gobierno del pais anteriormente llamado EEUU..Dicho monumento a ZP se elevarara en la Capital de EEUU y la corrupcion mundial Chicago...( ya que tanto la costa occidental como la oriental y medio centro estadounidense ha caido en manos de sus acreedores)

buenas noches y buena suerte

Jajajaj no se si lo habra sacado de Zapatero eh, la nuestra es ademas ilogica porque no se ajusta a la renta de las familias. Hay politicas sociales aun mas bestias; en Dinamarca desde que un niño nace hasta que cumple los 18 recibe un dinero bastante serio cada mes para gastos.

Con decir que hay gente que emigra alli, tiene 10 hijos y vive bien, no digo mas...

__________________

Hombre, un visionario..., yo diría más bien un vidente (o algo así).

__________________

tener niños es una inversion de futuro, y españa pagara muy cara su baja natalidad, haciendo trabajar hasta los 70 o mas y pagando menos de pension.
la pregunta es, sirve el dar dinero para k gente k no se olanteaa tener un hijo lo tenga? no seria mejor dar otras ventajas como estar con prioridad para un piso de vpo, o tener una serie de puestos a tiempo parcial k faciliten conciliar vida laboral y tenerr un hijo?, yo al menos las parejas k conozco de mas de 30 años no se plantea tener hijos, den 2500 o 5000, creo k se ha enfocado mal

tpc es cuestion de dar mas pq entonces ya sale mejor cimprarlos a china.

__________________

Jajaja, me has recordado el libro "el hombre en el castillo" en el que EEUU pierde la SGM y la costa este es dominada por los alemanes y la oeste por los japoneses, quedando solo los estados interiores en manos de EEUU. Visto lo visto, mas les habria valido...

__________________

Imposible.

Zapatero no existe, es un holograma de una empresa publicitaria y han conseguido presentarlo a presidente del bobierno.

__________________