Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published July 8th, 2013)

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1′s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1′s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Abortion and Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published January 21st, 2013)

The Population Growth Rate fell during the Sixties and Seventies from 19% to 11% due to Birth Control and Abortion

Taxpayers are born.  Yes, immigration helped populate America.  But it was really the children of immigrants that made the country grow.  For a large population having babies will increase the population far more than immigration can.  Why?  Where do immigrants come from?  Babies.  Having babies is like compounding interest.  For babies grow up and have babies of their own.  So babies are good.  Especially for a government that wants to spend money.  Because the more babies we have the more taxpayers we will have.  So high-spending governments need a growing population growth rate.  To provide ever more taxpayers.  Who provide ever more tax revenue.  But sometimes the population growth rate doesn’t always increase.  Sometimes it even falls.  (See Population, Housing Units, Area Measurements, and Density: 1790 to 1990.  The population numbers are from the decennial census numbers.  The population growth rate is the percentage of population growth from one decade to the next.)

Although the population has always grown the population growth rate has not always grown.  In fact, the rate of growth has been falling over time.  Taking steep declines during war.  During the American Civil War the growth rate fell from 36% down to 23% by the time of the next census.  The census before and after World War I saw a decline from 21% to 15%.  The rate plummeted from 16% to 7% before and after the Great Depression.  With so many people out of work and struggling to survive the last thing families needed was another baby to feed.  The rate actually increased during World War II.  But that had more to do with people not having babies during the Great Depression for economic reasons.  After World War II the rate rose to 14%.  Which was still a point less than after World War I.

The following table shows the decrease in population due to war.  (Raw numbers are pulled from United States military casualties of war.)

Note that the most devastating of American wars was the American Civil War.  Where approximately 2% of the population died.  In terms of percentage loss of population the next costliest war was the Revolutionary War.  Then World War II.  Then World War I.  These wars saw millions of men in uniform (except for the Revolutionary War).  Away from their wives for years.  Which put a crimp in baby making.  And the large number of wounded and dead compounded that problem.  Resulting in large dips in the population growth rate during these wars.  Despite the large loss of life in numbers of America’s other wars those losses were all less than 0.10% of the population.  Making the impact on the population growth rate negligible.  One thing these numbers don’t explain, though, is the decline in the population growth rate after 1960.  During the Sixties and the Seventies the growth rate fell from 19% down to 11%.    But it wasn’t the Vietnam War that caused that decline.  So what did?  Birth control.  And abortion.

Couples having only 2 Children can’t Support an Expanding Welfare State but Couples having 3 Children Can

The U.S. approved the sale of the birth control pill in 1960.  Which corresponded with the era of free love and the sexual revolution.  People were having more sex.  While having fewer babies.  Then Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.  Since then there have been on average about 1.4 million abortions a year.  Dwarfing the 156,250 killed a year in America’s most devastating war.  The American Civil War.  Which has brought the population growth rate to its smallest numbers that weren’t due to war or depression.  Because of that compounding nature of babies (growing up to have babies of their own).  And because babies become taxpayers this has a big impact on future tax revenue.  We can see this by looking at how 100 abortions ripple through the population.

Let’s assume those 100 abortions happen in Year 1 (Y1).  Had these abortions not happened these babies would have grown up and entered the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+20).  And split off into pairs to have babies of their own.  (If each couple has one baby they have a total of 50 babies.  If each couple has two babies they have a total of 100 babies.  Etc.)  Who would grow up and enter the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+40).  And so on.  The above graph adds up all the people for each 20-year period produced by the Y1 babies (children, grandchildren, great grand children, etc.) divided by 100 (those original babies not aborted).

If the Y1 people only have one baby they and their descendants disappear from the world in about 2 centuries.  If they have 2 children the population never grows larger than 4 times the original Y1 people.  Two children to replace two parents.  It’s not until you get to three children that you see an increase in population.  As well as an increase in tax revenue.

Assume each of the people, or taxpayers, at 20-year intervals earn a median income of $50,000.  They pay an effective federal income tax rate of 18%.  In addition to 12.4% for Social Security taxes (both employer and employee).  And 2.9% for Medicare.  Added together they total 33.3%.  This tax rate on total income at each 20-year interval produces the tax revenue in the above graph.  Note the revenue graphs are the same shape as the population graphs.  Showing a direct correlation between tax revenue and the population growth rate.  The tax revenue provided by couples having only one child disappears within two centuries.  Revenue provided by couples having only two children peaks out at $6,660,000.  As couples only have enough children to replace themselves.  Maintaining a constant of 4 taxpayers (2 parents and 2 children) after 80 years.  Showing that couples having 2, 1 or 0 children cannot support an expanding welfare state.  But a couple having 3 children can.  As long as it’s not too big of a welfare state.

