What happend to the Social Security surplus of the 1980's and 90's?
88073
Two words...\n...BABY BOOMERS\n\nA lot of the baby boomer generation is nearing retirement and are drawing social security.  Plus, people are living longer now than previously expected.  Fact is, the social security system was not set up for a huge population spike like the baby boom, and those who set up the system did not expect so many people to live so long.  This is where the surplus has gone.\n\nOh, by the way, there have been federal government officials that have "borrowed" some of the money in the system for other spendings that weren't in the normal national budget.
430140
The Great Depression of the late 20's and 30's was felt in all western industrialised nations. Nations that were mainly agrarian (based on agriculture) were little affected by it. Here, in Australia, (I'm guessing that you are in the USA) we had most of the workforce unemployed, businesses bankrupt, starvation and poverty rampant - as did all industrialised countries. Now that governments realise that it isn't all that important to balance the budget, they can start to spend, reduce tax or reduce interest rates (use methods to stimulate spending) if they see the economy heading down. These tools stimulate spending and give the economy a boost.heading that way.
777714
Try this website for information on the National Budget for 2000:\n\nhttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/guide02.html\n\nSpending\nThe Federal Government will spend nearly $1.8 trillion1, and have a surplus of over $117 billion in 2000, which we divided into nine large categories.\n\nThe largest Federal program is Social Security, which will provide monthly benefits to nearly 45 million retired and disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. It accounts for 22 percent of your Federal dollar (or 23 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicare, which will provide health care coverage for over almost 40 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities, consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (insurance for physician costs and other services). Since its birth in 1965, Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. In 2000 it will comprise 11 percent of your Federal dollar (or 12 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicaid, in 2000, will provide health care services to almost 34 million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs are growing rapidly. Medicaid accounts for six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nOther means-tested entitlements provide benefits to people and families with incomes below certain minimum levels that vary from program to program. The major means-tested entitlements are Food Stamps and food aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans' pensions. This category will account for an estimated six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \n\nThe remaining mandatory spending, which mainly consists of Federal retirement and insurance programs, unemployment insurance, and payments to farmers, comprises six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nNational defense discretionary spending will total an estimated $275 billion in 2000, comprising nearly 15 percent of your Federal dollar (and 16 percent of the budget). \n\nNon-defense discretionary spending-a wide array of programs that include education, training, science, technology, housing, transportation, and foreign aid-has shrunk as a share of the budget from 23 percent in 1966 to an estimated 18 percent in 2000 (or 17 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nInterest payments, primarily the result of previous budget deficits, averaged seven percent of Federal spending in the 1960s and 1970s. But, due to the large budget deficits that began in the 1980s that share quickly doubled to 15 percent. Since the budget is now in surplus, interest payments are estimated to drop to 12 percent of the budget in 2000 (11 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nSix percent of your Federal dollar (the budget surplus) will not be spent. The President has proposed that any surplus be reserved until a plan to save Social Security has been enacted. \n\nNational defense \nGeneral science, space, and technology  \nEnergy \nNatural resources and environment  \nAgriculture \nCommerce and housing credit  \nTransportation \nCommunity and regional development  \nEducation, training, employment, and social services   \nHealth \nMedicare \nIncome security  \nSocial security  \nVeterans benefits and services  \nAdministration of justice  \nGeneral government  \nNet interest  \nAllowances \nUndistributed offsetting receipts
567000
The two things are unrelated.\n\nWhen Social Security began the lifespan was only slightly over 65. Recipients, on average, received benefits for only a few years. Today the lifespan has increased to, last I heard, 77.6 years.\n\nFurther, family size has shrunk and therefore there are less young workers to support each retiree.\n\nThus, in 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security. But today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary. \n\nBy the time the Baby Boom generation retires there will be only 2 workers to support each retiree.\n\nThe Social Security system is not nor was it ever an actuarially sound insurance program. Its closer to being what is usually called a Ponzi Scheme. It depends on current "contributions" (which is to say taxes) to pay for current benefits.\n\nThe bottom line is that in a few years every couple of workers will be supporting a retired person. Think about that. You'll not only have to take care of yourself but your half of the living expenses of a retiree.\n\nSomething has to change.
351668
In 2001, the budget had a surplus of $127 billion.\n\nHowever, the US had a national debt of $5.8 trillion that same year, so...
871464
I can't find the deficit, but here's a graph that shows the U.S. national debt as it was created over time.\n\nAt the time Reagan left office, it was right around $4 trillion, or about twice what it was when he took office in 1980.\n\nhttp://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
302988
Another problem many people have with social security privatization is the financial risk factor.  While it is safe to say something has to be done or SS will run out, which is total risk, I'm speaking as if both privatization and the current system were indefinate.\n   With the current system, while there isn't going to be enough money in like 20 yrs., the money that is in SS is safe.  It draws very little interest, like your banks simple savings account, but can 99.99% be assured it will be there tommorow and the day after, so on.  With putting the money into the market, you adopt risks similiar to the stock market.  You might draw a much higher interest on your retirment investment, but one good crash or another Enron and your SS is gone.  I think the government would have to back up SS money that is privatized for it to be comfortable, say they'll cover your initial investment only.  It'd be a pitiful amount as if you save for retirment for 40+ years it is the interest and not the principal that looks good on the statment, but it would be something.
