>>143
What's so stupid? Isn't it self-evident?
If you disagree with socialist policies, that's fine. But if you're forcing people to have accounts
anyway doesn't that defeat the purpose? You're interfering in their lives, forcing them to do something. In short, you're still a nanny state.
"But wait," you cry, "it's the same, just more transparent!" Sure, but it's clear you know shit about economics. All those funds tied up in bank accounts will strangle the economy. If the government has the funds, at least they're doing something with it. Likewise, if someone is free to do what they want, they'll probably do something with it, like, say, either spend it or invest it.
You could argue the bank does something with your money, but because they have to be fiscally conservative with the dough, they won't leverage it all that well. Certainly not as much as a free person probably would.