Social insurance
Before government-run social insurance programs were enacted, private groups had developed the concept of shared risk. In ancient Greece and Rome there were burial societies to which people contributed regularly to ensure that upon their deaths they would be buried with dignity. Some Medieval guilds had programs under which members contributed to funds which were drawn upon when members were no longer able to work, or died. In more recent times, some fraternal organizations and labor unions had similar programs. Many of the systems in continental Europe were developed, not through the state, but through occupational, mutualist and voluntary organisations.
The first state-run social insurance program paying retirement benefits was implemented in Germany in 1889 by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck sought to hold back the historical wave that was building in support of socialism across Europe at the time. His system was funded with payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer, along with contributions from the government. It also included a disability benefit. Today such programs are common, though not universal, among developed countries. They often include features of the initial German system.
In the United Kingdom the first contributory pension scheme was enacted in 1911, enthusiastically supported by Winston Churchill who described the social insurance principle as "bringing the miracle of averages to the rescue of the millions". Subsequently, the Beveridge Report of 1942 offered the main alternative model. Beveridge attempted to make insurance the basis for a comprehensive, universal scheme covering all the main social needs. President Franklin Roosevelt described the ideal social insurance system as one which provided economic protection "from the cradle to the grave."
Social security is seen as providing assistance to retired workers, often in the form of a superannuation system that provides a pension from a fund to which workers and their employers (and in most countries the government) have contributed throughout their working lives. Workers may also contribute to some form of insurance scheme that provides income and assistance in the event of injury or illness for them and their families. While the scheme may be compulsory, the contributions or historic income often determine the level of support provided, once basic eligibility criteria such as age or inability to work are established. In most of the developed "first world" countries, social security also includes a system of universal health care.
And That's My Best Answer!
2006-11-18 18:24:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
wow, asia c is in desperate need of a history book.
1) Reagan did not introduce Social Security.
2) The baby boomers are the ones retiring, we are not them.
3) It was exactly intended for use for retirement. When FDR was President, the average life span was 67. Retirement age was 65 and the President felt that after all of your lifetime contribution, that the government could take care of you. There was enough support for it and the Social Security Administration was formed.
The problem with Social Security is two-fold:
1) The baby boomers (those born right after WWII) didn't have as many kids as their parents had so there aren't enough worker bees now to support all of them the way that the plan was intended.
2) People are living longer than 67...much longer. That means that the Social Security fund pays out more than it brings in. This has been in trouble for a long time, but whenever a politician mentions SS reform, they lose elections. That's why you don't hear this being brought up until after they're already in office.
2006-11-18 16:37:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by DA 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
According to my civics prof. it started long ago in Germany. The idea was to get money from the people without giving any back. The age of 63 was picked because back then people didn't live to be that age so it was basically free money to the government. If you do a little research when you pay into Social Security it goes into a General fund not a Social Secuirty fund so the government can borrow for whatever and there isn't a time limit as to when they have to pay it back which from what I understand no one has ever paid anything back. Now the government wants to raise the age limit to 72. Does that give you any idea why?
2006-11-18 15:19:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Hagatha 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
I have something for you.
All I know is that it was brought in by Reagan and it was originally supposed to help during the Depression.
Once the money grew and grew the government started dipping into it to fund other projects. Now, we are (babyboom generation) paying for the older generations social security and I don't think it will be around for us when we are ready to retire. It was never intended for the use of retirement but a lot of people will be depending on it because they have no other means. Not only that but men usually get more social security at retirement than women do (because they work more). I think it is a horrible thing and needs to be fixed. Think about this: if you were to add all the money that has been taken out of your check to fund this, at retirement you wouldn't even get half of what you paid into it. I would rather not have them take any money out of my paychecks and invest that in a Roth Account.
(I'm not in favor of Welfare either)
2006-11-18 15:13:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by asia c 1
·
0⤊
4⤋
The websites that I've listed below that should help you out. The first website that I've given you talks about social security and also gives you branches to other websites that talk about social security. The second website is a blog about social security and its flaws. Good luck with your research paper!
2006-11-18 15:44:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by thalterman 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
i became into already totally attentive to those products. yet another dazzling one is the actuality that SS rapidly denies each and every declare for incapacity. you may desire to hire an legal expert and struggle via charm technique each and every time. Heard of a guy with Lou Gehrig's ailment that died till now getting approved. could no longer walk or extremely communicate, yet he wasn't disabled.
2016-10-04 03:10:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by lashbrook 4
·
0⤊
0⤋