55% of Americans have shares in the stock market...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100615/investing-100-month-stocks-30-years.asp

It's just a poll so it's not entirely accurate. This is honestly more of a stoner thought not really aimed at being the right answer, but more just to get a different kind of discussion going forward. I'm less concerned with being right, and more looking for different ideas that might be feasible to help address the enormous parity in wealth in America.

Our current administration puts a lot of emphasis on the success of the economy around the stock market. This of course doesn't capture the full scope of the economy and it's effects on American citizens.

So what my stoner thought is, what if we mandated a law that said for every newborn citizen, we also put aside $100/month to be invested in the stock market, with the option to opt in more for your child, assuming you have the funds to afford it.

This way, all American born citizens starting from 2021, have a piece of the stock market pie. So the actual rise and fall of the stock market will affect all American born citizens. You could enact legislation to at least get already born Americans a small investment into the stock market via stimulus even. This is of course good for the stock market short term, in that you're pumping billions, if not trillions of dollars of stimulus in investment in it. So short term, stock market = happy. Long term = the success of the stock market will truly benefit all Americans. This way, when politicians tout the success of the stock market, at least every American will get to feel the benefit of it, no matter how marginal.

What I also like about this idea, is that's 18 years of stock market investment that is likely to only accrue in more wealth. So while $100 starting out might not mean much, if parents manage monthly deposits, as the stock market continues to rise over decades, their child will likely have tens of thousands of dollars saved up by the time they hit 18.

Some 401k and 403b allow a person to take money out of their account, assuming of course, they're willing to pay off what they took out in monthly payment plans. The downside of course, is less money in your account, means less invested in the stock market, meaning less returns on your investment. The plus side, is it's your money, and you're not paying an interest rate on your money like say student loan debt. If even an 18 year old only has $20k invested in stocks, at least that's a year of freshman college tuition and living expenses that could be deducted, assuming that student hits hard times. The goal of course, would be to encourage young adults to keep their 401k or 403b nice and fat, so when they hit 65, they're less dependent on things like social security and have more financial freedom entering retirement.

Again, I'm sure there are many cons to this idea I haven't even thought of. I'm not concerned with being right. I'm more interested in reading ideas I haven't really seen suggested by our politicians. Like I would have never known about UBI for instance were it not for Yang. It's a new idea that made the political limelight on a national stage and while, it too, has it's flaws, it at least is a new idea different from what you typically see discussed in American politics. This thread is more along those lines.

 

Man I was really hoping there would be more discussion on this but oh well.

I still like this idea a lot. For one I think it's an easier sell to convince Americans to invest at least $1,200/year per American than $12,000/year through something like UBI.

Secondarily, assuming the stock market never rose, by the time a young adult reaches 18 years of age, they'd have $21,600 at least in their 401k. How much do you think the cost of an Associate's degree at a Community College costs? Can't be more than that right? Plus since the citizen is deducting from their own 401k, they're not paying back what they took in the form of interest like a student loan.

You could enact policy that encourages greater support than $100/month for people that would consider military right out of high school. Trade schools again aren't going to cost greater than $21,600. An early investment in every newborn American would be a solution to these types of financial concerns.

I also look at it as a direct way of being Pro-Life. You're literally investing at least $78,000 over 65 years into every American citizen's 401k. You're investing in newborn life that some day will grow old and die.

You're also ensuring people that live in rural areas where job growth and wages are stagnant, will retire with at least a few hundred thousand saved up in 401k investments. This would afford people who grow too old to work a financial freedom to enjoy a better quality of life towards the end. Even if you're someone who works at McDonalds or Subway for $13/hr and never show any ambition for upward mobility, you will at least have $78,000 over 65 years of 401k investment to fall back on, in addition to a static monthly deposit like Social Security.

I also look at this as a positive for young teenagers and adults that come from broken homes. Even if your parents never invested a dime into you and you're a juvenile delinquent on the path to becoming a career criminal, there is at least an economic inventive to commit less crime at the age of 18, as at least $21,600 of 401k investment is in your name.

Another benefit is when the next recession or depression hits, every American is going to be negatively affected. This is a bad thing economically speaking, but a good thing in that, all American citizens will be incentivized to hold their elected officials accountable to take action in providing economic stimulus (from which everyone would benefit) in a prompt and timely fashion. People start to give a lot more of a **** over government policy when it effects their bottom line. This is just a fact. The pro to this as well, is when the government does provide stimulus to entities like big banks too big to fail like in the 2008 housing crisis, everyone benefits from it, instead of just big banks themselves.

This would also be a means to combat stagnant wages as people's 401ks are affected by the fluctuations of the ebbs and flows of the stock market. It would mean less dependence on Social Security static deposits towards end of life care.

What I personally find humorous about this idea is it is a form of Socialism that directly 100% invests into capitalism. It's a sort of union between Democratic-centric ideas and Republican-centric ideas.

