He proposes that the state start savings accounts at birth with a $500 contribution with those accounts to be managed by the state with the option to put up to $2,000 into those accounts each year. The contents couldn't be touched until the folks turn 18 and could use it for college education or to help pay for a house among other uses. This kind of long term plan makes a lot of sense and as Tate Reeves pointed out could surely help in a state with a negative savings rate. Count me as one in support of this plan.
Check out The Sun Herald for more.
How can this be justified as a legitimate function of government ?
ReplyDeleteEven if that is not a concern for you, are there not any potential unintended consequences that might give you pause about this sort of proposal ?
1) If this sees the light of day, the one-upsmanship begins. Republican Reeves wants to give $500 to newborns ... then some Democrat in the Legislature will want to make it retroactive to 2 year olds, and so on . . .
2)Just like Social Security, if something like this takes hold, and a good bit of funds end up in there, it could become just another "slush fund" . . .
Which road is it that was paved with good intentions ?
Hell and/or Prosperity.
ReplyDeleteRoll the dice. :)