The Math of the Welfare State gives us a Bleak Future of Alternatives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 4th, 2011

Week in Review

Europe’s troubles will be our troubles.  Just give it some time (see The Welfare State’s Day Of Reckoning Is Here by ROBERT J. SAMUELSON posted 12/2/2011 on Investors.com).

Government expansion was one of the 20th century’s great transformations. Wealthy nations adopted programs for education, health care, unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, public housing and income redistribution.

“Public spending for these activities had been almost nonexistent at the beginning of the 20th century,” writes economist Vito Tanzi in his book “Government versus Markets.”

The numbers — to those who don’t know them — are astonishing. In 1870, all government spending was 7.3% of national income in the U.S., 9.4% in Britain, 10% in Germany and 12.6% in France. By 2007, the figures were 36.6% in the U.S., 44.6% for Britain, 43.9% for Germany, 52.6% in France.

Military costs once dominated budgets; now, social spending does…

To flourish, the welfare state requires favorable economics and demographics: rapid economic growth to pay for social benefits; and young populations to support the old. Both economics and demographics have moved adversely.

The great expansion of Europe’s welfare states started in the 1950s and 1960s, when annual economic growth for its rich nations averaged 4.5% compared with a historical rate since 1820 of 2.1%, notes Eichengreen. This sort of growth, it was assumed, would continue indefinitely. Not so. From 1973 to 2000, growth settled back to 2.1%. More recently, it’s been lower.

Demographics shifted, too. In 2000, Italy’s 65-and-over population was already 18% of the total; in 2010, it was 21%, and the projection for 2050 is 34%. Figures for the European Union’s 27 countries are 16%, 18% and 29%…

In 1960, 26% of federal spending represented payments for individuals; in 2010, it was 66%. Economic growth in the 1950s and 1960s averaged about 4%; from 2000 to 2007, the average was 2.4%. Our elderly population was 13% in 2010; the 2050 estimate is 20%.

The high cost of the welfare state has required ever increasing taxes which has dampened economic growth.  The availability of birth control and abortion has reduced the population growth.  More and more seniors are being supported by fewer and fewer young workers.  Requiring ever higher taxes to support the welfare state.  Which further dampens economic growth.

It’s a vicious cycle.  And it won’t end until welfare nations go bankrupt.  Or until the pre-birth control and abortion generations die out.  A bleak future of alternatives.  But a future the math gives us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #80: “A nation’s government spends too much when its spending increases at a rate greater than its population growth.” – Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2011

Exchanging Dollars for Gold at $35/ounce was a Strong Incentive not to Depreciate the Dollar

It’s no secret.  Government spending is growing out of control.  It’s producing record deficits.  That caused S&P to downgrade America’s AAA sovereign debt rating.  No one denies that it’s a problem.  This spending.  Those on the Right want to address this via spending cuts.  Those on the Left just want to keep raising taxes.

LBJ exploded government spending with his Great Society in the Sixties.  Back then the U.S. was still on a quasi gold standard.  The U.S. honored an exchange of dollars for gold.  The point of this was to prevent the government from printing too much money.  Print too much and you depreciate the dollar.  So when you promise to exchange dollars for gold at $35/ounce you have an incentive not to depreciate the dollar.  Because as that $35 will buy less and less everywhere else, it will always buy an ounce of U.S. gold.

Well, with the Vietnam War and the Great Society, President Nixon had an unpleasant decision to make.  Unpleasant for a politician.  Either cut spending.  Or print money.  Politicians don’t like cutting spending.  So he printed money.  Which depreciated the dollar.  And countries were taking those cheap dollars and exchanging them for lots and lots of U.S. gold.  There was so much gold flying out of the country that Nixon did something shocking.  We call it the Nixon Shock.  He said the U.S. would no longer honor the dollars for gold exchange.  That was in August of 1971.  And prices have never been the same since.

