SHAMELESS BRANDING ASIDE, “Trump Accounts,” the new program that gives every baby in America access to some savings, is generally benign, and maybe even useful. But Donald Trump being Donald Trump, he can’t help but taint an otherwise inoffensive concept with a bit of good old-fashioned corruption. Or at least, corruption-adjacent activity.

In this case, our president is helping rich donors offload overvalued stocks onto children, who are forced to hold the stocks for five years whether they want to or not.

There’s a host of reasons why this could prove problematic. But before we get to that, it’s worth explaining what Trump Accounts are and what they’re supposed to do.

Last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” created a new category of tax-deferred savings accounts that would be available to every child in America. For newborns at least, the federal government would seed those accounts with an initial $1,000. Versions of this proposal had been kicking around D.C. for some time, usually called something like “child saving accounts” or “baby bonds.”

When our Eponym-in-Chief decided to slap his own name on the program, that of course polarized some Dems against it. But the basic concept has carried bipartisan support in the past, finding champions in lawmakers as far apart as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

The bleeding-heart left generally likes the idea of “baby bonds” because they make it possible for even the poorest kids to have a little bit of savings, which those kids could draw on in adulthood to buy a house, pay tuition, or fund whatever other purposes their richer counterparts might use a regular individual retirement account for.

“The idea was to add wealth to the social contract,” explained Ray Boshara, a senior policy adviser at the Aspen Institute. “Wealth is as important as income for resilience and economic mobility."

Meanwhile, the rock-ribbed right liked that the accounts were universal—that is, not specifically targeted to poor moochers and takers, and instead available to everyone. Republicans have also argued that giving children a taste of the stock market might make them more financially literate and pro-business—and, crucially, more hostile to lefty ideas like corporate tax hikes.

“We are creating a whole new generation of capitalists,” Cruz declared during an Oval Office event this week celebrating the Trump Accounts rollout. Trump likewise said that his namesake program would keep impressionable young tots from falling for “communism.”

Long excerpt, but I had to get to the nut graf.

  • TehPers ( TehPers@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Here’s where it discusses how to abuse it:

    Now, instead of giving cash, donors can give shares of individual stocks, so long as they give the stock grants to groups of at least 5,000 kids in a given age group and geographic area. Moreover, the recipients cannot refuse the gift.

    …

    I can understand why this arrangement might be attractive to donors. The best time for an executive to offload stock is when they think it’s overvalued, and may soon drop. Their “donation” can therefore net them a big tax writeoff for a gift that may soon not be worth very much.

    And in this case, the gift recipient is a captive audience, which may help set a sort of price floor on a falling stock. After all, some portion of the company’s shares can’t get dumped for a while, no matter how crappy the stock looks.

    Basically you have a ton of overvalued (AI?) shares that you’re going to get a loss on. You donate them to a bunch of people who don’t want it but aren’t allowed to refuse. You get a write-off for donating a large gift, which lowers your tax rather than selling which increases it. The recipients aren’t allowed to sell (if they even know how), which raises the price floor for the stock.

    Also, article mentions that this is likely illegal, but so is basically everything else this admin has done, so yeah.

  • unmagical ( unmagical@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Meanwhile, the rock-ribbed right liked that the accounts were universal—that is, not specifically targeted to poor moochers and takers, and instead available to everyone.

    I don’t think it being universal is a draw for the right. That’s far more a leftist trait than the bootstrap crowd. Just ask then about public education or healthcare or housing or income.