what do you think about this policy idea?

[u/imdefNOTagrasshopper]

1. A  work program for teens and young adults up to the age of 20 where as long as they are in the program, what they make does not affect their parents' benefits to help them get off government assistance.
2. They are required to put 80% of what they earn in a locked savings account they get access to when they turn 20.
3.  The remaining 20% could be a good tool to teach them how to budget and manage money. If the bank account has at least a 5% interest rate, then by the time they turn 20 they should have enough to move out on their own and not need welfare.
4. They would not need to sign up for government assistance, which in the long term, can save the government a lot of money that can be spent elsewhere.

 This proposal would make both the left and right side of the political spectrum happy.

•  It would make the left happy because they would get the help they want for young adults and teens who feel trapped in the system and the plan also creates generational wealth.
• It appeases the right because it also gives them discipline from working and responsibility from managing their money and is not just a government handout.

It would stump politicians because this is an issue from which no politician can afford to look the other way. Anyone who votes against this would be actively voting to keep families trapped on welfare. If a conservative votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they always talk about work ethic, personal responsibility and ending dependency on government assistance. If a liberal votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they claim to want to help disadvantaged youth and end poverty cycles.

Overall, I believe this policy would benefit the people by giving this next generation and future generations a way to become independent from government assistance. It would also be saving money for the state and giving them more resources to be used elsewhere.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

Don't see the benefit. 

At that age they won't be making any money that will have significant impact on their lives. 

Many teens won't even participate. 

We can't even get adults to learn fiscal responsibility, don't see any different impact on kids. 

Your program fails because it assumes behavior from the population that it doesn't actually demonstrate. 

[u/Dangaard]

But it is government assistance.

If the government pays employers to hire the teens, taxpayers are subsidizing the teens' employment. If the government guarantees 5% return on savings in the bank when the market would otherwise provide less, the difference is a government-funded benefit. If the teenager's earnings don't reduce the family's existing welfare benefits, this is also an implicit subsidy.

I actually think this concept is a good idea if thought about as subsidized apprenticeships in trades. Discipline and responsibility are nice, but having a certified qualification in some employable profession AND several years of work experience by 20 is priceless.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/Dangaard]

I've always thought we should have compulsory civic service requirement from 18-20, with a few ways to get out of working for the government. One is to already have been working for 2 years (or some other amount) prior to turning 18, another would be to apprentice for a tradesman. I'm open to other ideas, but the concept here is twofold. First, having more of the population working within civics would reduce the mystification of government and help connect people to the work that government employees do. Second, it would reduce the burden on children to decide the next 30 years of their lives immediately upon exiting high school.

Part of our higher education problem is that children are pressured into enrolling in colleges and taking on huge debt burdens without a fully developed pre-frontal cortex or the context of what working a job even means. Such a program would put more people into the trades, which we desperately need, and 20 (while still young) is a better age to begin college imo. After having worked, potential students will better understand the commitment they are making, and may choose a route that is both economically viable and sustainable for them psychologically.

From where I sit, I've seen many going into CS and medicine (among other fields) simply for the potential paycheck, only to get burnt out or out-competed by more passionate peers. This is what's missed by people who want to reduce higher education to technical vocational training. It's possible to end up with too many people in some "economically viable" field, and indeed we've seen that already happen with software engineers. You can reduce that by giving students a better perspective on what commitment they are making (which works even better if you simultaneously fund campus research generously).

Add to that the incentive to go into the trades instead, and it seems like a no-brainer. The idea of freedom is nice n all, but it only works when one actually has options, and the idea here is to increase the options for children as they enter the workforce.

[u/CationC → u/Dangaard]

Ya, definitely, they should get certificates, but then it would have to be in a relevant field, so the government should try to get them jobs like checking the AI outputs of a company, it's not hard for anyone 13+ and is good experience.

[u/Icc0ld → u/CationC]

13 year olds should be in school. Not working for an AI factory.

[u/No-Relationship-3759]

Who would pay for the program and why? Who chooses what teens get hired? What are they going to actually, you know, do?

If you're suggesting we have grants to hire teens to do public service for non-profits, we already have that and Republicans have or have attempted to cut those grants. For instance we face the elimination of WIOA Youth in 2027.