The Growth of the CPI took off following the Nixon Shock

Keynesian economists were happy to see the end of the gold standard.  Because they like printing money.  And they’ve been advising governments to do just that.  To put an end to the business cycle.  And recessions as we know it.  For when the signs of recession are apparent, the government can pump a lot of dollars into the economy.  Thus avoiding a recession.  This was the policy since the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.  Which put the nation’s best and brightest in charge of the American economy.  Who were unable to prevent numerous recessions.  A Great Recession.  And a Great Depression.

So the Keynesians have failed in preventing recessions.  Of all sizes.  Worse, their inflationary policies of freely printing and spending money has increased prices.  Caused a sharp increase in the growth rate of the Consumer Price Index (an inflation indicator).  As you can see in the following chart.  Where we graph government spending (outlays) and the CPI.  Dollar amounts are in billions of constant 2005 dollars.  Data is plotted in 10 year intervals.

 

(Sources:  Outlays, CPI)

You can see that the rate of growth in the CPI took off following the Nixon Shock.  That was the price for government printing money to keep spending beyond its means.  To make everything cost more in real dollars for us.  The consumers.  This shrinking of our paychecks put an end to the single wage-earner as we knew it.  Today the norm is that it takes two incomes to raise a family.  The exception is when one can do it.

Even before the Nixon Shock you could see that government was spending beyond its means.  Increasing its spending greater than the rate of inflation.  That means the size and number of government benefits was growing.  And it continued to grow until the Nineties.  When a Republican House forced a liberal president to the center.  After the Republicans won the 1994 midterm electionsBill Clinton‘s welfare reform decreased the growth rate of government.  For the first time after World War II.  But George W. Bush liked to spend the money.  Barack Obama, too.  Even more so.  Who took government spending to new highs with his $800 billion stimulus.  And his Obamacare.

The Number and Size of Benefits are growing Faster than the Population

Of course, you have to be careful not to let those benefits grow faster than the population.  Because government revenue comes from the taxpayers.  An increasing population means increasing tax revenue.  Because more people are paying taxes.  A decreasing population means declining tax revenue.  Because fewer people are paying taxes.

Likewise, spending that grows less than the population growth rate means a government is spending within its means.  Spending that grows greater than the population growth rate means a government is spending beyond its means.  And most probably running deficits.

We can see this if we graph population with government spending (outlays).  And we do that in the following chart.  Population is in numbers of people.  Outlays are in billions of constant 2005 dollars.  Data is plotted in 10 year intervals (to correspond with the decennial census).

 (Sources:  Population, Outlays)

Up until the Nineties, government spending increased at a greater rate than the population grew.  Clearly indicating that the number and size of benefits was growing relative to the population.  In particular, you can see an upward bend in outlays with the onset of the Great Society. 

This new growth rate remained consistent through the heyday of Keynesian economics.  The Seventies.  And through Reaganomics.  The Eighties.  Democrat Bill Clinton reduced the growth rate of government spending during his two terms in office.  Thanks to a Republican House.   But George W. Bush liked to spend the money.  For a couple of wars.  And a new Medicare prescription drug program.  And then Barack Obama became president.  And made George W. Bush look like a cheapskate when it came to government spending.

We are Spending Money at a Greater Rate than we’re Creating New Taxpayers 

Currently, the rate of government spending is increasing far greater than the population growth rate.  Meaning we are spending money at a greater rate than we’re creating new taxpayers.  Which can only mean one thing.  Record deficits.  Which we have.

We cannot sustain this spending.  It’s not a matter of insufficient tax revenue.  We’re just spending too much.  If we continue to spend at this rate there won’t be enough money to tax away from the private sector to pay for it.  Unless we have another baby boom.   Far greater than the last one.  But babies take time to grow up.  Before they become taxpayers.  Some twenty years or more before they pay any significant taxes.  So that’s a long-term solution at best.

But with the high cost of raising a family that isn’t likely.  Thanks to permanent inflation.  Courtesy of Keynesian economics.  With the way they (Keynesians) bent the CPI graph upward, big families are a thing of the past.  So that’s not an option.  That leaves one thing.  Spending cuts.  Significant spending cuts.  The very thing that would have preserved America’s AAA credit rating.

