logo
The pros and cons of a $1,000 baby bonus in 'Trump Accounts,' according to experts

The pros and cons of a $1,000 baby bonus in 'Trump Accounts,' according to experts

CNBCa day ago

President Donald Trump's proposal for a new savings account for children with a one-time deposit of $1,000 from the federal government just got an important stamp of approval.
At the "Invest America" roundtable at the White House this week, several top CEOs, including Michael Dell and Goldman Sachs chief David Solomon, expressed support for "Trump Accounts," which are part of the landmark Republican-backed "big beautiful bill" moving through Congress. The executives committed to contributing to the accounts of their employees' children, and, in Dell's case, matching the government's seed money "dollar for dollar."
Still, policy experts and financial advisors question whether the provision is the most effective way to save on behalf of your child.
Under the House measure, Trump Accounts — previously known as "Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement" or "MAGA Accounts" — can later be used for education expenses or credentials, the down payment on a first home or as capital to start a small business. Earnings grow tax-deferred, and qualified withdrawals are taxed at the long-term capital-gains rate.
More from Personal Finance:Trump's 'big beautiful' bill could curb low-income tax creditWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill means for investorsWhat's happening with unemployed Americans — in 5 charts
Trump's massive tax and spending bill still faces a battle in the Senate, but if it passes as drafted, parents and others will be able to contribute up to $5,000 a year to a child's Trump Account. The balance would be invested in a diversified fund that tracks a U.S.-stock index.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who spearheaded the effort, told CNBC in May that the accounts give children "the ability to accumulate wealth, which is transformational."
"This will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning," the White House also said in a statement Monday.
Some experts say the biggest benefit of Trump Accounts is the seed money for all children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Jan. 1, 2029, funded by the Department of the Treasury.
There are no income requirements. To be eligible, the child must be a U.S. citizen and both parents must have Social Security numbers.
Although some states, including Connecticut and Colorado, already offer a type of "baby bonds" program for parents, Trump Accounts — along with a bigger child tax credit proposed in the budget bill and potential employer-sponsored matching funds — "could certainly help a lot of families at a lot of different income levels," Sam Taube, NerdWallet's lead investing writer, recently told CNBC.
Invested in a broad equity index fund for 20 years, a $1,000 government grant for newborns could grow to an average $8,000, according to a March report from the Milken Institute. "If the policy also permitted a tax-deductible match by employers of the children's parents, such initial matches would double an account's value," researchers wrote.
Depositing $1,000 into an account "is a good idea, but with a critically important caveat," said Mark Higgins, senior vice president at Index Fund Advisors and author of "Investing in U.S. Financial History: Understanding the Past to Forecast the Future."
With Trump Accounts, "the costs are the key," he said: "If it keeps adding to the deficit, it is not sustainable." (By some accounts, the program could cost more than $3 billion a year.)
"The biggest challenge for this country right now is that we have lived beyond our means," he said. "Over the last 230 years, Congress has passed countless programs like this, which provide short-term benefits that are almost invariably dwarfed by the long-term costs."
Universal savings accounts, which allow for more flexibility, would be a better proposal than the House provision, said Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a public policy think tank.
Universal savings accounts have had bipartisan support going back as far as the Clinton administration, and without the initial deposit, would come a much lower cost. They have also been successfully implemented in other countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, according to the Tax Foundation.
Further, Trump Accounts are "overly restricted and needlessly complex," Michel said. "A simpler system is a better way to get people to save."
With a universal savings account, individuals could contribute up to $10,000 of after-tax income a year and withdraw the funds tax-free at any time for any purpose, according to Michel.
"It's the flexibility that entices people," he said. "Maybe you want to use that money to start or expand a business or buy a house or an investment property — let people choose what's best for their lives."
Another alternative is a tapping 529 college savings plan, which nearly every state offers.
These 529 plans have much higher contribution limits, earnings grow on a tax-advantaged basis, and when a child withdraws the money, it is tax-free if the funds are used for qualified education expenses. This year, individuals can gift up to $19,000 to a 529, or up to $38,000 if you're married and file taxes jointly, per child without those contributions counting toward your lifetime gift tax exemption.
Although there are more limitations on what 529 funds can be applied to compared to Trump Accounts, restrictions have loosened in recent years to include continuing education classes, apprenticeship programs and student loan payments.
"For most parents, like myself with teens, the 529 college savings plan is superior if you're focused on paying for higher education because of the federal tax-free growth," Winnie Sun, co-founder and managing director of Sun Group Wealth Partners, based in Irvine, California, recently told CNBC.
"Also, now, the 529 is becoming more flexible with its' ability to have unused funds rolled into a Roth IRA in the future for retirement," said Sun, a member of CNBC's Financial Advisor Council.
As of 2024, families can roll over unused 529 funds to the account beneficiary's Roth individual retirement account, without triggering income taxes or penalties, so long as they meet certain requirements.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