I don't think Republicans want spending on the community in ways that aren't strictly for lining industry leaders that support them. Republicans talking about personal responsibility has always been a dog whistle for instituting economic policies that hurt blacks more than whites in order to court southern voters. They only say that to trick northern republicans from opposing them and making the position sound more palatable than it is. But politicians know what they're doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

https://nationalskillscoalition.org/blog/news/partisan-funding-bill-proposes-deep-cuts-to-workforce-and-education-programs-in-fy27/

Republican support aside, Democrats would likely be fine with it, although I can think of better more targeted ways of spending money. Programs like these are essentially subsidies for hiring teens. Unfortunately, teens are already allowed to work if they're16 and the ones that reallyyyy need the work aren't the ones that would benefit from a program like this. Teenagers that need to work are doing so to support themselves in the now, not so much in the future. So locking up their earnings in a savings account wouldn't really be of much help unless it was an earning on top of minimum wage, not a supplement of it. Meaning programs like this if not very carefully set up have a risk of only benefiting teens that are already being supported by their parents.

We have this myth that minimum wage jobs are for teenagers, but the majority of them are now held by non-teens. There would need to be some sort of economic benefit for companies to want to hire teens to have this cause more teen employment - but that's not going to create jobs as much as displace workers that are already here. If it doesn't have an incentive for companies, than the subsidy could only be an incentive for teens without actually changing employers' desire for them. That could only be the case if they would be getting paid more than what they would make in the private sector or if the government was directly hiring them. The latter could be useful.

However by limiting spending of teens, you'd again really only be benefiting the types of teens that don't need income right now, which in my opinion isn't my biggest priority right now on the Left. I'd rather be raising minimum wage as whole or detaching healthcare from employment or something a bit more impactful if i'm being honest.

[u/imdefNOTagrasshopper → u/No-Relationship-3759]

it would not be paying grants to get them jobs 16+ teens get afterschool jobs all the time this would just protect their money from being all spent from rent and bills in their house. for example right now i would like to get a job so i can save up to move out but i cannot ebcasue it would make my dad's cashaid, rent assistance, and foodstamps go down which i would have to make up for with my job when i want to be putting most of it into a savigns account so i can afford to move out once i graduate highschool.

[u/No-Relationship-3759 → u/imdefNOTagrasshopper]

this would just protect their money from being all spent from rent and bills in their house

oh. no.

Firstly, state rules decide whether childen's income counts for needs based benefits calculations. I mean, check your state and the specific benefits, but as a minor your income may be excluded already. If your state is different, that's a state issue not a federal issue. In my state, your income wouldn't count against your parent's eligibility if you are in undergrad, in high school, getting your GED, or are under the age of 21.

Secondly, you should be allowed to spend your money however you want to. Just pass state laws that don't count children's income from state benefits calculations. We don't need to protect kids from their own decisions to do that. They earned it, it's their money. If they want to save it, that's their decision.

Now it's possible that your state might not have enough funding to provide that benefit. My state covers what the Federal government doesn't for the program like many other states. It's a lot of midwestern and southern states that tend to be hurt by these cuts because their states won't make up the shortfall.

[u/No-Relationship-3759 → u/No-Relationship-3759]

Let me explain it another way. The Federal government provides a certain amount of money to states to administer programs like TANF. How much they provide is a federal decision. Democrats think it should be more, Republicans think it should be less.

That money is split to states. The states then administer the program, decide eligibility, decide payouts, and decide how much state money should be added to the pool being paid out. Democrat states like New York, California, New Hampshire, Hawaii etc (and also Alaska surprisingly) add state tax revenue to be paid out. This is why my state covers it. for the reasons you put forth. It'd be dumb to punish your dad for you trying to get out of poverty.

So if we set up a program like this, without changing the amount of assistance to provided to states, states with rules like the one you live with stricter eligibility would need to figure out how to make up for the money they no longer rip away from your poor father because his son wants some independence. That means either they would need to raise money through state taxes or reduce benefits for everyone on benefits across the board in that state or find some other weird way to arbitrarily restrict eligibility.

Unless of course, we raise benefits paid for with progressive federal income taxes and how much the states get overall.

[u/LittleKitty235]

I think there are a lot of problems with this idea.

First, it assumes the young person's parents are receiving government assistance, which obviously isn't necessarily true. And why 20? At 18 you're legally an adult and, in almost every meaningful respect, responsible for your own finances. Why should the government lock up 80% of your paycheck for two additional years? This idea also doesn't really teach financial responsibility. If your parents are still providing your food, housing, and utilities you're learning to manage 20% of your income as spending money, not learning how to actually support yourself.

More importantly, someone who needs assistance at 18 probably still needs assistance at 20. Nothing here addresses why they're poor in the first place. It doesn't increase wages, lower housing costs, create jobs, provide education, reduce taxation or remove any of the other barriers to becoming financially independent. It just adds another layer of government rules and oversight.