And you know how politicians love spending cuts.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #80: “A nation’s government spends too much when its spending increases at a rate greater than its population growth.” – Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 23rd, 2011

Parents do what they can to Live within their Means 

People don’t have as many children as before.  Why?  Cost.  It’s expensive to have children.  And to raise a family.  Those who decide to raise children make serious changes in their lives.  Because of the costs.

Before kids these people may drive a new car.  Have nice toys.  A boat.  A motorcycle.  Electronic gadgets.  They may go out to eat a lot.  Eat steak at home a couple times a week.  Go to the movies.  Take some exotic vacations.  After kids?  Used car.  Fewer toys.  More hamburger-based dishes at home.  No more movies.  And vacations are closer to home and less exotic and more mundane.

Parents do what they can to live within their means.  And it’s not easy.  Because they typically start families when they are starting their careers.  So their incomes aren’t very large.  And kids are expensive.  Put the two together and you have some serious austerity living in these early years of starting a family.  But they do what they must do to raise their family.

Personal Responsibility is a very Effective System

So let’s take a look at these costs.  The Center of Nutrition Policy and Promotion’s 2010 annual report shows annual costs for different income groups for different ranges of children from babies up to age 17.  Let’s focus on the low set of income numbers (average annual income of $36,840).  To reflect a new family starting at the same time as the income-earner’s career.  And average the two groups of children that cover ages 0-5.  Crunching these numbers to see the impact of adding one additional child on remaining monthly income looks something like this:

(Source:  Center of Nutrition Policy and Promotion’s 2010 annual report, page 26.)

This is only a crude estimate.  But the numbers are telling.  Kids are expensive.  The more you have the less you have.  Money, that is.  That’s why married men raising a family are such better employees than single men with no kids.  That kind of financial responsibility keeps you in on a Friday night instead of drinking with the boys.  It makes you a punctual employee.  And a hard worker.  Eager to advance to higher pay levels.  Because if you don’t, things are going to get pretty difficult when that third child comes along.

It’s a very effective system.  Personal responsibility.  Especially when it’s your income paying your expenses.

We have Social Safety Nets to Help People in their Time of Need

Now suppose this worker doesn’t advance his or her income before having 4 children.  Which will leave only $141.67 a month to live on.  That won’t pay for much rent.  Or food.  In fact, this person will probably be evicted from their home.  And file personal bankruptcy.  Unless family and/or friends offer to help with their finances.  Or they become a ward of the state.

Sadly, things like this happen far too often.  A plant closes.  A husband has a debilitating injury.  There’s a catastrophic health crisis in the family.  So we have social safety nets in place for these people.  To help them in their time of need.  Due to circumstances beyond their control.

But what about those who willfully spend more than their income can support?  People who live on credit?  Refusing to ever live within their means?  Often blaming others for their insufficient income that won’t support the level of spending they want to maintain?  What about them and their irresponsible ways?  Should they force others to pay more to support their irresponsible spending?  Just because they have the power to tax.  And can run deficits?

The Social Safety Nets are becoming more like European Socialism

The federal government has the power to tax.  When they can’t tax anymore they can run deficits.  Financed by borrowing.  Or by simply printing money.  When spending beyond your means is that easy, you can see why the government continually spends beyond its means.

And they are spending ever more.  And the social safety nets have grown.  Social Security.  MedicareMedicaid.  And now Obamacare.  Which are no longer social safety nets.  But more like European socialism.  Like the social democracies of Europe.  That are currently imploding in the Eurozone financial crisis.

Why?  Because the Europeans are no longer treating their people as citizens.  But as children.  Children that never leave the nest.  Cared for from the cradle to the grave.  The responsible parent can understand the problem.  They are trying to raise more children than they can afford.  Just like a few extra children can bankrupt a family of modest income, this ever expanding social welfare will bankrupt the state.  It’s just a matter of time.