You just can’t have an Expanding Welfare State with a Falling Population Growth Rate

The more children a couple has the greater the tax revenue.  For the more children they have the more people enter the workforce and become taxpayers.  If 50 couples have 3 kids each (as do their descendants) they will add $30.4 million in federal tax revenue in one century.  If they have 4 kids they will add $99.9 million in revenue.  If they have 5 kids they will add $264 million.  And if they have 6 kids they will add $599.4 million.

In two centuries these numbers are even more profound.  Couples having 4 kids will provide $3.2 billion in federal tax revenue.  While couples having 5 kids will provide $25.8 billion.  And couples having 6 kids will provide $145.6 billion.  If, that is, 100 pregnancies weren’t aborted 2 centuries earlier.

In the long-term revenue would soar if people simply started having babies again.  For birth control and abortion have greatly reduced the number of babies we’re having.  Causing tax revenue to fall.  We can bring revenue back up by having more babies.  But after some 30 years this baby dearth has pushed us into the flat part of these graphs.  Requiring up to a century or more to make large population gains.  And large gains in tax revenue.   And without these gains in revenue we simply cannot afford an expanding welfare state.

It is rather ironic that two tenets of liberalism clash here.  Liberals believe in both a welfare state.  And free birth control and abortion on demand.  They believe in one thing that requires women to have a lot of babies.  And another that helps women to have as few babies as possible.  Which is another reason liberalism will ultimately fail.  Paradoxes like this.  For you just can’t have an expanding welfare state with a falling population growth rate.  If you try you get trillion dollar deficits.  And $16.4 trillion in accumulated debt.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The City of Detroit Bankruptcy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 22nd, 2013

Economics 101

There is nothing more Dangerous to a City’s Finances than a Shrinking Tax Base

The federal debt is at record levels.  Because federal spending is at record levels.  But those on the left say there’s nothing to worry about.  And try to expand federal spending further.  With more government benefits to hand out to the people.  And an ever growing federal bureaucracy.  Full of new jobs with generous pay and benefits.  All funded by the taxpayer.

Businesses in the private sector cannot operate like this.  Because businesses have to pay their costs with the things and/or services they sell.  That people willingly buy.  So there is a limit on the costs a business can incur.  But not so with government.  For the government has the power to tax.  To forcibly take more money from the people against their will.  Something businesses just can’t do.  And when that fails they can borrow money by issuing bonds.  Which are generally easy to sell.  Because governments have the power to tax.  All but guaranteeing that they will repay those bonds.  And when that’s not enough the federal government has one other benefit businesses don’t have.  They can print money.  Further guaranteeing that they will be able to redeem their bonds.  Making them that much easier to sell.

Government below the federal level, though, doesn’t have that last option.  So when they want to spend more money than they have they have no choice but to borrow.  And hope that their tax base doesn’t erode over time.  For there is nothing more dangerous to a city’s finances than a shrinking tax base.  Especially when the city has a huge and growing public sector.  Enjoying generous pay and benefits.  Especially pension and health care benefits for retirees.  Where promises made must be kept decades into the future.  During which time a lot of things can happen.  Such as that tax base shrinking.

Detroit’s Tax Base plummeted while the Size of the Public Sector did not for Government Never grows Smaller

This is the problem the City of Detroit has.  And it is why they filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.  Thanks to the automotive industry and World War II destroying most of the industrial economies of the world, Detroit became an economic power house.  And one of America’s grandest cities in the 1950s.  Paris of the Midwest they called Detroit.  Automotive capital of the world.  The Motor City.  The mecca of American manufacturing.  Having one of the richest middle class.  And one of the largest black middle classes.  Everyone was doing well in Detroit.  So the City of Detroit did the only rational thing a city could do with a swelling tax base.  They exploded the public sector.  All paid for with higher taxes.  Including a new city income tax.