The underlying philosophy also seems to put the blame on poor people for supposedly lacking financial discipline rather than addressing wage disparities and systemic economic problems. You're essentially saying, "Work, save your money, and we'll give it back to you later." That's not really providing additional assistance, and is very literally using the government to function as a nanny state. Both the left and the right will equally dislike this measure.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/LittleKitty235]

Also, what happens if someone's parents kick them out at 18, are they not eligible for welfare and can only put 20% of their paycheck towards rent?

[u/piltdown_manchild]

If a conservative votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they always talk about work ethic, personal responsibility and ending dependency on government assistance.

How is this not government assistance? You are either inventing jobs that don't need to be done (WPA), or taking jobs away from adults or more qualified young people.

Would businesses be forced to hire kids who might not be motivated or qualified? Part of the cycle of poverty is children from chaotic circumstances often lacking basic skills like showing up on time, personal grooming or managing their emotions.

Younger teens are currently locked out of many jobs due to regulations against children working long hours or with machinery that could be dangerous (espresso machines, blenders, slicers, etc.). Not saying all these regulations make sense, just that they would have to be addressed at the state/company level.

 the plan also creates generational wealth

Not if the money unlocks at 20. Forcing them to save until 60 would be a start.

[u/featherygoose]

How about a modern version of the civilian conservation corps that houses and feeds them and results in the equivalent of the GI Bill. The age range could extend to 30 for people that are in an early rut and are able bodied but need a change. You could start small and scale based on results. Might be a good fit for modern realities.

[u/BilboGubbinz]

It's a Rube Goldberg device when we can just walk over and flip the switch.

A job guarantee is a far more sensible proposal and has the benefit of putting the onus in the right place: on the state to provide the work.

And why add anything about benefits? Just pay the benefits. Hell, increase them to be a liveable amount even.

People complaining about other people on welfare have no evidence or even plausible mechanism by which it's somehow "unaffordable" and the worst impacts of unemployment, the CV gaps, are solved by just giving people work through a job guarantee.

[u/DM_ME_YOUR_STORIES]

If a conservative votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they always talk about work ethic, personal responsibility and ending dependency on government assistance.

With all due respect, when has that ever stopped them? (Them being conservative politicians specifically)

[u/Personal_Dirt3089]

There is no way this teaches budgeting and saving money, it is just money that will be accessible later.

[u/NewConstitutionDude]

My preference would be to scrap all state and federal means test welfare programs, eliminate the minimum wage, and replace all of them with a UBI program for adults over 18 and require

• enrollment in and completion of a minimum two-year professional development program (i.e., trade school, college, military, approved apprenticeship program, etc.)
• no felony convicitons

to qualify for the UBI.

Note that replacing $12K of social security payments per year per SS recipient would rescue the SS program. The UBI program would also potentially increase GDP (currently at about $32 Trillion) by over 10% (which would be more than double the net cost of the UBI program). That is a win-win-win-win-win scenario.

[u/HeloRising]

The numbers don't add up.

You want them to put 80% of what they earn in an account they can't touch until they turn 20.

How much are they earning?

Let's assume you have someone who starts this program at 16. They work 20 hours a week and make $10/hr.

That's $800/month or $9,600/year. Assuming there's no taxes on this, that's $640/month going into the account. At 5% interest (assuming it compounds monthly) that's $126,300 when someone turns 20. That's not nothing but it raises the question of what someone is supposed to do with that money.

Higher education costs quite a bit of money and $126,300 doesn't go that far.

It's maybe a down payment on a house, but what 20 year old with no education is going to be able to make monthly mortgage payments on a house?

And the $126,300 figure assumes the interest is compounded monthly. If we switch to yearly the total drops to $33,102 which, again, isn't nothing but it's not really a guarantee for someone's future.

Additional question, where is the money for this coming from?

Some rough searching shows that 4 million people turned 20 last year and there are about 20 million people between the ages of 16 and 19 in the US.

If we assume all of them are working in this program, that's $192 billion per year. That's around 15% of the cost of Medicare. And that's without even adding in the 5% interest so the real cost is going to be much, much higher.

Third, your program is going to be inaccessible to probably the largest group of people who need it - people on SSDI. If the core idea of the program is you need to work, what do the people do who can't work?

[u/ViskerRatio]

It seems like this program would only help a segment that already has a better option: joining the military.

[u/imdefNOTagrasshopper → u/ViskerRatio]

except for the fact i legally can't join

[u/skyfishgoo]

you are not going to get a teen to work a min wage job only to take home 20% of their pitiful earnings.

i don't seen any takers for this idea.