Government could take a Lesson from the Average American Family

The problem with generous benefits is that they cost.  And as populations grow so do these benefits.  So they have to pay these ever increasing costs with ever increasing revenue.  Which becomes a problem.  In the private sector.  As well as the public sector.

As GM lost market share, their health care costs increased greater than their sales growth.  They went bankrupt.  Social Security and Medicare costs are growing faster than the population growth.  Which means fewer taxpayers will be available to pay a growing number of benefit recipients.  Both programs are projected to go bankrupt.

Families have to live within their means.  That’s why a family with an annual income of $36,840 doesn’t raise a family of ten children.  They wait until they can afford to.  If that’s what they want.  They make sure they work hard to earn the income necessary to raise a large family.  Government could take a lesson from the average American family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #53: “The essence of politics is taking from the many and giving to the few.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2011

Good Times Turned into Chronic Deficits and Punishing Debt

Two things have historically made government good at filling its coffers.  The power to tax.  And a growing population.  It’s a simple mathematical equation.  And each year it totals more.  As long as you have a growing population to tax you can sustain government spending for a long time.  All the while putting a little of those taxes aside to take care of you and yours.

Businesses call it economies of scale.  Sell more of a thing and the cost per thing goes down.  If you have $1 million in total costs and sell only 4 things, then each thing will have to sell for $250,000 just to break even.  If you sell 5 million things, then you only have to sell each thing for a nickel to break even.  If you sell more things you can charge less for each thing.  It’s sort of like that with taxes, too.  If you have a growing population (with an expanding birthrate), each succeeding generation will have a lot more tax payers than the previous one.  So a small tax rate on a growing population will continue to increase the amount of tax dollars flowing into the government’s coffers.  And a good time will be had by all.

But right now, the federal government, some states and some cities are struggling to balance their budgets.  Something happened.  What others would have described as the perfect Ponzi scheme became like a real one.  The money paying current benefits became larger than the current contributions.  And good times turned into chronic deficits and punishing debt.  So what happened?

Government Employees Grew 280% from 1946 to 2010

Well, to begin with, some people just got greedy.  They spent a lot of money.  Grew the size of government.  Put more and more people onto the public dole.  At all levels of government.  City.  State.  And federal.  And they based all of this growth on the most hopeful of economic assumptions.  That revenue (i.e., tax receipts) then would continue to grow at the same rate forever and ever.   So they grew government.  Gave themselves very generous pay and benefits.  Pension plans that they could never sustain in the private sector.  Job security.  And other good stuff those in the private sector just don’t get (more holidays, more paid vacation, better healthcare, etc.).  And why not?  They had the power to tax.  And an increasing population.  I mean, what could go wrong?

Well, things change.  Even in government.  In 1946 (about when FDR gave us Social Security), there was approximately 6 million government employees (federal, state and city).  Fast forward to 2010 and that number grew to 23 million.  That’s an increase of 280%.  That’s a huge transfer from the private sector to the public sector.  Which required an enormous amount of additional tax revenue.

Of course, if the population grew at a corresponding rate, then perhaps that growth can be justified.  Maybe they just hired more people to administer a growing population.  It’s either that.  Or they were just expanding the role of government into our lives.  Perhaps a look at some population data will answer that question.

Population Grew 118% and the Birthrate fell 31% from 1946 to 2010

The population in 1946 exceeded 141 million.  In 2010 it exceeded 308 million.  That’s an increase of approximately 118%.  Less than half of the growth rate in government jobs.  So, no, government hasn’t grown larger to keep pace with a growing population.  It has grown larger to expand its role into our lives.

The birthrate in 1946 was 20.4 births per thousand of population.  In 2010 the birthrate fell to 14 births per thousand of population.  That’s a decrease of 31%.  So while the population grew at 118% between 1946 and 2010, the number of births only increased approximately 50% (from 2.8 million to 4.3 million).  In other words, our current birth rate accounts for less than half of our population growth. 