But that growing public sector soon turned Detroit into a business unfriendly city.  With more red tape, regulatory costs and a corporate income tax.  And rising union demands during contract negotiations made it even less business friendly.  So businesses started leaving the city.  Taking their jobs with them.  And people followed.  Then the race riots hit in 1967.  Five days of unprecedented violence.  Thus beginning the great white flight from the city.  And the great population decline of the City of Detroit.  Culminating in the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy in history.

At Detroit’s peak her population topped out at about 1.8 million people.  Today there are but 680,000 people remaining.  A loss of 1.12 million people.  About 62% of her peak population.  So Detroit’s tax base plummeted.  But the size of the public sector didn’t.  For government never grows smaller.  So Detroit continued on with the overhead expenses of a city with a population of 1.8 million people.  With the tax revenue of a city with a population of 680,000 people.  Making bankruptcy inevitable.

The Problems of the City of Detroit are the Problems of the Nation Writ Large

At the height of Detroit’s industrial might there were approximately 300,000 automotive or manufacturing jobs in the city.  Today there are a mere 27,000.  That’s a loss of 273,000 jobs.  That’s 273,000 breadwinners whose families are no longer in the city.  If each of them had on average 2.5 children who remained in the city with their parents that would have added about 1.2 million to the city’s population.  Which corresponds pretty closely to the 1.12 million the city actually lost.  So we can see how the loss of the jobs devastated the population.  But we can also see what it did to the city’s finances.

Let’s assume these breadwinners had their children when they were in their 20s.  So the breadwinner was still in the workforce when their children were 20 and had entered the workforce.  Let’s say this happened over a 40-year period.  So, on average during that 40-year period, there were an additional 136,500 jobs per year.  Let’s say they each owned a house and paid property tax of $750.  Over 40 years that’s about $4.1 billion in lost property tax revenue.  If each of these workers earned $35,000 on average over those 40 years and paid a 3% city income tax that’s about $9.8 billion in lost personal income tax revenue.  Finally, if we figure a 50-50 split between labor and material, a 15% overhead and a 2% net profit we can extrapolate that $35,000 average personal income into approximately $448 billion in lost corporate revenue over those 40 years.  At a city corporate income tax rate of 2% that’s about $9 billion in lost corporate income tax revenue.  Adding these all together we see a total loss of tax revenue to the city of approximately $18.8 billion due to the loss of 273,000 jobs.  Plus or minus.

This is a crude guesstimate with an emphasis on crude but it could be close enough to explain what happened in Detroit.  For with the falling tax base Detroit turned to borrowing more and more money to pay for an oversized public sector.  To service a disappearing population.  With those pension and retiree health care benefits being especially burdensome.  Which forced the city to borrow so much it left them with a debt of $18.5 billion (very close to the $18.8 billion in our little exercise above) that they don’t have a chance in hell of ever repaying.  Leaving bankruptcy as the only option.  Unless the federal government steps in.  Which probably won’t happen.  And shouldn’t happen.  For Detroit is not the only government suffering under the weight of unfunded pension obligations and retiree health care benefits.  If they bail out Detroit then they’ll have to bail out all other states and municipalities.  Which they can’t afford to do.  For the federal government has its own problems with pensions (Social Security) and retiree health care benefits (Medicare).  And they’ve just added a new government benefit that will dwarf the costs of Social Security and Medicare.  Obamacare.  All while burdening the economy with a slew of anti-business regulations that has chased jobs out of the economy.  And out of the country.

So the federal government can’t step in to save Detroit.  For the federal government is working to ‘out Detroit’ Detroit.  As the problems of Detroit are the problems of the nation writ large.  What’s happening in Detroit will happen in other states and cities across the country.  That are spending more money than they have to support an oversized public sector.  And in time what’s happening in Detroit will happen to the federal government.  Bailing out these states and cities will only hasten the downfall of the federal government.  Which the federal government will do whatever it can to prevent.  For while the nation can survive a city like Detroit going bankrupt the nation cannot survive a federal bankruptcy.  Because the numbers are just too big at the federal level.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Food Scarcities and High Food Prices are Government-Made Crises

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The world’s population is growing.  And it’s threatening our food supplies.  Or so say the experts on population.  But what’s interesting is that the populations in the advanced economies of the world which are generally food exporters have fallen.  Apart from the United States these countries are having so few babies that they won’t be able to replace their parent’s generation.  So these countries will see a decline in population.  Yet the world’s population is growing.  So who’s growing the world’s population?   And threatening the world’s food supplies?

