I think it is the responsibility of the parents to create a college fund upon birth. Ideally instead of buying toys for my nephew I would like to be able to contribute to his fund, however his parents were not future minded and instead he has three rooms full of toys and he is not yet two.

It is not the responsibility of any government or program to plan for the future of a child. The money might be better invested in free and readily available birth control especially among those that are considered "low income."

Personally I think all it will do is create another entitlement program that would be impossible to take funding away if the program were to be in place. This solution to the low savings rate highlights the big problem within our govt. that politicians think the only way to act to problems is to throw money at it or create a new tax.

An alternative idea I've read about in the book Predictably Irrational(which is a great book to introduce yourself to behavioral economics) is to give employees the option to not just set aside a percentage of their current income for their savings but also a percentage of future increases in income. Experiments have shown this would increase the savings rate to over 12%. The current savings rate is just 5%.

First, my answers are:
1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.

My reasons:
1. It would make more sense to do this when our country isn't hurting financially as it is now. It's money that could be used to help create jobs rather than raise our savings percentage. Once the unemployment rate goes down and people have steady incomes again, it would make more sense to start this up because then more people have the ability to contribute to these savings. I think if it's handled properly, it has the potential to be a worthwhile investment into the American people. But not now. We need jobs more than we need billions of dollars in savings.

2. Absolutely NOT! The majority of my friends and some of my family (all of whom I care deeply about), not to mention myself are considered low-income. I do not collect welfare (though I would qualify at the moment) because I feel so strongly about this. I have seen people take such advantage of the welfare system so that they don't have to go to work that it is pitiful and I refuse to have anything to do with it. I know people that get a job long enough to show prove to their welfare account person and then quit as soon as they are approved every time they have to prove they are working (once a year). Some of these people purposely live off the government. I have NO doubt that they would take advantage of this program too should it be offered to them. If I were to have a baby now, making the tiny amount of money that I make, I wouldn't want my child to receive any more money than anyone else. If this goes through and they start paying people to be born, they better pay everyone equally. If the parents or families want more for their child, then they can put the money in themselves.

3a. Yes I do think that more people will have babies knowing that the birth and assignment of a social security number for their child will come equipped with a $500 trust fund. It gives them a small piece of mind for their child's first year or two as an independent adult. Not a bad thing (when - and ONLY when - our government can afford it and our country's people have jobs to help make that savings grow).

3b. Yes they will. Again, I know of people who claim children they don't have just get more money from the government. I also know people who have children with the state of mind that the government will take care of them. I think that if low-income people think they can benefit from this in any way, they will take advantage of it any way they can. They should NOT get more money than anyone else. I say it again, if this goes through, the amount of trust a person receives should NOT be based on their level of income. EVER.

***A quick disclaimer***
I am considered low-income as we speak, but I do not collect any government assistance. What I've said about low-income families taking advantage of the government is NOT a full-on generalization of ALL low-income families. I tried to be clear in stating that I know *some* and know *of some* who take advantage in such ways. I also know others who do *not* take advantage of the welfare system, but truly are using it as it is intended until they can support themselves again. I feel strongly about the advantages of our welfare system and it burns me to know that people are misusing it.

I'm going to have to say no I don't agree with that. One..where's the money coming from? My wallet is small enough don't have the additional funds to be handing out to other children and not beginning to save for my own, Two..is it going to be regulated by the government that the money is to go to something like college? No it's not as soon as Little Johnny turns 18 hey 500 dollars worth of heroin? New Video games? Things that aren't needed...I feel if a child is in need of a college fund or whatnot it is the families responsibility and if the family isn't wealthy enough to do so there are such things as scholarships and getting a job.

1. Why not? What's so wrong with allowing kids to start out with something regardless of the family they're born into? Kids don't get too many choices, one of which is being born into a low income family. People are so worried that giving something to someone will take away from ourselves that we're bordering on selfishness. I know I'm not having anymore kids, but I'm all for someone else's babies getting an extra $500.

2. No, everyone should get the same amount. If we give more to low income families then we'll be debating whether we should give less to high income families. Then the upper class is getting $10 or nothing and it turns into a welfare program only for low income families.

3. No, people will not have more kids because of a $500 trust fund. It takes way more than that to send a kid to school. Anyone that uses this excuse to have more kids is delusional and doesn't have an intelligent grasp on how money works. The guy that sued Bank of America for $1,784 billion trillion dollars, for example.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america_n_299999.html

I have faith that the average person is smarter than that.

And it isn't always low income people that will try to get over or take advantage of something. Rich people get over quite often actually...