So we have a public sector growing more than twice our population growth.  And we have a birthrate that is less than half of our population growth.  You put these two facts together and what does it tell you?  The growth of taxpayers to fund the public sector is decreasing while the public sector is increasing.  And this can mean only one thing.  Tax rates on the individual have to increase so fewer taxpayers can support more tax consumers (i.e., the public sector).

Payroll Taxes (Social Security and Medicare) Grew 665% from 1946 to 2010

To simplify the discussion, let’s look only at Social Security and Medicare.  In 1946 there was only Social Security.  And the payroll tax was 1%.  In 2010 we have both Social Security and Medicare.  The total payroll tax for these two is 7.65%.  That’s an increase of 665%.  If you earn $30,000 that comes to $2,295 today.  If the tax rate was at the 1946 level it would only be $300.  Giving you an additional $1,995 to spend.  (If you make $65,000, the numbers are $4,972.50, $650 and $4,322.50, respectively.)  Could you use another $1,995?  If you don’t think that’s a lot consider this.  We pay a lot more taxes than just Social Security and Medicare.  You add all of them up and it totals the price of a decent car.  A care that you pay for but never get to drive.

These numbers increased because costs went up at a greater rate than the number of new taxpayers.  Therefore, each individual taxpayer had to pay more.  This is a problem repeated at every level of government.  Government grew and expanded its role.  And its payrolls.  Based on population models used before birth control and abortion.  But then birthrates declined.  In the second half of the 20th century, new babies made up less than half of our new population.  Which explains the government’s earnest desire for blanket amnesty for all illegals in the country.  To make up for that declining birthrate.  And restore the population growth rate to the numbers the actuaries used in all their calculations to fund all that Big Government spending.

As noted, we pay more taxes than just Social Security and Medicare.  And they’re all going up.  For the same reasons.  Government overstepped its bounds.  Spent money under the most ideal assumptions.  And the moment a little reality entered into the economy their house of cards came tumbling down.  The big states and the big cities are all drowning under their public sector obligations.  They have pension obligations that are pushing them towards bankruptcy.  And the federal government has its own problems with Social Security and Medicare.

It’s Spending Cuts or Bust

It was a simple plan.  Tax a little from everyone.  Give generous benefits to the few you need to vote for you.  Live happily ever after.  But they overreached.  Grew government too big.  Just as the population growth rate took a nosedive.  They have raised taxes on the remaining taxpayers in the private sector about as high as they can go.  If they raise them anymore the greatest recession since the Great Depression may very well turn into another Great Depression.  So what to do?

Well, based on that simple mathematical equation, we have but two choices.  Increase the growth rate of the taxpaying population.  Or cut spending.  If we started today raising families of 10 plus kids, it would still take about 20 years (or more) before these new taxpayers start paying taxes.  But we may not have 20 years.  So that leaves the spending cuts.  Even blanket amnesty for illegals won’t help.  Because government spending is a function of the birthrate.  And sustained spending requires a sustained birthrate.  Amnesty won’t give you that.  So it’s spending cuts or bust.  Literally.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #13: “If you were to live under the socialist maxim ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his need’ you would find yourself surrounded by needy people with no ability.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2010

KEY TO CIVILIZATION growth is the food supply.  Food surpluses in particular.  Before dependable food surpluses, life was short, harsh and miserable.  Especially for women.  When they weren’t working in the fields they were giving birth and raising children.  High infant mortality rates, though, inhibited population growth.  Most of the children women gave birth to didn’t survive to adulthood.  So there was a constant state of child rearing.  But few children survived to help with the business of family life.

Malnutrition and famine were common.  Feudalism provided a precarious balance between life and death.  For centuries the common people (i.e., peasants) eked out survival on their landlord’s manor.  The lord owned the land.  The peasants worked it.  Most of the bounty went to their lord.  But they kept what they grew on a small strip of land for themselves.  Just enough for subsistence.

