Photo by kristina_88
Once we can scrape enough money together, my husband and I have agreed to open and vigorously contribute to retirement IRAs for both our kids. Not a college fund or savings account, but retirement accounts.
We reached this decision after looking at our own meager retirement savings and thought about how much more robust it would be if our own parents had started them when we were babies. Even just a little something every month.
Needless to say, with an estimated 60 years of compounding on our side, we'd be living a completely different lifestyle right now, not having scrimp and save every step of the way and not wondering if we're going to have to work till 80 to pull it off.
Some moms. Not all think this is a great idea at all.
Here are the two general schools of thought:
TAzIzAsIzA: "The government does have a vested interest in the welfare of its citizens. This would be a great way to make/help children and families plan for their futures. The birth of a new child is costly. If this was more like a savings bond deal that won't mature until the age of 18, which works for the government, banks, and the child, I think it's a great idea. America has some of the best and most expensive universities in the world. Many citizens cannot afford to attend, and those who get loans are stuck in debt. Maybe this can help because Americans need more education and more ways to access it."
lbranta: "Parents have been starting accounts and saving for our children for years. No one gave us a start on our childrens' savings and we have survived it, so why should we be paying to start one for other peoples' children? Why now? Are the kids born today more deserving than those in past years? I don't think so. We have enough issues concerning where we need to be putting our tax dollars than to create more expenses. It's the parents' job to do this for their children, NOT the taxpayers."
Which side of the fence are you on? Would you like the government to give your new baby $500?