Primarily the less-advanced economies.   The food importers.  Like the countries of Africa.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And the Palestinian Territories.  Many of which have the lowest life expectancies.  And the highest child mortality rates.  So, the countries that can feed the world aren’t having enough babies to replace the current generation.  While the countries that have the highest fertility rates are also suffering from the shortest life expectancies due to those high child mortality rates.   So it’s hard to see where the food crisis is.

Once upon a time food was so scarce that famines were commonplace.  A lot of wars were fought to prevent famine.  One of the reasons Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union was for food.  To make Europe’s breadbasket, the Ukraine, a part of the Third Reich.  Today the advanced economies have so much food that they’re making gasoline out of it.  So if there is any food shortage it must be manmade.  And anything manmade can be unmade.  But until we do food prices will rise (see Food prices forecast to treble as world population soars by Steve Hawkes posted 7/21/2013 on The Telegraph).

Professor Tim Benton, head of Global Food Security working group, added there could be shortages in the UK in the future as the emerging middle class in south-east Asia sparks a revolution in “food flows” such as the trade in grain and soya around the world…

The shock forecast came as the chief executive of Tesco, Philip Clarke, warned the era of cheap food was over because of the forecast surge in demand.

In an interview over the weekend, the supermarket chief said: “Over the long run I think food prices and the proportion of income spent on food may well be going up…”

Food inflation in the UK has been running around 4 per cent for much of the year, and is among the highest in the EU after poor harvests last year and the rising cost of feed.

Here’s a thought.  If food is becoming so scarce why don’t stop using it for energy?  Let’s use fossil fuels that we can’t eat for energy.  And use food for food.  By mandating that we add ethanol to gasoline we diverted corn from the food chain already suffering from a depleted corn crop thanks to Midwest droughts.  Raising corn prices.  And meat, poultry and dairy prices.  As cows and chicken eat corn.  So if we stop artificially raising the price of corn feed we stop raising the price of everything downstream of corn in the food chain.  Crazy talk, I know.  But sometimes you just have to think outside of the box.

And here’s another thought.  Let’s do everything we can to bring energy costs down.  Let’s drill for more oil.  Let’s build that Keystone XL pipeline.  Let’s frack like there’s no tomorrow.  Because high fuel prices cause high food prices.  Everything we grow and raise has to travel great distances before landing on our kitchen tables.  By tractor, by truck, by train by ship.  Means of conveyance with internal combustion engines that burn a petroleum product.  From the farm to the silo to the grain elevator to the rail terminal to the mill to the food processing plant to the wholesale distributor to the grocery store.  Every mile of every trip from the farm to our kitchen table burns a petroleum product.  Every mile we burn fuel bringing food to our tables adds to the price tag in the grocery store.  Higher fuel costs even reduce what families can spend in those grocery stores.  For the higher gas prices are the greater amount of their paycheck go into their gas tanks.  Leaving less to buy food with.

And speaking of energy let’s dig up that coal and use it for what it’s best for.  Burning.  To produce steam.  To spin turbines.  That spin electric generators.  And let’s end the war on coal.  And make it less costly to generate electric power.  Because when food isn’t moving it’s using electric power.  For electric power runs our grain elevators, our mills, our food processing plants, our wholesale distributors and our grocery stores.

There are a lot of manmade causes making food scarcer and more costly.  If we care about feeding the world we should focus on the manmade causes.  For we can do something about those.  Unlike a drought.  But petroleum and coal can even lessen the impact of the occasional drought.  We can ship food from areas not suffering from drought to areas suffering from drought.  And we can use the electric power generated from burning coal to store food surpluses in refrigerated warehouses.

The only food crisis we have is manmade.  Or, rather, government-made.  Where government officials take more and more control of the private economy to fight the myth of manmade global warming.  Whose solution to save the planet is a simple one.  Save the planet.  Kill the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT178: “Birth control and abortion are the greatest threats to liberalism. ” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 12th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Liberals seem more Mainstream than they are because they hold Key Positions of Power

Liberals have one very unpleasant fact to deal with.  Theirs is a minority viewpoint.  According to Gallup (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup), the American people identify themselves in 2010 as follows: conservative (40%), moderate (35%) and liberal (21%).  And the above referenced Gallup poll shows that the American people haven’t trended far from these numbers since 1992.

