Apologies if this is a repeat. I did a search and came up blank.
I've got a question for the more economically inclined members of the kos community.
I was reading David Brooks' column today about his own ideas on "saving" social security, and they struck me as making a lot of sense
Needless to say, I'm flabbergasted. Normally I think Brooks is crazier than a a sh*thouse rat with his theories about 'Merica and the good ol', downhome folks from the plains. But today it made some sense, and I'm wondering what, if anything, I'm missing in his analysis.
His idea in a nutshell (and its an old idea) - savings accounts set up at birth to supplement and/or replace SS. Full article here.
Now, leaving aside the whole fact that SS doesn't need saving, and any partisan retorts that we shouldn't even be entertaining new SS ideas, what are the downfalls of this idea? Like I said, I'm not particularly good when it comes to the economics of things, and I'd like some help.