New Bill in the works!

Grand Junction, Colorado
March 2, 2007 12:56pm CST
I just read an article about a new bill trying to be passed, where in a savings account would be started for every baby born in the State of California in the amount of $500, regardless of citizenship. The $500 would be paid back at the age of 18 yrs old from the account but all interest would be kept for the child. Here is the link to read further information:http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=25003 I'm wondering what your views are on this? I'm looking for views from around the world not just those of California? If this passes in California it wouldn't be long before the rest of the country follows suit, please give detail explanation on your views? Personally I think that we have other issues that should be addressed first. I also don't think that this should be for non-citizen's, this country spends enough money on illegal immigrant status here in the US. We shouldn't be encouraging illegal immigration by rewarding those with accounts for their new arrivals. What stops them (illegals)from coming here to have their baby to get this account set up? Nothing!!! As always this is just my 2 cents worth.
11 people like this
26 responses
@lauriefnp (5112)
• United States
3 Mar 07
I think that this is ridiculous, and I hope that it gets shot down and buried before the rest of the country considers it. First, the immigration issue: I know that according to our Constitution any child born on U.S. soil is an American citizen, but these illegals are flocking to America in order to capitalize on that in the first place. If the bill were to proceed, it should be written into the bill that children of illegal parents are excluded. If they are to be included, then the parents should be mandated to learn the English language, be gainfully employed, and become American citizens themselves within a specified amount of time. If they fail to do this, then the money should be forfeited. As for the rest of the state's babies: Why is it that the parents are not being the ones who are responsible for saving for their children's future? Why should the government hand out this money as a "prize" for having children? There are enough benefits that the taxpayers pay for as children grow up and even go to college (especially in the State of California). Now they want to add yet another source of free money for people? What happened to working and saving money for your children's education and future? As an upper middle class taxpayer, I resent hearing these types of things, when 1/3 of what I earn is already going to taxes. How much more can WE afford to give?
5 people like this
• United States
2 Mar 07
Sorry I don't like it and my reason that it is too general. People with high incomes dont need the money, illegals would be having a field day because their children born here are automatically US citizens, there are too many other more important things that $300 million can be spent on. When will the government stop spending our tax dollars on more freebies. Do they really expect to get that money back in 18years? I dont think that there will be much interest for the children to keep as it will be spent as soon as some of their parents get hold of it.
4 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
This is simply like another social security failure. The idea will work at first. Then they will find that in 18 years when people start withdrawing the money that they won't have enough money to pay for it. I highly doubt it will pass for that matter alone. The amount of money paid out in 18 years would be outrageous. Not to mention it wouldn't really be worth it for the citizes. $500 over 18 years at 4.5% interest gives you a total of $1122.25. That's not highly worth it since after you pay the $500 back they have to pay you $622.25. I'm not sure what they expect you to get with that in 18 years from now.
3 people like this
@lisado (1230)
• United States
3 Mar 07
I think that they are hoping that parents add to this amount so that the amount of interest earned would be higher, since most savings accounts want at least $500 to get a higher interest rate, so the more money in the account the more you can earn. I think that is what they are HOPING will happen, but I seriously don't see it.
2 people like this
@limitup (324)
• United States
4 Mar 07
I am disturbed by the number of people that believe in the premise that it is the government's responsibilty to allocate any of our investments. The problem of financial ignorance cannot be solved with a bounty. It teaches no responsibility and is just a hand out. Legal or illegal, government needs to stop distributing our money as they see fit. Our government needs to focus instead on making our tax dollars go farther by spending more efficiently. Generally the more our government stays out of our lives and our pockets the better.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Mar 07
Hi Limitup, I certainly agree with your statement about government staying out of our lives & pockets. However, government today doesn't seem to know how to stay out of either. If such a scheme is implemented as a hand-out, then shame on them, and shame on us for allowing it. If the scheme is designed to profit share with the taxpayer, and it takes the taxpayers money out of the general fund, where it would surely have been spend anyway, then I think it's due some consideration. California needs to formulate ideas to improve its credit rating. And, so long as no new taxation is demanded to fund such a scheme, then diverting funds away from the spend crazy legislature to an outside entity where it will earn dividends isn't such a bad idea. Given the fact that the CA legislature is overrun with those who favor wealth redistribution, this may be a worthwhile compromise, if it's implemented as a profit sharing plan. Any thoughts?