So the liberal cause is an uphill battle to begin with.  As 79% of the American people do not identify themselves with their views.  Which are basically a bigger, activist government.  More rules and regulations in our personal lives.  More fun and less restraint.  More casual sex and less traditional marriage.  Keynesian economic policies where the government plays with interest rates, creating large asset bubbles (such as housing bubbles) which give us very long and painful recessions to undo the damage an activist Keynesian government makes.  Like the subprime mortgage crisis.  Anti-energy policies that increase the cost of energy so they can subsidize more costly green energy.  Free birth control and access to abortion on demand.  And Obamacare.  To name a few.

Some may feel that liberalism is more mainstream than the poll numbers suggest.  But that’s only because though their numbers are small they hold key positions of power.  They control the public schools.  And our colleges and universities.  They control the mainstream media.  And the entertainment industry.  Giving liberals a very powerful bully pulpit.  When late-night television ridicules conservatives millions of impressionable people see it.  And see how cool it is to ridicule conservatives.   Reinforcing everything they’ve learned in our public schools, colleges, universities, mainstream media and, of course, the entertainment industry.  Yet despite all of this the best they can do is to get 21% of the people to think like them.  To want what they want.  And to do as they want them to do.

A Liberal Woman uses Birth Control and Abortion to keep her Fertility Rate Lower than a Conservative Woman’s

Why is this?  Because of parents.  Perhaps the greatest obstacle liberals have in transforming the country into the European social democracy they want.  With them sitting atop the power structure.  Much like the aristocracy of the Old World where they were free to tell people to do as they say, not as they do.  For while forcing their highly regulated world upon us they will exempt themselves from the less pleasant things.  Putting themselves above the laws they don’t like but feel are in our best interests.  Which we would understand if only we were as smart as them.

And every time they turn around there is some parent trying to undo all of their work.  For they only have our children for less than a third of a day, 5 days a week.  Worse, they don’t even get our kids into their education camps, I mean, schools, until they’ve lived exclusively with their parents for 5 or 6 years.  If you ever wondered why the Democrats are always pushing for state-funded childcare this is the reason.  To get to our kids sooner.  Before their parents can warp their minds with non-liberal viewpoints.  Like not to fear the coming apocalypse of global warming.  In fact some of these parents are such poor parents that they’ll load their kids into a gas-guzzling, carbon-polluting SUV and take them on a vacation.  Letting a child enjoy being in a big, comfortable and safe vehicle out on the open road.  Before liberals can teach them later that all of those things are bad.  And wrong.  But the real problem liberals have with parents like these is that there are just so many of them.  Ironically, because of liberal policies that have altered fertility rates.  Thanks to birth control and abortion.  And their attacks on the traditional family.

Fertility Liberals vs Conservatives R1

Earlier we discussed replacement birthrates (see Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate posted 7/8/2013 on Pithocrates).  The current U.S. population is about 314 million.  Using the Gallup numbers we calculated the number of liberals and conservatives in that 314 million and entered them into the beginning populations above.  We assumed a generation lasting 20 years where couples will each bring in 1.5 babies if they’re liberals.  Below the replacement birthrate.  And 2.5 babies if they’re conservatives.  Above the replacement birthrate.  A conservative couple will have on average one more baby than a liberal couple.  Because a conservative woman will live a closer life to the traditional family.  While the liberal woman may pursue a career and not be interested in having children.  Using birth control and abortion to keep her fertility rate lower than the conservative woman.

The Liberals’ Rise to Power was Slow and Steady via Incremental Change all but Unnoticeable to Each Generation

If we add the number of liberals and conservatives together (we’ll call it the L/C Universe) they total approximately 191 million people.  Where liberals make up 34% of the L/C Universe.  While conservatives make up 66% of the L/C Universe.  As we move through 4 generations we see how the population increases.  The liberal population grows 838%.  While the conservative population grows 2,463%.  Because of that extra baby per couple on average the conservative population grows over 5 times more than the liberal population.  Dropping the liberals down to only 16% of the L/C Universe.  While increasing the conservatives to 84% of the L/C Universe.

If you ever wondered why the Democrats are pushing so hard for immigration reform this is why.  The liberal elite know their policies to encourage women to do anything BUT have babies threatens their long-term hold on power.  That’s why they pander to blacks, women, the young, etc.  They shower them with benefits and/or policies that make their lives a lot more fun.  Such as free birth control.  And accessible abortion.  Things that really appeal to the young voter.  Because that’s what they have on the mind most of the time.  Casual and consequence-free sex.  By treating pregnancy as a disease.  To be prevented (birth control).  Or cured (abortion).  But in the wake of these policies is a dearth of new liberal voters.  Which they hope to replace with immigration reform.  Hoping that those they bring into the population vote Democrat.  Grateful for their path to citizenship.  To make up for all the babies that never were.  Thanks to liberal attacks on the traditional family.