But England changed all that.  By 1750, her agricultural output was second to none.  Private property.  Free market economy.  Capitalism.  Increased productivity.  Specialization.  These all combined to provide incentive.  Incentive produced food surpluses.  Food surpluses produced profits.  Reinvested profits improved farm yields.  This produced more profit.  And the cycle continued.  In less than a century feudalism would disappear from England.  There, you either worked land you owned or were paid wages to work land owned by others.  People began to live longer and healthier lives. 

The British Empire ruled the civilized world in the 19th century.  Representative government.  Abolition of slavery.  Free trade.  The Industrial Revolution.  These things, and others, gave them wealth, power and moral authority.  A lot of good came from this island kingdom.  Including the United States.  They weren’t perfect.  There was a learning curve.  But the modern capitalistic economy which they gave us liberated the masses.  It let us do what we wanted to do, not just what we had to do.  In particular, women, who could do more than just raise families and work in the fields.  One day, she could even become prime minister of Great Britain.

FOOD SURPLUSES BEGET industrialization.  Food surpluses beget everything, really.  Food surpluses release human capital to do everything else we do besides farming.  England was at the van of this modernization.  Others followed.  In time. 

Russia abolished serfdom (i.e., feudalism) in 1861.  Industrially backwards at the time, this liberty awakened a dormant human capital.  They followed the English model.  In time, with the advent of steamship and rail transportation, Russian grain competed with other European producers.

Joseph Stalin, looking to jump ahead in the industrialization process, implemented collective farming in the late 1920s.  He turned away from the English model.  The government became land owners.  It was feudalism on a grand scale.  Large collective farms would produce vast food surpluses that could feed industrial cities.  And there would still be surpluses left over to export to raise capital to build these industrial cities.  At least, that was the plan.

With less incentive came less productivity.  What land the former serfs had come to own was lost to the state.  The state took so much of the harvest that there was little food left for those who labored to grow it.  And the price the state paid for their crops was less than it was before collectivization.  The ‘free’ serfs were earning less and working more.  They didn’t like it.  And chose not to participate.  Collectivization became forced collectivization. 

Deportations, terror, murder and famine followed.  Perhaps more than 5 million starved to death during the famine of 1931 and 1932.  Others were to follow.

Forced collective farming produced famines elsewhere.  In China, during Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, forced collectivization produced even greater famine deaths.  Historians estimate that 20-30 million, maybe more, starved to death in the famine of 1959–62.  Though hard numbers aren’t available, North Korea suffered a devastating famine in the late 1990s that claimed millions.  But in the West, in the 20th century, famine was unheard of.  When the United States suffered during the great Dust Bowl of the 1930s, there was no corresponding famine despite the loss of productive farmland.

WITH INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY comes incentive.  With incentive comes productivity.  A small island nation of free land owners could produce grain to feed themselves with surplus left over for export.  Nations with great fertile tracts farmed by forced collectivization led to famine.  Slaves have little incentive other than to subsist.  The collective good means little to them when they are starving.  They continue to sacrifice.  And continue to suffer.  Even if they do produce a few more bushels of grain.  So if the suffering is the same, what is the incentive to work harder?

As individual liberty declines, those in power tend to exploit those they rule.  In the name of the state.  Or the common good.  This is easy to see when it results in famine or revolution.  Not easy to hide those things.  But it is a little more difficult to see when the results are more benign.  Longer unemployment benefits, for example.  I mean, those are pretty nice.  Hard to see the downside in them.  As it is in other benefits these rulers give us.  So we are seduced as they whisper these sweet nothings in our ears.  And soon we willingly cede our liberty.  A little at a time.

WITH THE RISE of individual liberty, there was a corresponding decline in the ruling elite thanks to representative government.  Great Britain gave this gift to us and the United States took it to incredible heights.  The oppressed everywhere immigrated to the United States to feed a growing industrial demand.  Being new, we did not know all the affects of industrialization.  When the bad things came to light, we addressed them.  Great Britain, for example, was one of the first to protect women and children from the worse of industrial society.  Still, working conditions could be harsh.  As could life in the industrial cities.  Poverty.  Filth.  Disease.  And it was the wretched state of life in these slums that gave birth to a new school of thought on industrialization. 