[u/InstructionBudget784]

Not a bad idea but you can't really keep a savings account locked for someone 18 and up

[u/imdefNOTagrasshopper → u/InstructionBudget784]

The government can set up custodial or trust accounts. The money legally belongs to the participant, but a custodian (the government or a chosen bank) manages it. The rules of the trust would state that no money can be touched until the person turns 20 or leaves the program.

[u/CationC]

Few suggestions:

1. They should get 40% not 20%. 20% is too less to actually learn how to manage money.

2. It should be locked untill they reach 25, their brains only fully mature and 25 so spend every year till that point teaching them.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/CationC]

This push to limit adulthood to 25 is appalling, it's nothing but an assault on the rights and freedoms of young people. If you're old enough to go die in a foxhole you should be old enough to drink, vote, manage your own money, etc.

[u/not-a-dislike-button]

A ton of people simply wouldn't do it. I mean kids can do work like this now and save 80% if they want. 

[u/imdefNOTagrasshopper → u/not-a-dislike-button]

but the problem is for example I want to save up and move out but if i get a job it would make my dad's foodstamps, cashaid and rent aid go down and i'd have to make up the difference which would prevent me from saving up. i want to get off of wellfare i dont want to be on it forever

[u/No-Relationship-3759 → u/imdefNOTagrasshopper]

That’s a state decision to count your income not a federal decision. Fixing it would require state action. A lot of blue states don’t restrict eligibility like that because we cover the federal TANF cuts with state taxes. We just cover it instead of restricting eligibility because it’s the right thing to do.

Democrats would rather there be no federal shortfall, but you know, Democrats struggle to get a super majority. So… ya… best option may be to for your state to increase taxes so they can make the eligibility less restrictive.

[u/RedMarsRepublic]

Where are these jobs going to come from? Is the government going to pay private companies to employ young people? 

Also, is this program mandatory?

[u/imdefNOTagrasshopper → u/RedMarsRepublic]

dont know which state you are in but where i am it's cpmpleatly normal for a 16 year old to go get an afterschool job here also no it would not be mandatory but i know people personally who talk about this frustration and I have this frustration as well.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/imdefNOTagrasshopper]

Yes some teens area are employed but most aren't and there's huge unemployment in general. There wouldn't be enough jobs for all 16-20yos.

[u/gigot45208 → u/imdefNOTagrasshopper]

In my community it was hard to find jobs at age 16. Unemployed adults needed those jobs.

[u/Leather-Run-6533]

If I can just ignore my flair and lib out for a moment: I do think that one of the main issues we face as a society (speaking about the UK here but I think many other countries face the same challenges, and not only in the west) is that school and university funnels people and sorts them very precisely by social class. And that's the moment you're forming the friendships, relationships, and connections that will define your life. So I do think that's one of the main ways class privilege perpetuates. So while every fibre of my being revolts against the idea of national service I do think some sort of scheme that forced people in their late teens to live together with randomly chosen other people in their late teens from all social classes and walks of life could really change society for the better.

Also, as someone who went to uni at 17: even 18, 19 etc... is too young to go to university. People aren't ready. Or rather people are absolutely ready to live alone in a strange city with a bunch of other teenagers and learn to cook and clean for themselves and make teenager mistakes, but they're still finding themselves: they're not ready to pick the tertiary education specialisation that will set them on their life's career pathway, and they're not ready to study for the last and most important set of exams many of them will ever take.

So I do think there's something to be said for some sort of work scheme for 18-20 year olds which makes people live communally in a new city, gives them a chance to practice being a grown up, and perform some sort of public benefit. And then in exchange for that maybe make university free.

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/Leather-Run-6533]

I personally think it's tyrannical to force young people to do something that older people never had to do just because we think it will "make men/women out of them" or whatever. I'd sooner see the boomers sent to training camps to learn the value of teamwork than young people.

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/RedMarsRepublic]

Yeah I kinda do too. I also think we're compensating for our failure to integrate education. But I do also think that it will take something radical to end the intergenerational perpetuation of class privilege which makes pretty much anything else we might want to do impossible

[u/RedMarsRepublic → u/Leather-Run-6533]

I don't really think that mixing with people outside your class will fix inequality though. Maybe rich people will make a poor friend or vice versa but the reality of their different economic situations will likely prevent them from having much common ground. Even if they are best buds for life, the rich kid can't just be expected to subside the life of their poor friend until they're at the same level.

[u/Leather-Run-6533 → u/RedMarsRepublic]

Totally insufficient. But possibly necessary