Unless the liberals can take our children away from us sooner and keep them longer (to countermand any conservative education their parents give them) their lower fertility rates will push liberalism to extinction.  How ironic indeed that the very policies that liberals and conservatives bitterly fight over the most may lead to their fall from power.  Birth control.  And abortion.  The greatest threats to liberalism.  Their rise to power was slow and steady through incremental change.  Almost unnoticeable to each generation.  As will be their fall.  Unless, of course, they use extralegal tactics to get around the will of the people.  Such as ruling by executive order.  And using the courts to make law the Congress won’t.  But what are the odds of that ever happening?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2013

Economics 101

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1’s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1’s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1’s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1’s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Japan’s Low Replacement Birthrate gives them an Aging Population and Soaring Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 7th, 2013

Week in Review

The United States debt as a percentage of GDP is approaching 100%.  Meaning that we owe as much as we produce in goods and services each year.  A frightening prospect.  For imagine if you earn $50,000 a year and were $50,000 in debt.  How easy do you think it would be to repay your debt?  Chances are that you will never be able to repay your debt.  But here we are.  Our government borrowing more than ever.  Without any concern of that rising debt.  They say it isn’t that bad.  Just look at Japan.  Their debt is about 200% of their GDP.  And they seem to be doing just fine (see Elderly shoplifters outstrip teenagers in Tokyo by AFP posted 7/8/2013 on France 24).

The number of elderly people caught shoplifting in Japan’s capital city has outstripped that of teenagers for the first time since records began, a report said.

A quarter of the people arrested on suspicion of the crime in Tokyo last year were at least 65 years old, figures showed, amid warnings of increasing isolation in the age group…

Around a quarter of Japan’s 128 million population is aged 65 or older, and the country has a far-below replacement birthrate of an average 1.39 children for every woman.

There are regular reports of bodies lying unfound for weeks or even months after a single, elderly person has died alone. Commentators say the phenomenon is a result of the fraying of familial ties as Japan has modernised.

When you have a replacement birth rate of 1.39 you have an aging population.  One that is growing so old that the rate of people leaving the workforce will soar while the rate of those entering the workforce will plummet.  So just as these elderly people start consuming their pensions and health care benefits the tax base that pays for them will be disappearing.  Perhaps explaining why these people are shoplifting.  As the burden to care for an aging population eventually becomes too great for a government to sustain.  So they cut back.  And leave the elderly to fend for themselves.

When people are having only 1.39 kids on average that means couples are not just having one child.  But a lot of them are having no children.  This is what birth control and abortion have given advanced nations.  The ability to wipe themselves off the map.  Either by a negative population growth rate.  Or by throwing open your borders to try and offset the population decline with new immigration.  Transforming the nation from the native population to the immigrant population.  Replacing the native culture and traditions with the immigrant culture and traditions.  Just like when the Americans moved west and replaced the culture and traditions of the Native Americans.

Two things that just don’t go together are an expanding welfare state and a declining replacement birthrate.  As you have a shrinking tax base paying for that expanding welfare state.  If you want an expansive welfare state you have to have more babies.  Plain and simple.  You have to stop using birth control.  And stop having abortions.  So you can grow the population.  To always have more people in the base of the pyramid than you do at the top.  Like any good Ponzi scheme should.  It’s either that or you have to reduce the size of the welfare state.  So you can live within your means.  That is, what your tax base can afford to pay.

Or you can keep borrowing and printing money like Japan.  And wonder when the deflation and recession of the Lost Decade of the Nineties will ever end.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Public Sector and the Tax Base

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 3rd, 2013

Economics 101

All Government Bureaucracies Grow Bigger and Pay their People Very Well

Big cities throughout the United States are suffering financially.  They are drowning under the costs of their public sector employees.  For when the Great Recession hit tax revenues fell.  People lost jobs and paid less income taxes.  People out of work spent less in the local stores causing a fall in sales taxes.  People drove less and paid less gas taxes.  Home values plummeted, reducing property taxes.  Tax revenue fell at all levels of government.  Leaving the big cities unable to pay their bills.  With less help from the governments above them.  While their infrastructures crumbled.  And they struggled to furnish basic city services.

