We could just as easily increase taxes progressively (the wealthy derive more income from, wait for it, investments and capital wealth [2]) and increase Social Security payments instead, without the rube goldberg index fund investment component (which would end up enriching someone like Blackrock or someone similar to manage these broker-dealer accounts).
At the end of the day, it's about capturing and distributing the wealth generated by the economy to the citizenry (and where does that wealth come from collectively? labor and productivity [automation and machinery]). We're just arguing over the how. Social Security is very efficient, by the way [3]. It costs only 0.6% of annual benefits distributed to administer the entitlement program. Between them and the IRS (tax collection), is that more efficient than running index fund accounts for every American? I argue yes.
Not following such a course results in disaster [4].
[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/25/six-facts...
[3] https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-... (Control-F Fact #3)
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/04/baby-boom... (Millions of baby boomers are getting caught in the country’s broken retirement system)
I'm completely onboard with this if we remove the 12.4% (self-employed) social security tax. If you make over $138k (and self employed) you pay around $17k annually into social security.
One small problem though. Just where exactly is the US government coming up with the annual $26B to fund these Birthright funds? Perhaps we abolish social security tax, and convert everybody under a certain age's SS into a Birthright fund which grows tax free until retirement.