Assume that happens, and that no effective countermeasures are derived. How are poor families worse off for having the option in the first place? It's not like Booker is proposing to take the money from some other service offered to the poor: Booker proposed paying for it by increasing taxes on capital gains, which poor people weren't paying to begin with.
Who do you think would be more likely, and more in need, to raid their children's trust funds? This would be yet another program where the poor don't get what was promised to them and the rich do just fine. Rich kids would get their $250k, and poor kids would find out exactly how their parents were able to pay the rent the whole time they were growing up.
If you want to help poor kids you need to make sure nobody else can take the money you give them, even though everyone around them has a very strong incentive to take that money. Otherwise you aren’t actually helping who you intend to help.
Even the worst case you’re describing sounds like a win to me, relative to the present. If gaming the system looks like “the child doesn’t have to worry about stable housing while growing up”, that seems like an upside.
But I’d caution against the idea that lower-income parents are so predisposed to both gaming the system and stealing money from their children, which seems like an unintentional undertone of your comment.
> If gaming the system looks like “the child doesn’t have to worry about stable housing while growing up”, that seems like an upside.
To be clear, you are talking about children's trust funds being raided as a good outcome.
How would you feel if that violation of your rights happened to you, and it didn't happen to other children, and then some adult told you that it was ok that it happened?
Probably about the same as I’d feel if I had no chance of affording college because my family was below the poverty line and I spent my teenage years working part time to help pay the rent, all the while knowing that other children lived lives of relative luxury.
Your answer ignores the hypothetical trust fund you were supposed to get, which would be enough to pay for college (if your parents hadn’t stolen the money from it).
This is actually a pretty good example of how bad it would be if parents raided their children’s trust funds, which is something that would definitely happen. Kids who had their money stolen wouldn’t be able to go to college.
It’s worth restating that I don’t agree that a significant percentage of lower income families would raid their child’s trust funds. I think that perpetuates an inaccurate stereotype that people with lower income are somehow more inclined to unethical behavior, or more willing to steal from their own children.
But I directly addressed the impact of both the hypothetical trust fund and the hypothetical theft: if my hypothetical parents stole my shiny trust fund money to pay rent, I’d not need to spend my own part time earnings on it, and all of us would be way more likely to be able to set aside money for college, what with us not having to use our incomes for rent.
> and all of us would be way more likely to be able to set aside money for college, what with us not having to use our incomes for rent.
Savings from a child's part-time job would not come anywhere close to the hypothetical $250k proposed for the trust fund. This is a completely unconvincing argument. And you are still defending theft rather than condemning it!
Do you honestly believe it is acceptable for parents to steal money from their children? If not, why are you arguing that children should work to make up for the stolen money?
