You recently put forward this proposal as your “one big idea” for your 2020 presidential campaign: All American kids should receive $50,000 from the U.S. government when they reach age 18. I support this idea as one of the best I’ve heard in a long time. Here’s why:

1.     First, it is an original idea. I have never heard it from anyone else at any time. Originality is rare among  thinkers and other intellectuals. It is rarer among presidential candidates. That is a good start.

2.     Second, it has a good collection and payout source. The money would come from the Treasury Department by funding it with U.S. Treasury bonds. Approximately $32,000 would need to be set aside for each child that would grow to $50,000 at maturity. Also, approximately 11,000 kids reach age 18 every day, or just over 4 million per year.  This proposal would cost about $200 billion annually. That amount is do-able.

3.     Third, you would target the Inheritance tax as its primary revenue source. That is brilliant on several levels. To begin, eliminating the inheritance via the 2017 Tax Bill was utterly without merit. All inheritances are unearned, and 90 percent of them flow to just 10 percent of those at the top. Just the thought of 10 percent of our population pulling down 90 percent of all inheritances without earning one penny of them runs counter to all our values. Where is the justice in that? Just to think that wealth is our best measure of our prosperity (earned by everyone), yet 90 percent of Americans are being denied a fair share of it rankles my sensibilities to the core.  We would need to restore the inheritance tax and tack a surtax onto high volume security trades to pay the full bill. 

4.     Fourth, the argument can be made that we are “paying for our sins of the past” with this proposal. Every child that grew up in America since 1980 has been short-changed by employers, by institutions of higher education, and by the U.S. government. Student loans today of more 2 trillion attest to that fact; poverty levels attest to it; heath care needs and lack of opportunities attest to it. A $50,000 check at age 18 would not wipe all those injustices away, but they can restore a lot for those who use it wisely. This argument can be extended to all past injustice arguments, including those of Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, and others. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a solution that approaches fairness.

And that brings me to the first objection: 

Objection: $50,000 in the hands of an 18-year-old means “party time.” A large percentage of them will have spent it by the time they are 19. 

While probably true for many, it certainly is not true for all. And we would have up to 18 years in which to teach every child the necessity to show their maturity by spending, saving, and investing it wisely. Parents, teachers, and other well-wishers would need to take on the role of adults better than they have in the past.

Objection: What about immigrants? Will they share in the bonus? If not, why not?

This issue can be dealt with on a simple percentage basis: Allow 1/18^th of the $50,000 for every year they have been here when then reach age 18. Alternatively, they could wait until they have been here 18 years before they are eligible for the full amount.