National Join Capitalism Fund

The idea of a national fund to help people to start their lives is not some newfangled hippie, liberal, pinko idea. I actually got the idea from Thomas Paine (my favorite founding father and mascot of the Tea Party nowadays, apparently: http://www.youtube.com...). It is often said that "the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain if not for the pen of Paine". Thomas Paine's writings inspired the American colonials to rise up against their British masters.In his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, he wrote "...I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property..."(You can read the whole pamphlet here if you're interestedhttp://www.constitution.org...)Basically, his thought process was that no one created the land on which we toil and live, so anyone claiming it as their own would be stealing from everyone else. Since no one created it, everyone has an equal claim to it. Whereas before A claimed it, B and C could trespass across or labor upon it, now B and C have to ask permission of A in order to do those things.For that theft of their natural inheritance, B and C are owed a ground rent for the land which A has taken from them. Only the land. Not the improvements thereupon. The improvements were made with A's capital, ingenuity, and/or labor.Thomas Paine suggested that this ground rent money be collected in a national fund which paid out to every person when they became an adult. This debate is not about the financing of the fund, however. I already have a debate about that. This is only a debate on the morality and effects of having such a fund. We will assume that the fund will be (for simplicity's sake) $10,000 per child per year so, when it pays out at the end of 18 years, it would be $180,000 (we are also adjusting for inflation for simplicity's sake)So without further adieu, my arguments:A short, not-exhaustive list of problems having a national fund that paid out at 18 would immediately solve:1. Crushing student loan debt. If a person wanted to use their payout to go to college, they could without any debt necessary. It's a quick cure. 2. Poverty. While poverty is bad, the general capitalistic argument is that it is ultimately the fault of the impoverished person. If the person were given that first head start of $180,000, then any rut they find themselves in probably actually WOULD have been their fault. In any case, it would allow for the disestablishment of almost every poverty alleviation program because of how utterly this would decimate it.3. Mortgages and other loans. Many young people may choose to just buy a house in cash instead of getting a loan and making themselves beholden to the bank for 30-45 years. With this Join Capitalism Fund, the people would start life free of the chains of debt. 4. The lack of small businesses. If I were given $180,000 when I turned 18, I would have paid off all my debt, gone to school, and started a business. As soon as I were afloat, I would have put the rest of it into savings. 5. Low wages. Employers would have to actually compete for employees. The labor market is saturated with workers. Especially the unskilled market, which is what the majority of 18-year olds would be a part of. This depresses wages greatly. If the 18-year olds were given that Join Capitalism Fund payout, it would allow them to only accept employment that would truly further their ends instead of just having it to make ends meet. This would increase wages because many 18-year olds would choose to simply not work for someone else for a while. It is very important to recognize the difference between working and working for someone else. I'm not advocating the end of working in this argument. I am advocating the end of having to work for someone else in order to make ends meet.A mother cooking a meal for her children is producing, but that production is not included in the GDP because it's never sold- we don't know how much society values it... without a dollar sign, it's impossible to quantify. Does that mean that it is worthless? No. On the contrary, it's quite valuable. Surely we wouldn't say that stay-at-home moms are lazy do-nothings.They aren't working for someone else. They're working for themselves. At present, children of the well-off are more likely to succeed thanks to that privilege. Capitalism requires that everyone starts off at a base-level. If you're beneath that level then you'll be relegated to wage-slavery for a time.You have to work for someone else until you get enough to not have to. Unless you're born to the super-rich. A fairer system would be to allow anyone to work for themselves from the get-go and only accept employment if they actually wanted to. And if you're a Keynesian, you'll also like the fact that it would boost aggregate demand.I look forward to your response.