Governments don’t make anything.  They just have people doing things.  So there are little economies of scale.  Just a lot of people.  The public sector includes every worker in the city paid by tax revenue.  The mayor, city council, school teachers, police officers, firefighters, garbage collectors, boiler operators, electricians, janitors, building inspectors, meter readers, bus drivers, etc.   And all the civil servants and bureaucrats that push paper.  Requiring a huge payroll.  And lots of benefits.  In a large city with a population of 1.5 million those costs can look like this:

Public Sector Costs 1

All government bureaucracies have two things in common.  They always grow bigger.  And pay their people very well.  So the above table has three columns.  Showing the growth of the public sector.  (Assuming a constant population to simplify our math).  From 1% of the city population to 2% then to 3%.  So the number of city employees goes from 15,000 to 30,000 to 45,000.  By the time you add in pay, holiday pay, vacation pay, sick days and health insurance the active employee costs are huge.  Going from $1 billion to $2 billion to $3 billion.  Today it is not uncommon for a big city with a population of 1.5 million to have 45,000 public sector workers.  So we will build on that figure.  And add in retiree costs.

As City’s Population Declines so does its Tax Base

Another big perk of working in the public sector are the great pensions.  Something that has long since disappeared in the private sector.  While most of us have to put money away in a 401(k) public sector workers can count on a generous pension during a long retirement.  Perhaps getting as much as 80% of their base pay.  Plus they keep their health insurance.  Which is unlike the health insurance most of us get in the private sector.  For it covers everything.  With few co-pays.  And only the best name-brand pharmaceutical prescriptions.  This is why people want to work in the public sector.  And why they want to retire from the public sector.  Because no one else pays as well.

Public Sector Costs 2

Public sector workers retire long before their counterparts in the private sector.  Allowing them to live a long retirement.  And because they live so long into retirement the city ends up paying for almost as many retirees as they do active workers.  Putting great cost pressures on these cities as more of their workers retire.  Within as few as 2 decades the cost of retired workers can go from $648 million to $1.9 billion.   When we add this cost to the cost of their active workers we get the total cost of the public sector.

Public Sector Costs 3

As time passes and more people retire from the public sector we can see how the cost of the public sector (active and retired) rises from $3.7 billion to $4.4 billion to $5 billion.  Which, of course, the people living in the city have to pay.  The taxpayers.  They pay income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and a variety of other taxes and fees.  Who by the time the number of retirees reach 40,500 must pay $3,336 per year.  Or $278 per month.  Or $64.15 per week.  Or $9.16 each day.  Just to get a true feel of how much this is do the following exercise.  Each day take a $10 bill out of your wallet or purse and throw it away.  This will approximate the cost of the public sector you pay for.  Until the people start leaving the city.  And as the population declines so does the tax base.  Requiring each person to pay a larger share of the public sector cost.

To pay for an Expanding Government you need a Growing Population

If a city starts losing population it doesn’t reduce the need to pay the bloated public sector.  Both active and retired.  So the fewer people remaining in the city have to pay a larger share of the public sector cost.  Because the public sector union isn’t going to allow the city to lay off any workers.  So it’s up to the taxpayers.  But as the population shrinks it becomes more painful to do.

Public Sector Costs 4

By the time the population falls to 500,000 the amount of taxes a person must pay to support the public sector amounts to a house payment.  Or $192.46 per week.  Or $27.49 each day.  Can you imagine taking three $10 bills out of your wallet or purse every day just to throw them away?  Probably not.  Because no one would.  Cities just can’t keep increasing the tax burden on their people.  For there is a limit.  And when a city reaches it they start borrowing.  Which is how cities go into debt.  And flirt with bankruptcy.  Because of these bloated public sectors.  That grew when the cities grew.  But they didn’t shrink as their populations shrank.

We have ignored corporations in our exercise.  Which increase the tax base.  But we have also excluded additional costs.  Buildings, vehicles, equipment, housing assistance, food assistance, fuel for city vehicles, car insurance, property insurance, liability insurance, lawsuits, etc.  If we factor these things in the numbers will only look worse.  As the cost of the active and retired workers increases there’s less money to pay for the basic city services.  So they deteriorate.  Which when added to the higher taxes chase even more people out of the city.  Reducing the tax base further.  Leaving even less money for the basic city services.

