Selfless move. Have a lot of respect for the Dell philanthropy arm for doing this, will surely benefit a bunch of kids down the road even if they are more financially literate
I would much rather tax the wealthy, so that we could create a society where we don't have children who need a "financial head start"
I read a book nearly a decade ago, that I think is worth highlighting.
> The book's central thesis is that members of the global elite are using philanthropic institutions to preserve a system that concentrates wealth and power at the top at the expense of societal progress. Giridharadas examines the narrow limits of modern philanthropy, claiming that rich donors avoid contributing to causes which could undermine their own lofty status. He argues that in some cases, the political lobbying efforts of wealthy donors may reduce the government's ability to address inequality.
I mean... This money isn't going into a matress. For 18 years, this is just a way for the government to give $3.6 billion to the owning class.
And as a bonus, it makes everyone defacto invested into the status quo of "line go up at all costs, devoid of relation to economy." Don't think about protest little ones, or you'll lose your nest egg and mommy and daddy lose their retirement.
I'm sure they're also salivating thinking about how to use this to justify the removal of Social Security payment in due time too.
How much are the investment bankers going to profit off these childhood investment accounts?
They're making it seem like this is some big selfless thing, giving a bunch of kids a small amount of cash. I see it as a big payday for the large banks.
I’m not sure how much good $250 will do for a child.
I think this essentially explains why taxing billionaires is not very useful, because the total amount of their life generated wealth assets amounts to a small amount for 25 million people let alone larger populations.
Even if you took all the $’s away, the government really needs to tax high numbers of lower income people for the income to be meaningful.
So we are going to live in a world where the national well-being is dependent on the good whims of billionaires and their "pet" causes. Not in the geographic or interest vicinity of a feudal lord? Too bad, maybe you should work harder, fuck you.
When my daughter wanted her first tablet, a friend of mine said he had an old one he could sell me for $50. Cool, I said, and my daughter saved up her allowance (paid for feeding the cats, as I recall) to get the money. Then, my friend said to just put the $50 in her savings account.
Oh, I said, right, we should set one of those up for her.
Once she had one, it was clear I should be adding to it every month. But, the initial nudge to get her one was important. Hopefully, having an account will make it more likely to put a little in every month? It's not everything, but it's also not nothing.
Of course, cheaper housing would help the kids more, but that has more entrenched interests opposed to it (almost every homeowner), and not even Dell has enough to overcome that.
If only there was some sensible way for 25M children to be given a financial head start that wasn't Michael Dell directly funding it.
See his total net worth and the YTD increase:
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/michael-s-de.... Google/ChatGPT his 2019 (pre-covid) net worth (I'll save you the trouble): $27B. It doesn't matter if it's super accurate because we all know the multiple is probably pretty accurate given what's transpired.
And before you go calling me a wealth hater, I just wish the US wasn't such a wealth lover. Just a bit less emphasis on people getting rich and a bit more emphasis on getting our shit together so that the government can fund savings accounts for kids and while they're at it teach them some basic understanding of investment/budgeting.
"Why don't the poor just have investment accounts" - Marie-Antoinette Dell
Having $250 in an account does practically nothing for the child. But having $6.25B invested does generate fees for bankers chosen to manage this program. (Chosen by the president's Wall Street entourage, presumably?)
They rather give kids $6.25B going straight to SPX than build schools. At some point, the billionaires
realized it’s best to keep Americans uneducated. They then turn around and hire all the immigrants and complain why there are so many of them in this country.
People realize this is precursor to them removing social security for this generation of kids?
It's so interesting how many of the comments already are some variant of how ridiculous this is that a rich person voluntarily donated their own money. That that's somehow bad, and what we really need to do is to force all of them to donate via taxation.
But you just got $6 billion and you already want more? This attitude exactly why so many people are against raising taxes, supposedly against their own self-interest. The idea that I can freely spend OTHER people's money is the most seductive thing in the world.
What kids really need is a mandatory personal finance class at the High School level. This would teach them how to handle money, debt, spending, budgeting and general financial health.
Nothing would help the next generation more, even above giving them seed investment money, than helping them avoid the pitfalls which are just waiting for them around every corner.
My daughter took an elective for this in HS, and every day would come home and say how much she was learning and how empowered she felt about money afterwards.
