“The operation was the latest in a long line of workplace raids conducted as part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda. But the one on Thursday is especially distinct because of its large size and the fact that state officials have
“Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn.
The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints.
The seed money is a boon for recipients and will grow tax-deferred. Financial planners say parents and guardians might do better putting their money into existing investment vehicles such as a 529 plan, a savings plan designed to cover college expenses. But 529s are limited to education, while backers say the new accounts can help their recipients beyond college.
Republican lawmakers call the accounts “Trump accounts,” though the Senate’s plan to officially name them after the president did not make it to the final version of the legislation, which was signed Friday. They deliver on an idea that both Democrats and Republicans have floated for years: to invest money for all children at birth.
Withdrawals from a 529 are not subject to state or federal taxes as long as the funds go toward qualified education expenses – a feature the new investment accounts don’t share. And in the new accounts, parents’ deposits don’t qualify for a tax deduction, notes Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University. “You have this very slight or minimal-to-nonexistent tax benefit,” he said. “What is the point here?”
Financial adviser Amy Spalding of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said she will continue to steer her clients to 529s. “It’s better from a tax standpoint,” Spalding said. “And there are more investment options. And then there’s a higher contribution limit.” (For 2025, a single person can deposit as much as $19,000 a year into a beneficiary’s 529, while married couples can contribute as much $38,000.)
…
withdrawals will be taxed at typical income rates, not at the capital gains rate of a taxable brokerage account. “For most people, this is going to be worse than what they could do in a taxable account,” he said.
…
The law requires the new investment accounts to track a U.S. stock index
…
“If you’re saying, ‘Okay, I’m going to start school in the fall’ – if the market falls over the summer, the planning you were doing about how you were going to pay for college is totally messed up, because the money you thought would be there, isn’t.”
…
account holders cannot touch the funds until they turn 18. After that, the rules are the same as those of an individual retirement account – withdrawals are taxed like income, plus an additional 10 percent tax penalty on any withdrawals before age 59½ except for certain qualified uses.
Those uses include paying for college, supporting themselves if they become disabled, or recovering from domestic abuse or a natural disaster. Beneficiaries also can withdraw as much as $10,000 to buy their first home, and up to $5,000 when they have a new baby themselves.
…
Even one of the Trump accounts’ biggest proponents in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), said in an interview that for many parents, the new account design offers more benefits for retirement than for college expenses.”
To take advantage of the exponential investment curve, people need to start investing as early as possible! If you wait too late, it will be much more difficult to retire comfortably, if not impossible. Because lots of people will fail to invest early, this makes Social Security incredibly important.
Is the finance industry helping the economy, or just putting a lot of human and regular capital into moving money around in ways that make money for people with money but not actually investing in things that make everyone better off?
“In the US, basic science research, studying how the world works for the sake of expanding knowledge, is mostly funded by the federal government. The NIH funds the vast majority of biomedical research, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) funds other sciences, like astrophysics, geology, and genetics. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) also funds some biomedical research, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funds technology development for the military, some of which finds uses in the civilian world, like the internet.
The grant application system worked well a few decades ago, when over half of submitted grants were funded. But today, we have more scientists — especially young ones — and less money, once inflation is taken into account. Getting a grant is harder than ever, scientists I spoke with said. What ends up happening is that principal investigators are forced to spend more of their time writing grant applications — which often take dozens of hours each — than actually doing the science they were trained for. Because funding is so competitive, applicants increasingly have to twist their research proposals to align with whoever will give them money. A lab interested in studying how cells communicate with each other, for example, may spin it as a study of cancer, heart disease, or depression to convince the NIH that its project is worth funding.
Federal agencies generally fund specific projects, and require scientists to provide regular progress updates. Some of the best science happens when experiments lead researchers in unexpected directions, but grantees generally need to stick with the specific aims listed in their application or risk having their funding taken away — even if the first few days of an experiment suggest things won’t go as planned.
This system leaves principal investigators constantly scrambling to plug holes in their patchwork of funding. In her first year as a tenure-track professor, Jennifer Garrison, now a reproductive longevity researcher at the Buck Institute, applied for 45 grants to get her lab off the ground. “I’m so highly trained and specialized,” she told me. “The fact that I spend the majority of my time on administrative paperwork is ridiculous.””
…
“The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has a funding model worth replicating. It is driven by a “people, not projects” philosophy, granting scientists many years worth of money, without tying them down to specific projects. Grantees continue working at their home institution, but they — along with their postdocs — become employees of HHMI, which pays their salary and benefits.
HHMI reportedly provides enough funding to operate a small- to medium-sized lab without requiring any extra grants. The idea is that if investigators are simply given enough money to do their jobs, they can redirect all their wasted grant application time toward actually doing science. It’s no coincidence that over 30 HHMI-funded scientists have won Nobel Prizes in the past 50 years.”
“Many other developed countries with established pharmaceutical industries such as Japan, Canada, and the UK have implemented or are working to roll out their own incentives to spur antibiotic development. The Pasteur Act dwarfs these. This could potentially drive pharmaceutical companies to flock to the US market to make drugs deemed important there and not in other places.
“The size of the Pasteur Act is going to be so large that it ultimately draws developers to only focusing on the United States, only developing the drug so that it can be used appropriately in the United States, and only registering the drug in the United States, because that’s ultimately going to be sufficient revenue and incentive for what otherwise is not a very profitable market,” explained Rohit Malpani, a senior policy advisor at the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, or GARDP.
Cirz added that with a steady influx of Pasteur Act funds, pharmaceutical companies may be less interested in investing additional funds to figure out ways to manufacture their antibiotics more cheaply. Usually companies would continue investing so they can increase their profit margins by lowering manufacturing costs, but if profit margins are set by the US government, then there’s less incentive to make an approved drug cheaper, when it can divert attention to making even more drugs. Without that innovation for affordable production, the act may unintentionally prohibit developing countries such as India from being able to independently manufacture the drug.
Finally, while Americans with federal health insurance plans are guaranteed access to antimicrobials that receive support from the act, the proposed legislation does not provide any stipulations or guidance for ensuring global access to these drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are left to make decisions regarding pricing, manufacturing, and distribution of whatever antibiotics might be funded by the program, argued Ava Alkon, global health advocacy and policy adviser at Doctors Without Borders.
“What the act doesn’t do is attach any meaningful conditions to facilitate affordable access to people outside of those federal programs, and certainly not outside of the US,” said Alkon.
“From our years of work on access issues around the world, this generally results in products being sold to the highest bidder and being inaccessible in many contexts where they’re needed,” she said.”
“Less than 17 percent of the $1.1 trillion those laws provided for direct investments on climate, energy and infrastructure has been spent as of April, nearly two years after Biden signed the last of the statutes.”
…
“Trump has said he should have the power to refuse to spend congressionally appropriated money he considers wasteful, despite a 1974 law that says otherwise. This raises the prospect that he could attempt to pare Biden-era funding even if it’s at an advanced stage of distribution.”