Abortion and Birth Control are Bankrupting Social Security and Medicare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

For the first time in history a credit reporting agency (Standard and Poor’s) downgraded the U.S bond rating in 2011.  Why?  The agency said they needed to see $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.  The best Congress could do was $917 billion in spending cuts over 10 years.  And the creation of a super-committee to find another $1.5 trillion.  For a total of $2.417 trillion in spending cuts.  At least, on paper.  That never happened.  After winning reelection the president held out for and got increases in tax rates.  So he could increase spending.

So how did the U.S. get to where they needed to cut $4 trillion in spending?  Well, a large part of it has to do with abortion (see 55,772,015 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 by Steven Ertelt posted 1/18/2013 on LifeNews.com).

The United States marks 40 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy on January 22nd, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that time, there have been approximately 55,772,015 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.

Taxpayers pay taxes.  And how do we get taxpayers?  By having babies.  So when we aborted over 55 million babies the effect on tax revenue was profound.  We can see how by making some assumptions.  And doing a little math.

First of all, 55,772,015 abortions over 39 years come to on average 1,430,052 abortions a year.  Dividing this number by two to pair off couples for baby-making that comes to 715,026 couples.  Without abortion available we’ll assume about 80% of these couples will have children.

The first babies of the 715,026 enter the workforce 20 years later.  So in that year the number of additional workers paying taxes equals 2,002,072 (1,430,052 + (0.8 X 715,026)).  The following year the second child of this couple enters the workforce while another couple’s first child enters the workforce.  This brings the additional workers paying taxes equal 3,146,114.  And so on until each couple brings in three new taxpayers into the workforce. Over a decade the number of new workers paying taxes equals 110,685,999.

Assuming a median income of $50,000 these 110,685,999 taxpayers earn a total of $5.5 trillion over ten years.  Assuming an effective federal income tax rate of 18% the total federal income tax these people would have paid equals approximately $996 billion.

Using the 12.4% Social Security tax rate (both employer and employee) the amount of Social Security taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $686 billion.

Using the 2.9% Medicare tax rate the amount of Medicare taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $160 billion.

Adding these taxes together (Social Security and Medicare) they add up to $847 billion.  Adding this to the amount of federal income taxes brings the amount of taxes these people would have provided over ten years to about $1.8 trillion.

When they wrote Social Security and Medicare into law the average family size had fallen from around 5 to about 3.5 over a decade or so.  If you take that $1.8 trillion and adjust it for 3.5 children (1.8/3 X 3.5) the lost tax revenue equals $2.15 trillion.  At 4 children that lost tax revenue comes to $2.5 trillion.  At 5 children that lost tax revenue comes to $3.1 trillion.  At 6 children it’s $3.7 trillion.

Today’s seniors entered child-bearing age long before women’s liberation, birth control and abortion.  So most women got married and had children.  It is not uncommon for today’s seniors to come from families of 10 children or more.  This is significant because when the actuaries set up Social Security and Medicare they assumed these trends would continue.  But they didn’t.  The birth rate (and the population growth rate) declined since Social Security and Medicare became law.  Causing the population to age.  More people are now leaving the workforce and collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits than there are workers entering the workforce to pay for them.

Abortion has been a part of this decline.  In a current 10-year projection we are seeing anywhere from $1.8 trillion to $3.7 trillion in lost tax revenue due to abortion.  If Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion and the Left didn’t assault the family (encouraging women NOT to get married or have children) during the Seventies as radical feminism took off there would have been a lot more births.  Perhaps as many as those actuaries thought there would be when they calculated the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

If normal family patterns had continued not only would these abortions not have happened families may have had more children.  Producing more taxpayers.  There were 3,136,965 live births in 1973.  The average family size then was about 2.5.  If you divide the number of births by average family size you get about 1,254,786 families having children.  If each of these families had one additional child that additional 1,254,786 children would be approximately 87.7% of the average number of abortions.  If these children grew up to have three children of their own we can calculate this additional tax revenue the same way we did for the loss revenue from abortion.  Or we can multiply the loss revenue from abortion ($1.8 trillion) by 87.7% to approximate what those additional children in 1973 would contribute in a ten-year projection today.  Approximately $1.9 trillion.  Adding the losses from abortion and families having one less child brings the total of loss tax revenue to $4.04 trillion.  Which equals the $4 trillion S&P was looking for in spending cuts.

So what is the cause for America’s deficits?   Is it because the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes?  No.  It’s because of abortion and birth control.  And radical feminism.  That attacked the family and encouraged women to do anything but get married and have children.  Something FDR and his New Dealers never designed Social Security and Medicare to take into account.  For FDR and his New Dealers were sexists.  As are Social Security and Medicare.  These programs require women to marry and have children to stay solvent.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Insufficient Spending Cuts triggers S&P Downgrade, not Insufficient Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 6th, 2011

Ah, the Good Old Days when Communists didn’t school Americans in Capitalism

It happened.  S&P downgraded the U.S.  Just like they said they would if we didn’t make $4 trillion in spending cuts.  And our patron is not pleased (see China attacks US debt ‘addiction’ after America loses AAA credit rating by Richard Blackden posted 8/6/2011 on The Telegraph).

“The US government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,” China said in a commentary carried by the Xinhua News Agency.

Ouch.  Strong words from a communist.  The Soviet Union never gave us lessons in capitalism when there was a Soviet Union.  Then again, we always had a AAA bond rating back then.  And their GDP growth wasn’t greater than ours.  Ah, the good old days.  When communists didn’t school Americans in capitalism.

Vince Cable, the British Business Secretary, said the downgrade was an “entirely predictable consequence of the mess that the Congress created a few weeks ago when they couldn’t agree on lifting the debt ceiling.”

Francois Baroin, France’s finance minister, said his country had total confidence in the US economy, while India called the “situation was grave” and Russia said it would keep the level of dollar investments in its national reserve funds, adding: “There is not a great difference between AAA and AA+.”

Those are some very supportive words from the Russians.  Which differ slightly from previous remarks when Putin said, “They are living like parasites off the global economy and their monopoly of the dollar.”  It’s subtle but it’s there.  On the one hand the downgrade is no big deal.  On the other we’re the scum of the earth.  It’s subtle but there is a distinct difference in these statements.  They resent us.  But they can’t live without us.  Kind of sweet.  In a bitter way.

In an explanation of the decision, S&P said that despite last week’s agreement, which raised the $14.3trillion debt ceiling and promised cuts of $2.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, the ratio of America’s public debt to the size of its economy may climb to 79pc in 2015 and 85pc by 2021. It is understood that an agreement that had delivered a $4 trillion reduction in the debt pile would have preserved the AAA rating.

S&P downgraded us, of course, for having too much debt.  Now debt grows from having annual deficits.  And deficits are caused by either taxing too little.  Or by spending too much.  S&P wanted to see the debt reduced by $4 trillion.  They only got $2.5 trillion.  Hence the downgrade. 

You can’t Reduce the Debt $4 Trillion by Raising Taxes, at least not Mathematically

Reducing the debt by $4 trillion won’t be easy.  That’s a lot of money.  About $333 billion each month.  Current tax revenue into Washington is about $200 billion each month.  So, to get this $4 trillion in deficit reduction with new taxes only would require raising monthly tax revenue from $200 billion to $533 billion (an increase of 166%).  Increasing taxes by 166% (income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) is going to do some devastating economic damage.  The kind the economy is not going to get up and walk away from.  So it’s a non-solution.

But what about a balanced approach?  In addition to that $2.5 trillion in cuts we throw in $1.5 trillion in new taxes for a total $4 trillion in debt reduction.  $1.5 trillion is about $125 billion each month.  This would increase monthly tax revenue from $200 billion to $325 billion (an increase of 65%).  This will also do some serious economic damage.  So it’s a non-solution, too.