I don’t really understand the underlying US government program— specifically why in a time of alarm over deficits “we” are enacting new private giveaways of public funds. Cynically, I doubt the folks who enacted this care one whit about folks who will turn 18 in the year 2044, 19 years from now. They only care about pumping the stock market today and winning elections in 2026 by transforming the Federal government into something like a hedge fund with a “save the children” sticker on the front door.
As for the Dells— they really do seem to care about our children and their philanthropy is beautiful.
a savings system for workplace pensions in retirement. It involves money earned by an employee being placed into an investment fund to be made legally available to members upon retirement. Employers make compulsory payments to these funds at a proportion of their employee's wages.
Currently, the mandatory minimum "guarantee" contribution is set at 12%, having increased from 11.5% on 1 July 2025
As of 30 June 2025, Australians have AU$4.33 trillion invested as superannuation assets, making Australia as a nation the 4th largest holder of pension fund assets in the world.
for comparison: every child in germany receives 250euro per month from birth at least until they are 18 years old. that is 54000euro per person. it is simply a negative tax in a way. and it is not meant to be saved but used for the childrens every day needs.
26 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 56.2 ms ] threadEven in today's money, I wouldn't call it a "head start"
I read a book nearly a decade ago, that I think is worth highlighting.
> The book's central thesis is that members of the global elite are using philanthropic institutions to preserve a system that concentrates wealth and power at the top at the expense of societal progress. Giridharadas examines the narrow limits of modern philanthropy, claiming that rich donors avoid contributing to causes which could undermine their own lofty status. He argues that in some cases, the political lobbying efforts of wealthy donors may reduce the government's ability to address inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Ch...
And as a bonus, it makes everyone defacto invested into the status quo of "line go up at all costs, devoid of relation to economy." Don't think about protest little ones, or you'll lose your nest egg and mommy and daddy lose their retirement.
I'm sure they're also salivating thinking about how to use this to justify the removal of Social Security payment in due time too.
(It's clearly hard to hate giving money to kids; that seems good. What seems bad is relying on the largesse of the extremely wealthy.)
They're making it seem like this is some big selfless thing, giving a bunch of kids a small amount of cash. I see it as a big payday for the large banks.
I think this essentially explains why taxing billionaires is not very useful, because the total amount of their life generated wealth assets amounts to a small amount for 25 million people let alone larger populations.
Even if you took all the $’s away, the government really needs to tax high numbers of lower income people for the income to be meaningful.
Oh, I said, right, we should set one of those up for her.
Once she had one, it was clear I should be adding to it every month. But, the initial nudge to get her one was important. Hopefully, having an account will make it more likely to put a little in every month? It's not everything, but it's also not nothing.
Of course, cheaper housing would help the kids more, but that has more entrenched interests opposed to it (almost every homeowner), and not even Dell has enough to overcome that.
I hear this often, but as a homeowner, I don't understand it. Assessed value tracks market value, and the last thing I want is property taxes rising.
The only homeowners who would prefer rising prices are those looking to sell or over-leveraged landlords.
See his total net worth and the YTD increase: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/michael-s-de.... Google/ChatGPT his 2019 (pre-covid) net worth (I'll save you the trouble): $27B. It doesn't matter if it's super accurate because we all know the multiple is probably pretty accurate given what's transpired.
And before you go calling me a wealth hater, I just wish the US wasn't such a wealth lover. Just a bit less emphasis on people getting rich and a bit more emphasis on getting our shit together so that the government can fund savings accounts for kids and while they're at it teach them some basic understanding of investment/budgeting.
Having $250 in an account does practically nothing for the child. But having $6.25B invested does generate fees for bankers chosen to manage this program. (Chosen by the president's Wall Street entourage, presumably?)
People realize this is precursor to them removing social security for this generation of kids?
But you just got $6 billion and you already want more? This attitude exactly why so many people are against raising taxes, supposedly against their own self-interest. The idea that I can freely spend OTHER people's money is the most seductive thing in the world.
Nothing would help the next generation more, even above giving them seed investment money, than helping them avoid the pitfalls which are just waiting for them around every corner.
My daughter took an elective for this in HS, and every day would come home and say how much she was learning and how empowered she felt about money afterwards.
As for the Dells— they really do seem to care about our children and their philanthropy is beautiful.
~ https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-retirement-program-aus...
and other news soures
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia
* https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/super-for-in...See Also the Singapore Fund: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund