Americans are struggling to save any money at all, let alone enough for major bills like tuition, a home or retirement. A new government initiative has the right objective but the wrong solution.

“Trump accounts,” created in last year’s reconciliation bill, will become available on July 4. The aim is to encourage families to accrue savings by investing in low-fee index funds for kids. Each account opened for a child born in the four years through 2028 will receive a $1,000 bonus. Relatives, friends and employers, and even state governments can deposit up to a combined $5,000 per year.

After the child turns 18, the account will be converted into a traditional retirement plan, with one exception: Funds can be withdrawn, penalty-free, for tuition, a new home or to start a business.

It’s a laudable goal. Although the stock market is an astonishing wealth-creation machine, some 38% of adults are still missing out. Ensuring more of them reap the advantages makes sense. But here’s the problem: Americans already have access to at least 11 other tax breaks designed to encourage savings, not to mention a variety of state offerings. These cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year, but they mostly reward people with higher incomes.

As currently conceived, Trump accounts are unlikely to improve on this patchwork. For one thing, enrolling requires parents to navigate a newly created tax form or website, likely creating a barrier to families that lack the time or financial aptitude to participate. Those who do sign up risk a 10% penalty if they fall afoul of complex withdrawal rules.

A second flaw is that the proposal is quite expensive — $15 billion over four years, just to start — but disproportionately benefits the rich. The $1,000 bonus isn’t means-tested, while wealthier parents who maximize their contributions will receive the biggest tax subsidies. Although the program exempts donations from charitable foundations, this will add complexity without doing much for the poor; even the enormous gifts pledged by the Dell and Dalio foundations will provide just $250 to a limited number of kids.

Perhaps more important, all this is needlessly complicated. The goal should be straightforward: Make it easier for Americans of every income level to save.

To that end, Congress should consolidate the many federal savings options into a single universal account, where savers can deposit post-tax dollars that can be withdrawn tax-free at any time. Similar systems in Britain, Canada and elsewhere have proved quite effective. A bill introduced in Congress last year — creating accounts with a $10,000 initial contribution limit, which increases each year up to a $25,000 cap — is on the right path.

Such accounts would be more fiscally responsible than the current array of tax breaks; by one analysis, they could be paid for entirely by eliminating the deduction for health savings accounts. But they’d also be far simpler and easier to administer, easing the burden on taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service alike.

No system will be perfectly fair, and some people will always struggle to save. But policymakers should resist the urge to micromanage financial decisions. Making life simpler is a worthy endeavor all its own.

____

The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.