Should An Adult Have An Allowance

Should An Adult Have An Allowance, Many families teach children about money management and responsibility by offering them an allowance but what about adults, should they have one too?

An allowance (for those of privilege reading) is not an imaginary thing but rather a pre-set small sum of money a child receives regularly to spend on new toys, clothes, books or whatever. It could be a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly payment depending on how the parents set it up. Think of it as a trust fund, without the fund or all those extra zeros.

Allowances teach children to save and plan for purchases and form the foundation of a valuable life skill, one that many adults really need.

Adult Americans are burdened with debt and collectively show a much greater ability to spend than save. It’s estimated that over 40% of American families spend more than they earn and nearly 50% have less than $10,000 in retirement savings.

 These two points alone say just about all there is to say about adults needing an allowance. In fact, your six-year old is probably better at saving money than you. “There are only two ways to balance a budget: spend less or make more”

Dodd Frank Act Of 2010

Dodd Frank Act Of 2010, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) is a federal statute in the United States that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010. The Act implements financial regulatory reform sponsored by the Democratically controlled 111th United States Congress and the Obama administration.

Passed as a response to the late-2000s recession, the Act brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression, representing a significant change in the American financial regulatory environment affecting all Federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every aspect of the nation’s financial services industry.

As with other major financial reforms, some legal and financial scholars on both sides of the political spectrum have criticized the law, arguing on the one hand that the reforms were insufficient to prevent another financial crisis or additional “bail outs” of financial institutions, and on the other hand that the reforms went too far and would unduly restrict the ability of banks and other financial institutions to make loans.

In addition to the headline regulatory changes covering capital investment by banks and insurance companies, the Act introduces new regulation of hedge funds and private equity funds, alters the definition of accredited investors, requires reporting by all public companies on CEO to median employee pay ratios and other compensation data, enforces equitable access to credit for consumers, and provides incentives to promote banking among low- and medium-income residents.