And sticking it to the ‘rich’ won’t work either.  For they can’t afford it.  Let’s look at the numbers.  The total adjusted gross income reported in 2009 was $7.626 trillion.  The percent of that total earned by the top 5% earners (earning $159,619 or more) is 31%.  So the total income of the top 5% in 2009 is $2.36 trillion.  Total federal income taxes paid in 2009 was $1.05 trillion.  The top 5% of earners pay 59% of all federal income taxes.  So the total they paid in income taxes in 2009 is $570 billion.  This leaves a balance of $1.79 trillion of their earnings they didn’t pay in federal income taxes, or about $150 billion each month.  Which is not enough to pay an additional $333 billion each month.  But it is enough to pay an additional $125 billion each month.  As long as these people are willing to pay an effective federal income tax rate of 87.6%.  Which I doubt.  For another 12.4% in taxes (state, country, local, property, gas, sales, etc.) and they’re working for free.  Like a slave.  Only without the free room and board.

You can’t reduce the debt enough by raising taxes a lot.  Or a little.  The rich people (those earning $159,619 or more) will run out of earnings before they can pay the $4 trillion in debt reduction.  It’s just mathematically impossible.  The only way you can do this is by cutting spending.  And they didn’t.  Hence the downgrade.

Paul Krugman ‘defends’ Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s Deficits

Meanwhile, while the S&P tragedy unfolds, Paul Krugman ‘defends’ Ronald Reagan‘s and George W. Bush‘s deficits.  Saying that big deficits aren’t a big deal.  And we don’t have to knock ourselves out trying to pay down the debt they create.  For depreciation of the dollar makes those once large numbers become trivial (see The Arithmetic of Near-term Deficits and Debt by Paul Krugman posted 8/6/2011 on The New York Times).

What matters for debt sustainability is the real interest rate, since what matters is keeping real debt, not nominal debt, from growing. (World War II debt never got paid off, it just eroded in real terms to the point where it was trivial). As of yesterday, the US government could lock in 30-year bonds at a real interest rate of 1.25%. That means that a trillion dollars in extra debt would mean $12.5 billion a year in additional real interest payments.

Meanwhile, the CBO estimates potential real GDP in 2021 at about $18 trillion in 2005 dollars, or around $19 trillion in 2011 dollars.

Put these together, and they say that an extra trillion in borrowing adds something like 0.07% of GDP in future debt service costs. Yes, that zero belongs there. The $4 trillion S&P said it needed to see clocks in at less than 0.3% of GDP.

Of course I’m extrapolating his remarks to apply them to the Reagan and Bush deficits.  For if they hold for a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit then they surely hold for a $200 billion (Reagan) and a $400 billion deficit (Bush).  The key is to make that old debt worth less by making the dollar worth less.  The more you devalue the dollar the less that debt held by the Chinese is worth.  As well as the debt held by pension funds and retirement accounts.  And our personal savings.  For inflation is a killer of dollar-denominated assets.  Which is good for the debtor (the seller of treasuries).  But bad for the creditor (the buyer of treasuries).

Further extrapolating Krugman’s remarks one must conclude that with the deficit being trivial he would endorse the economic boom of the Eighties.  And agree that Reaganomics was a success.  For the argument has always been that Reaganomics traded exceptional GDP growth for deficits.  But with deficits being trivial, there is no tradeoff for that exceptional GDP growth.

To Live within our Means we will have to Cut Spending 

True, inflation will make bonds easier to redeem 30 years later.  But too much inflation causes a lot of damage.  Especially to those living on fixed incomes.  No, a better solution would be to live within our means.  And that doesn’t mean raising taxes.  Besides, the rich don’t have much left to give.  No, if we’re going to live within our means we will have to cut spending.  As painful as that may be.  And the longer we wait to make those cuts the more painful those cuts will be.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,