What is very disturbing, apart from the obvious, is the fact that they are using Google generated AI images. take the picture of the kid, put it into gemini.google.com and request @SynthID
Oh great, more of my tax money goes to children I was too responsible to have. The whole US government is geared to fund people who can't keep it in their pants and produce children they could never afford. I'm really tired of this, because I know those children won't be taking care of me in my old age.
Every person born in the US was once a child, not having children in no way makes you more responsible, it just makes you opting out of a major part of society, which is a fine personal choice but if this was implemented when you were a child you would have benefited the same as anyone else.
Also, other peoples children WILL be taking care of you when you are old ,because they will be the doctors, firefighters, manufacturing line workers, delivery drivers and everyone else that carry out services that you will still need. They will also be contributing to the tax base that provides social services (social security is paid for by the current generations tax revenue not the original contributors', as bad as this is)
If you're having children you can't afford, you are irresponsible. That is simple and easy for anyone to understand. If you then take your irresponsiblity and pay for it with the tax money of responsible people, you're rewarding the irresponsible people and punishing the responsible ones.
The part where I didn't have children I couldn't afford is what makes it particularly galling. I gave up something and they didn't, but I'm punished and they are rewarded.
After the growth period (that is, starting January 1st of the calendar year in which the child turns 18), most of the rules that apply to traditional IRAs will generally apply to the Trump account. For example, this means that distributions from the Trump account could be subject to the section 72(t) 10% additional tax on early distributions, unless an exception applies with respect to the child (such as for distributions for higher education expenses or first home purchases).
I agree that we should be spending more on children, however, I don't think we should be encouraging people to have them. People will have more kids when they feel more secure in their life positions. We should be fixing the social fabric to where people will naturally want to have kids, not encouraging people to have kids when they don't feel like they can.
What is very disturbing, apart from the obvious, is the fact that they are using Google generated AI images. take the picture of the kid, put it into gemini.google.com and request @SynthID
Given the .gov extension I'm assuming this is real?
So in three years time they're going to rename it? Unbelievable.
Yes, it is real.
I'd be scared to look at what the administrative fees will be, and where they would be going, although I don't have to imagine too hard for that.
Oh great, more of my tax money goes to children I was too responsible to have. The whole US government is geared to fund people who can't keep it in their pants and produce children they could never afford. I'm really tired of this, because I know those children won't be taking care of me in my old age.
Every person born in the US was once a child, not having children in no way makes you more responsible, it just makes you opting out of a major part of society, which is a fine personal choice but if this was implemented when you were a child you would have benefited the same as anyone else.
Also, other peoples children WILL be taking care of you when you are old ,because they will be the doctors, firefighters, manufacturing line workers, delivery drivers and everyone else that carry out services that you will still need. They will also be contributing to the tax base that provides social services (social security is paid for by the current generations tax revenue not the original contributors', as bad as this is)
If you're having children you can't afford, you are irresponsible. That is simple and easy for anyone to understand. If you then take your irresponsiblity and pay for it with the tax money of responsible people, you're rewarding the irresponsible people and punishing the responsible ones.
The part where I didn't have children I couldn't afford is what makes it particularly galling. I gave up something and they didn't, but I'm punished and they are rewarded.
fine but the tradeoff is you are not getting any benefits or services from people younger than you. deal or no deal?
This is an account for the child once they turn 18. This is not money for the parents.
It appears that it's limited even after 18.
https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i4547Then why don’t you have a child to take care of you in your old age.
We spend almost nothing on children. >50% of the budget is social security, medicare and interest.
Not only should we spend more on children, we should encourage more people to have them. There's no issue more important than this.
I agree that we should be spending more on children, however, I don't think we should be encouraging people to have them. People will have more kids when they feel more secure in their life positions. We should be fixing the social fabric to where people will naturally want to have kids, not encouraging people to have kids when they don't feel like they can.
Well, first of all, this is some kind of grift by the nazi in chief. However your attitude is anathema to a healthy society.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb