Social security has been a great success in keeping millions of elderly people out of poverty, from the time it was created until now. - But there is a problem:
Until 1983, Social security was a pay as you go system, where the younger generation paid for the retirement of the previous generation and very little money was kept in the social security trust fund. - But in 1983, there was a major reform in the system in which social security taxes on wages were increased by about 1/3 and the retirement age was scheduled to increase gradually to age 67. There were two reasons for these reforms: The retirement age was increased to take into account longer lifespans and taxes on wages were increased to build up a surplus to help fund the retirement of the baby boom generation, so that the baby boomrs would not be a burden on the next (smaller) generation of young workers. Thus the Baby Boom generation became the first generation to not only pay for the retirement of the previous generation, but for their own as well. By one measure, the 1983 reforms have been wildly successful as the trust fund has built up a surplus of several trillion dollars, every penny of which was funded by social security taxes on workers' wages - However, Congress has borrowed all the money in the trust fund and has no plan in place to pay it back. The trust fund is still running a Surplus because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire - and this year congress will be able to borrow and will borrow over 150 billion dollars from the trust fund. Borrowing from the trust fund has masked the true size of federal budget deficit.
2006-12-30 18:40:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Franklin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Social security which was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the second new deal in 1935, was successful in helping lift the people out of the economic depression. It was one example in which FDR showed that it was important for the federal government to be directly involved in the welfare of the people. Although there have been some problems with social security since then, it was ultimately successful. It was a very important step in the recovery process after the depression.
2006-12-29 17:08:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by kw:c) 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was successful in the sense that it helped ensure the welfare of the elderly, it failed to keep up with the times however. When it was first enacted, it was meant as a temporary assistance and the average lifespan was in the 70's. Now with our improved healthcare system, the life expentancy has increased to over 80. That was unaccounted for in the original meaning of social security. It also helped guarantee that if the banks failed again then the elderly were taken care of.
2006-12-29 17:03:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by operaphantom2003 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hell ya.
Most workers only lived 5 years or less after retiring at 65. My dad lived 4 years after retirement.
I had an uncle, worth 12 mil, who collected for 30 years. His wife on the payroll, collected 20+.
I had two wives who worked and paid, in total, for 65 years. They both died, never collected.
It's a pyramid, any way you cut it. I'm collecting, but it's still a pyramid.
2006-12-29 17:12:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by ed 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes it was but the government borrowed from it.Also its suppose to aid in your retirement,not be the sole souse.
2006-12-29 17:01:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by danp 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
WELL like any invaention of any sort it had to get pablicaty so nto rly
2006-12-29 17:01:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Li 3
·
0⤊
0⤋