2 people like this
@limitup (324)
• United States
4 Mar 07
Good points. Yes, you are absolutely right. Our goverment in general, and especially California, cannot stop spending and allocating our money. And you are right again with "shame on us". We support them by electing them and letting them get away with it. Many of us voters have been wrongly taught to believe that it is government's job to spend money like this. I like your ideas but would even take it a step further. I think we should not only not raise taxes to have this plan, but we should make our spending more efficient so that they can lower the taxes as much as we can. I say forget about any plan at all. We should get to the root of the whole flawed premise of legislating any investment for the greater good. Investment is best layed in the hands of private enterprise. But as you say, in this instance with the CA legislature the way it is, you are right. It may be a worthwhile compromise. I suspect though that in the long run, with CA's track record, its good intentions will manifest into something even worse. It will likely generate more legislation, more incompetent bureaucracies, bog down the procees even more, and eventually wind up costing Californians more. I think the whole premise is a mistake.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Mar 07
Hi Limitup, I dare so that you're right about government mucking up the waters. Gov't, with its red tape is just too large, and cumbersome to be adaptable and timely.
2 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
I think that's a very good idea. That would give the child a good start in life. They could use it for school or a car or something they need. It would also give them a chance to learn responsibility since they do have to pay the $500 back when they are 18 years old. I think all US states should do this not just California. Sure we have other issues that need to be addressed first. However this would prevent many kids from not being in debt and learning how to save money. It would help the US children a lot. If you were born in this country you are already a citizen. So, I don't think it can pertain to non citizens. The country does spend enough on illegal immigration, but they deserve a chance at life too. I don't think they should make this too public since many people who are not citizens and are pregnant may try to get into the state before the baby is born. You can't really blame them though. They just want a better life for their children.
2 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
How would this teach kids to save money? They wouldn't be saving at all. It would be in an account that they can't touch until they are 18. Then nothing says that they cant' take the money out and go buy 2 Ipods. This is basically just free money for everyone. Why not instead of doing this just when a person turns 18 give them a $500 tax credit. Same thing accomplished. There are thousands of better ways to do this besides an account where the money can go towards anything. Now, if it were maybe a $1000 college scholarship when they graduate high school, then that would be even better. The current idea does nothing to teach responsibility, savings, etc.
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Mar 07
Hi Jediskipdog, One thing that it would accomplish is to divert money from the state's 'general fund'. If it's tied up in a financial institution, the legislators can't spend it. Granted, I only support the concept in theory, and only if the current taxpayer sees some type of return on the money in the future. In other words, enact it only if there is an interest split. Any such scheme would have to be very clearly defined, and include restrictions, and guidelines.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Mar 07
i think its a good idea in theroy...yah know giving kids a starting chance of sorts but it really needs to be refined. I am also wondering what happens if the kid does not reach age 18....would the parents be able to collect on it? I know that sounds morbid but could you image how much higher infantcide might be if that was the case? People who super deperate for money could come here, have the baby, off the baby and not report it to anyone...But i think it just needs to be rethought.
2 people like this
@nelltx (277)
• United States
6 Mar 07
Instead of starting savings accounts, they should pour that money into the educational system, or border security. I am sure that there are a hundred different ways that money could be used to help people. This just goes to show you why California is known as the "land of fruits & nuts!"
• United States
6 Mar 07
I think it sounds like a great idea in theory. I also think in the real world it would take an awful lot of money to do this. I also agree with you that it should be kept to citizens only.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Mar 07
Hello All, I thought it would be helpful to clarify a couple of things. The 14th Amendment reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdication thereof, are citizens ..." The subsequent verbiage defines the apportionment for representation and exclusions, including an exclusion of non-taxed Indians and an exclusion of those with "... participation in rebellion, or other crime, ...". Naturalization is a process, whereby an immigrant participates in the required steps necessary to attain citizenship. My question: Is a child born of illegal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of the parents or the U.S. Government? The slippery slope: If you say that the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the gov't, then the Gov't can seize the child, and deport the parents (since the parents committed a crime). It's unfathomable that any reasonable person would want to see families torn apart by gov't intervention. When one looks at it from this perspective it's seems that a further re-definition of "citizenship" is long overdue. I just thought it would be helpful to point out that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship carte blanché. Criminality is an exclusion, and although it's not the child's crime, the cost of punishing the criminals and not the innocent is far too great a price to pay. So, the question really is: are we willing to overlook any crime, and allow anyone to benefit from U.S. citizenship? Of course not! I believe that the logical and humane solution is to redefine citizenship to include only those infants born of current citizens, or immigrants who have engaged the naturalization process. I hope this is helpful, especially in light of the fact that Mylot participants are from all over the globe, and may not know the wording of our governing documents.