In 1844 Friedrich Engels wrote The Condition of the English Working-Class to expose life in these slums.  He would collaborate 4 years later with Karl Marx on a treatise called The Communist Manifesto.  And from this Marxism, Communism, socialism, collectivism, etc., would follow.  As economic systems go, these would all prove to be failures.  But the essence of them lives on.  State planning.

You see, it was capitalism that gave us the industrial slums.  And that was good propaganda for a ruling elite looking to rule again.  So they whispered sweet nothings into our ears.  They talked about a Social Utopia.  From each according to his ability to each according to his need.  Fair taxation (i.e., only the ‘rich’ pay taxes).  Social safety nets (paid for by taxes of the rich).  Shorter workdays.  Longer paid vacations.  More government benefits.  A burgeoning welfare state.  Free stuff for everyone.  Again, paid for by taxing the rich who have exploited the working class.

What evolved was the elimination of the middle class.  You had the evil rich (and the middle class were, for all intents and purposes, rich because they didn’t need government help) whose wealth the government taxed away.  And the poor.  The poor who the government would now take care of.  If elected.  And they were.  They seduced a great many people with their utopian vision.  Even in the West. 

Great Britain and the United States would fall to this seductress, too, thanks to the Great Depression.  It was capitalism that gave us the Great Depression, after all.  The greed of the money people.  And so these great nations declined from greatness.  They became welfare states, too.  They had short respites during the 1980s.  Margaret Thatcher helped rejuvenate Great Britain.  Ronald Reagan, the United States.  But the ruling elite whispered more sweet nothings in our ears and the decline continues.

In 2010, our appetite for state benefits appears to be insatiable.  And we may have run out of wealth to tax away to pay for it.  California is on the brink of bankruptcy.  New Jersey elected a governor who proposed draconian spending cuts to stave off bankruptcy.  Other ‘blue’ states (i.e., states who vote Democrat) are also in trouble.  Underfunded pension obligations.  Demands of teacher unions.  Of government worker unions.  Everyone is there with their hand out.  None of them are willing to sacrifice for the common good.  No, they expect others to do the sacrificing.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has increased federal spending to such record levels that Communist China is concerned about our fiscal/monetary policies.  As they should be; they hold a lot of our debt.  The federal government has ‘bailed out’ private industry and taken de facto control.  They have created a healthcare entitlement that will cost more than a trillion dollars.  More spending is coming.  And it is all for the greater good.  They are vilifying those who are not poor, taxing away what wealth they can from them and giving it to the poor.  When about half the electorate doesn’t pay any income taxes, there is little opposition to raising taxes on those who do.  For if the ‘rich’ complain, the government vilifies them.

Where will it all end?  It is difficult to say.  How will it end?  Badly.  We can look at Europe who we seem to be emulating.  They’re further down The Road to Serfdom than we are.  With the excessive government spending, there will have to be greater government revenue (i.e., taxes).  Previous methods of taxation may prove insufficient.  Hello value added tax (VAT).  It’s all the rage in Europe.  It’s a multiple tax.  At every stage of production, government is there.  Taxing.  From the raw materials to the final assembly, government is there at every stage.  Taxing.  VATs will increase government revenue.  But they will also make every day life more expensive.  VATs increase the sales price of everything you buy.  And you pay it again at checkout.  It’s everywhere.  Everything will cost more.  From manicures to lattes to toilet paper to tampons.  And this is a tax everyone pays.  Even the poor.  It is a regressive tax.  The rich will pay more, but the poor will feel it more.  This hidden tax will take a larger portion of what little the poor has.

But how bad can it really get?  In 2010, I guess the answer would be to look at Greece to see what happens when a country can no longer sustain her welfare state.  And the people aren’t all that keen on losing the government benefits they’ve grown accustomed to.  It isn’t pretty.  But when you start down that road (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), the taking and giving always get bigger.  It never gets smaller.  And when you reach a critical point, government just can’t sustain it any longer.  And it crashes.  Like in Greece.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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