274539
The US economy has a history of cyclical highs and lows.  Most of the others were called 'Financial panics'.  See the bottom of this wikipedia page for more:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873\n\nThese lows are charecterized by job loss, banking failures, forclosures, loss of property value and bankruptcies.\n\nIn addition, there have been several recessions, which were like mini-depressions.  In the 1980's sections of the country had housing-value crashes and unemployment was high.\n\nSocial Security was put in place because people who are elderly when a economic downturn strikes can see their lifelong savings wiped out when they have no means to earn it back.  The old-fahioned word for retirement during a economic downturn can be found in the census records: pauper.
371545
The government’s average employment share increased from 5.2 percent in 1937 to 12.3 percent in 1960 to 18.4 percent in 1994. The rate of increase of this ratio has declined during the past couple decades in most countries, but one ought not to make too much of that deceleration.  The difference shows that we have grow to have more money and just overall more economically smart. \n\nhahaha i found the anwser =]
290925
We Baby Boomers are getting old.  Therefore, anything which deals with the needs of seniors is a growing field.  Medical professions, of course, and leisure time activities, hobbies, entertainment suitable to seniors.  \n\nOne area of growing interest is collectibles.  We all had so much stuff run through our fingers that we now wish we could have back.  There's a book out for doll collectors titled "I Had That Doll!"  The exclamation point in the title tells it all:  I let it get away from me, and I want it back.  Only now, it's very expensive.\n\nAnother important field is investments.  We mostly all have fears that the Social Security system will be a joke by the time we get to it, if it isn't already.  We have IRAs and 401Ks, and we need young, savvy, computer literate investment counselors to help us stop being afraid of old age and running out of money.  (Come to think of it, the collectibles field is also an investment field, if done with smarts.)
774158
It has cost us billions, but I have been told by our administration that it is worth every penny because we have a democratic Iraq. But I sure miss the days when our priorities were social security for our aging grandparents, affordable health insurance, education for our children, creating good paying jobs, cheap gas, and the support of down and out Americans. Now, I can only imagine what it would be like if the USA had no deficit and our money had stayed home to invigorate and protect our quality of life.  (sigh!)
474044
There is currently a YEARLY surplus of Social Security  withholding that is being generated by boomers being at their highest lifetime earning levels, and a not-yet increased demand for Social security payments.  It is decreasing fast.\nThis surplus is 'borrowed' into the general budget of the United States.\nIn order to pay Social security back, taxes would have to be increased, because...we just borrowed that money from ourselves.\n\nIf people stop contributing into Social security and start putting money into Individual Investment accounts, the Social Security payments will not have enough SS withholding to pay them - in other words, the people who paid into Social Security all their lives would face a insolvent fund.\n\nOnce you put your money into a Social Security personal investment (with a contracted outside investment company) your investment has the same pitfalls that private investing has.  It can suddenly lose half it's value during a market correction, it can be lost entirely should the country go through one of the downturns that usually happen about every 50 years...\n\nPanics, recessions and Depression are cyclical economic downturns that have roiled this country on a regular basis since it's birth.  They are characterized by bank failures, bankruptcies, foreclosures, business failures, and declines in property values.  Before the very recent creation of Social security, the term for retirement during an economic downturn was PAUPER.
1103564
"Unless changes are made, at age 69 in 2040 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 26 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the 2006 Trustees Report."\n\nhttp://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm\n\nNo one knows for sure...but there is an extensive amount of information on this topic available on the web.
1010802
The last statistics that I saw on this was a few years ago: was somewhere around 87% of the wealthiest Americans inherited 90% of their wealth.\n\nHope I can get this next part right:\nSomething like 95% of the wealth of this country is owned by 1% of the wealthiest 10%.\n\nWish I knew where to find those stats again. My numbers might be a little off but they are close. You get the idea.\n\nIt is complete bullshyt that ppl think in this 'capitalist' society that the smartest and most hard working will be the most rewarded.
575131
Here you could find prices, but for 1980 and other years:\nhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/prices.pdf#search='itemsprice1981'
137684
Social Security will be "depleted" around 2055.  Right about the time I reach retirement age >:-|.  It's not really a question of being depleted as it's not actually payed out of funds that are saved up somewhere.  Rather it comes from the tax dollars of the current workforce.  Basically, you support your parents just as they supported their parents, and later your kids will support you, their kids will support them, and so on.  The problem is that people are retiring younger and living longer.  Right now we have the baby boomers supporting the smaller generation that preceeded them, but once the boomers hit retirement we'll have a lot more money going out than coming in.  We can fix this either by increasing the money going in (i.e. raising taxes) or decreasing the money going out (i.e. cutting benefits).
687296
Clinton passed the most sweeping welfare reform bill in 50 years - welfare to work. I think welfare is a solid program as long as it's not abused and is not a lifelong meal ticket. As far as Social Security goes, what ever happened to personal responsibility? Why are we paying what is basically a tax to Washington when we could be investing that money and getting higher returns? Social Security will not be backrupt in 20 years. It is bankrupt now. There is no money in the social secutiry trust fund. It has all been spent and replaced with IOUs. Washington is spending "our" retirement money. There are 2 ways to fix the system. Raise the ceiling for SS contributions from $72,600, where it is now, and "lock box" them, or disband the system.