2 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
Well, that sucks for me, lol...I just moved from Cali, and I would not benefit, unless they did do that in the rest of the States...But, I have to agree with you emphatically, we do have far more important things going on, that need money, and bills passed. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are what are making our U.S. population increase (and I am saying this OBJECTIVELY, not judgementally), because a population study was done, that showed that the U.S., among many other nations, such as Germany and Italy, have declining populations, and ours, is declining, even with the added population growth from the birth of illegal immigrants. So, what I mean, is that all that money could be saved for other things, because the money would be going only to illegal immigrants, and it would encourage them to have more children (who, tend to live mostly off the system (this is objectively again)). I wish, that all that money could go to providing all of us Americans healthcare costs, instead of us having to pay hundreds of dollars to pay for our healthcare providers. You know, I hope it does not get passed, I hope that something else, something better gets passed, because this is a disappointment, it really is.
2 people like this
@lisado (1230)
• United States
3 Mar 07
That is the craziest thing I have ever heard!! People will have their babies there and leave, just to get the money! Or come in from Mexico and have their babies here, since even illegal residents get the money. I think it's a good way to break the bank. It's a good idea, sort of, just poorly thought out, but I have no idea how they will keep track of all of those accounts to get the money back. All I see is serious abuse issues. I don't see how they can keep track of this and keep it from getting abused.
2 people like this
@simesc (248)
3 Mar 07
We have the same scheme in the UK - the government gives evry baby about $500 and for poorer families about $1000. It is a good incentive for families to save for their childrens future. For me - I know that when I reached 18 I did not have any money and had to struggle for everything. I am hoping that when my son is 18 he will have a nice amount of money and it will help him for his future
• United States
3 Mar 07
I think this is ridiculous just where is this money going to come from ??The taxpayers I for one am sick of paying taxes to be used for such stupid things whilst the country is going futher and further in debt !
2 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
i don't even understand the reasoning for this...500 dollars does not make crap for interest even in 18 years...at best it may double, but i doubt it..
2 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
The taxpayers will pay for this. Do you know how many babies are born every year in Cali? Many people when they reach 18 years of age, do not know how to spend money wisely. So if it is to give them a fresh start to helping them start their own lives, for some it will work and some it won't. Nevertheless, the taxpayers will pay for this.
2 people like this
@Lakota12 (42684)
• United States
3 Mar 07
I agree with you this is a dumb bill.I get so tired of footing the bill for these people and why should they get $500 in bank to have a kid I hope this bill gets killed there so other startes dont try it
2 people like this
@yanjiaren (9050)
2 Mar 07
For legitimate citizens i think it is a good idea as many parents have not the means to save for their kids. They have introduced something similar in the u.k Sad my son was born just a few years earlier lol. A lot of underprivilaged kids will be able to have a start when they are older.
2 people like this
• United States
2 Mar 07
I think it just another way for California to spend the money they don't have. I lived there for a few years and never saw such a messed up state. It is ridiculous that they are dealing with this and nothing to with legal citizens. I am just glad that we left.
2 people like this
@kgwat70 (13396)
• United States
3 Mar 07
I think this is great that they are doing something to help provide for our young to make sure they have something to start off with to help them get started in life and when they get older. Hopefully the interest they receive will generate a decent amount of income til they are able to start working. I agree that this should only apply to US citizens only and not for the illegal immigrants. Yes, we do have many other issues that need to be addressed like healthcare but at least something is being done to help our children.
• United States
3 Mar 07
The problem is they would only get $622 when they turn 18. That's nothing. Secondly, there is NO SUCH THING as an illegal imigrant newborn in the United States. If you are born here, you are a naturalized citizen automatically. Lastly, the government shouldn't be helping people get started financially. It's really not that hard to do. If illegals can come to the US and live here financially stable and still send 50% of their money home, then why can't Americans do that to begin with.
3 people like this
• United States
3 Mar 07
I think it's a good idea. Parents should really save up a little for their kid's future. I do it anyway. I don't think illegal immigrants can open up bank accounts anyway, they need a social security number right?
@lisado (1230)
• United States
3 Mar 07
Right, but their children are automatically legal, so they would get the money. Parents should be responsible for their own children. Both of my boys have their own savings accounts with money going into them every payday. $5 doesn't sound like a lot, twice a month per child, but it adds up, as does the interest. Plus any birthday money they get goes into them. Our oldest is Autisitic, so he doesn't notice the money and our youngest is only 10 months, so to young to care. When he gets older we'll let him spend his birthday money from relatives but for right now it is banked. Parents want the government to butt out when it comes to raising their kids but they want free money for them? How is that teaching kids anything? I had to earn my own money and pay for my own car and "extras" that I wanted, so I learned early to budget and save. Lots of kids don't, especially if they are given money just because.
1 person likes this