5 Takeaways From the Democrats' Final N.Y.C. Mayoral Debate
5 Takeaways From the Democrats' Final N.Y.C. Mayoral Debate

New York Times

time5 minutes ago

  • New York Times

5 Takeaways From the Democrats' Final N.Y.C. Mayoral Debate

In the final Democratic debate in the primary for mayor of New York City, seven leading candidates sparred over immigration, affordability and President Trump's policies. But more often, the debate on Thursday devolved into sharp personal attacks. The most pointed exchanges involved Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani, the two front-runners in polls. Mr. Cuomo pummeled Mr. Mamdani, arguing that his inexperience was dangerous. Mr. Mamdani criticized the former governor as out-of-touch and beholden to the same special interests that support Mr. Trump. Other candidates often entered the fray. Brad Lander, the city comptroller, drew attention to Mr. Cuomo's handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and the sexual harassment allegations that led to his resignation as governor in 2021. The debate was the candidates' best and possibly last chance to grab attention ahead of the start of early voting on Saturday. The primary will be held June 24. Here are five takeaways from the debate. Ganging up on Cuomo Mr. Cuomo is still clearly viewed as the front-runner based on the attacks he faced from his rivals. Several of the candidates mentioned the sexual harassment allegations, which he denied. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Republicans in Congress Grill Democratic Governors on Immigration
Republicans in Congress Grill Democratic Governors on Immigration

New York Times

time9 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Republicans in Congress Grill Democratic Governors on Immigration

Congressional Republicans on Thursday questioned and criticized three Democratic governors on their states' immigration policies, amplifying national tensions set off by President Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts and his military deployments to California as anti-deportation protests spread across the country. The acrimony was evident throughout an eight-hour hearing, held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. All three governors — Tim Walz of Minnesota, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York — used part of their testimony to condemn the Trump administration for deploying troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of the city's mayor, Karen Bass, and California's governor, Gavin Newsom. 'As we speak, an American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,' Ms. Hochul said in her opening statement. 'At the outset, I just want to say that this is a clear abuse of power and nothing short of an extraordinary assault on our American values.' Throughout the contentious hearing, Republican lawmakers focused intently on undocumented immigrants whom the authorities have accused of violent crimes, extrapolating from individual cases to frame the immigration debate as being about lawlessness and criminality. They tried to needle the governors over policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration agencies or protect undocumented immigrants against detention or deportation. 'Let me be clear: Sanctuary policies don't protect Americans,' said Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, the committee's chairman. 'They protect criminal illegal aliens.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Analysis: Trump didn't want Israel to strike Iran. They did it anyway
Analysis: Trump didn't want Israel to strike Iran. They did it anyway

CNN

time10 minutes ago

  • CNN

Analysis: Trump didn't want Israel to strike Iran. They did it anyway

In the hours before Israeli warplanes carried out an attack on Iran early Friday, raising fresh fears of all-out war in the region, President Donald Trump made clear it was an outcome he hoped to avoid. 'I don't want them going in because, I mean, that would blow it,' he said, referring to his diplomatic efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The fact Israel went in anyway – without any US involvement, and against the president's publicly stated wishes – now thrusts Trump into one of the biggest tests of his young presidency. By his own telling, the strikes risk scuttling his attempts at diplomacy with Tehran, even as his top envoy was preparing to depart for Oman for another round of talks this weekend. It casts a pall over his already tense relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he has sharply disagreed for months and whom he urged as recently as this week to hold off on a strike. And it presents him another global conflict without any easy resolution, this one with tens of thousands of US troops potentially caught in the regional crossfire. Trump will now find himself caught between competing crosscurrents from within his own party. Many Republicans were quick to offer their support to Israel on Thursday, including Sen. Lindsey Graham – a longtime Iran hawk – who wrote on X: 'Game on.' Yet Trump has never quite adopted that strain of his party's foreign policy, particularly in his second term. His administration is stacked with officials, starting with his vice president, who take a deeply skeptical view of US military involvement abroad without express American interests on the line. Trump offered no signals in the immediate aftermath of the attacks that he was prepared to use American military assets to help defend Israel from expected Iranian reprisal, as his predecessor Joe Biden did when Israel and Iran exchanged fire last year. Without American assistance, Israel's air defenses could be unable to withstand a major Iranian onslaught. The focus of public messaging from the US administration was instead on protecting American personnel in the Middle East, and warning Iran not to drag the US into the fray. Still, for all the complicated dynamics for Trump to now sort through, the attack hardly came as a surprise to the president and his team. Even as he was speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president and his aides were aware the strikes were likely coming soon, sources said, despite Trump's repeated attempts at urging Netanyahu to hold off. As the strikes were getting underway, Trump was appearing on the South Lawn at a congressional picnic. He returned to the West Wing afterward to huddle with top officials, according to a White House official and other sources. Afterward, a terse statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to put distance between the US and any role in the attack. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' read the statement, which was distributed by the White House. 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners,' Rubio continue. 'Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' Devoid of even boilerplate language offering support for Israel and its defense, the statement made clear: this would be Israel's conflict, not Trump's.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store