 

More thoughts on this since no one else is saying anything.

Imagine a worse case scenario where someone ends up homeless, drug addicted and never once contributes to the betterment of society. Even that person, if you invested $100/month into them since birth for 65 years, would be passively contributing to the economy. You could set up legislation that prevents homeless who have prior records of DWI or DUI or narcotic possession, from being able to deduct from their 401k until they get clean of their addiction. You can enact legislation to protect people from themselves.

You continue funneling $100/month into their account, knowing that it's only going directly into the economy, until hopefully that same homeless addict, gets clean and finds some financial stability in having a 401k that only continues to climb once they got their life together.

But let's take the worst case scenario. Let's assume a homeless person never gets their life together and lives to 65. That's still $78,000 over 65 years of passive investment into the stock market, that is still contributing to the strength of the economy. So even a worthless human being that never amounts to anything in their life, can still contribute at least a few hundred thousand in passive investment into the stock market, assuming we passed legislation that invested in them, starting at birth.

What if you're someone who is found guilty of 1st degree murder and told to serve a life in prison? Your $100/month until 65 is just added financial restitution to the surviving family of the victim. What if you serve a lesser charge that doesn't involve the death penalty or prison for life? You still collect $100/month that is off limits to you until you're out of jail. If you're in jail for prior DWI or DUI convictions, you still have to pass the same tests other addicts do, in order to have financial access to your 401k.

What is nice about this, is assuming you are a bum who lives to 64 years of age, and finally decides to get your life together, you will have hundreds of thousands invested in the stock market, ready to take out, that will either help someone have financially secure end of life care, or will go right back into the economy by spending it all anyways, which is 100% pure capitalism.

You would just need to enact legislation that protects your more gullible Americans from ceasing to invest in themselves. Meaning you protect predatory lawyers that will offer to take monthly 401k deposits out for a smaller lump sum, as long as they get to take their cut off the top as well. You have to protect your stupidest Americans that don't think long term in investing in themselves and would instead be drawn into more short term monetary gain. Otherwise, a system implemented like this would fail.

What is a pro to something like this though if implemented, is you wouldn't have to worry about inflation. The success of every American's minimum $78,000 401k deposit is all dependent on the success of the stock market. By doing this, concerns like inflation are automatically built in. Bail outs to big banks when the next recession or depression hits, will also directly benefit every American. The strength of the stock market would then have a positive impact on every American. When it does well, we all would do well.

I also think legislation like this would be easier on the palette for your average American. You are saying every American is worth at least $1,200/year investment opposed to something like UBI which would be $12,000/year investment.

Further to encourage employment, you could set up government aid, where, if you work for $11/hr at a food truck that's a small business that doesn't offer 401k benefits, the government would intervene and match at least 1% of your wages per paycheck in investment to your birthright 401k. This way low wage workers can add to their financial long term success, at no penalty to someone living paycheck to paycheck, or a small business not yet financially sustainable enough to offer 401k benefits to their employees.

So short term you're pumping trillions into the economy and giving long term financial investment options to another 45% of Americans, covering all future Americans not yet born, covering young adults from broken families, covering your felons and ex-cons, as well as your homeless.

 

Yea bro. Just think even a homeless bum under a freeway bridge can truly celebrate when Tesla stocks rise as they begin mining precious metals from asteroids in our solar system. When they get their life together, they will get some financial contribution for the passive investment of being alive and born in this great nation.

 

Would be from your taxes. Essentially assures that every American is guaranteed $78,000 over 65 years of living is pumped into the stock market. Can't touch your 401k until you're 18 years old, as a legal adult or if you start working at the age of 16.

If you have prior drug or alcohol convictions, or a criminal record, there are additional stipulations in order to access your 401k invested on you since birth.

 

I guess I think back to the 2008 housing crisis and how hundreds of billions of dollars went to bail out the auto industry, the airport industry and the housing industry. All shareholders in the stock market invested in these particular economies got some relief from it, while most Americans, at least 45% who don't own any stock, just covered through tax dollars, other investor's relief. I don't think that's particularly fair.

This at least ensures that all Americans, including your homeless, benefit from a big government bail out like the 2008 crisis or your next trillion dollar tax cuts to the rich.

To your points though, I still think you bring up solid arguments. Like I said in the original post, I am 100% certain that this idea has it's negative consequences to it. We should also discuss those too, leaving no known blind spots unchecked. I really am less concerned with being right on this, so much as I would like to discuss ideas I don't hear politicians bring up, that could feasibly be implemented to the benefit of all Americans.

I mostly got this idea as a combination from family members who say they are pro-life and politicians that point to the success of the stock market as a barometer for the strength of the economy. I am quantifiably saying every American life is worth at least $78,000 over 65 years invested into a 401k. I am asserting that this is literally pro-life legislation. I am also asserting that giving every American a piece of the stock market pie, means politicians are at least a little more honest when they reference it to determine the strength of the economy.