When the population declines so does the city.  As the public sector workers consume a greater percentage of the shrinking tax base cities suffer increasing urban decay.  As there is little money for anything but the public sector workers and their benefits.  For when it comes to paying for government population is key.  You need a growing population to pay for expanding government.  To spread the costs of a bloated public sector over as many people as possible.  And you can’t do that with a declining population.  Which is why big cities flirt with bankruptcy during bad economic times.  For they can pay for their bloated public sectors only during the best of economic times.  And only during the best of economic times.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Abortion and Tax Revenue

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 21st, 2013

Economics 101

The Population Growth Rate fell during the Sixties and Seventies from 19% to 11% due to Birth Control and Abortion

Taxpayers are born.  Yes, immigration helped populate America.  But it was really the children of immigrants that made the country grow.  For a large population having babies will increase the population far more than immigration can.  Why?  Where do immigrants come from?  Babies.  Having babies is like compounding interest.  For babies grow up and have babies of their own.  So babies are good.  Especially for a government that wants to spend money.  Because the more babies we have the more taxpayers we will have.  So high-spending governments need a growing population growth rate.  To provide ever more taxpayers.  Who provide ever more tax revenue.  But sometimes the population growth rate doesn’t always increase.  Sometimes it even falls.  (See Population, Housing Units, Area Measurements, and Density: 1790 to 1990.  The population numbers are from the decennial census numbers.  The population growth rate is the percentage of population growth from one decade to the next.)

Although the population has always grown the population growth rate has not always grown.  In fact, the rate of growth has been falling over time.  Taking steep declines during war.  During the American Civil War the growth rate fell from 36% down to 23% by the time of the next census.  The census before and after World War I saw a decline from 21% to 15%.  The rate plummeted from 16% to 7% before and after the Great Depression.  With so many people out of work and struggling to survive the last thing families needed was another baby to feed.  The rate actually increased during World War II.  But that had more to do with people not having babies during the Great Depression for economic reasons.  After World War II the rate rose to 14%.  Which was still a point less than after World War I.

The following table shows the decrease in population due to war.  (Raw numbers are pulled from United States military casualties of war.)

Note that the most devastating of American wars was the American Civil War.  Where approximately 2% of the population died.  In terms of percentage loss of population the next costliest war was the Revolutionary War.  Then World War II.  Then World War I.  These wars saw millions of men in uniform (except for the Revolutionary War).  Away from their wives for years.  Which put a crimp in baby making.  And the large number of wounded and dead compounded that problem.  Resulting in large dips in the population growth rate during these wars.  Despite the large loss of life in numbers of America’s other wars those losses were all less than 0.10% of the population.  Making the impact on the population growth rate negligible.  One thing these numbers don’t explain, though, is the decline in the population growth rate after 1960.  During the Sixties and the Seventies the growth rate fell from 19% down to 11%.    But it wasn’t the Vietnam War that caused that decline.  So what did?  Birth control.  And abortion.

Couples having only 2 Children can’t Support an Expanding Welfare State but Couples having 3 Children Can

The U.S. approved the sale of the birth control pill in 1960.  Which corresponded with the era of free love and the sexual revolution.  People were having more sex.  While having fewer babies.  Then Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.  Since then there have been on average about 1.4 million abortions a year.  Dwarfing the 156,250 killed a year in America’s most devastating war.  The American Civil War.  Which has brought the population growth rate to its smallest numbers that weren’t due to war or depression.  Because of that compounding nature of babies (growing up to have babies of their own).  And because babies become taxpayers this has a big impact on future tax revenue.  We can see this by looking at how 100 abortions ripple through the population.

Let’s assume those 100 abortions happen in Year 1 (Y1).  Had these abortions not happened these babies would have grown up and entered the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+20).  And split off into pairs to have babies of their own.  (If each couple has one baby they have a total of 50 babies.  If each couple has two babies they have a total of 100 babies.  Etc.)  Who would grow up and enter the workforce about 20 years later (Y1+40).  And so on.  The above graph adds up all the people for each 20-year period produced by the Y1 babies (children, grandchildren, great grand children, etc.) divided by 100 (those original babies not aborted).

If the Y1 people only have one baby they and their descendants disappear from the world in about 2 centuries.  If they have 2 children the population never grows larger than 4 times the original Y1 people.  Two children to replace two parents.  It’s not until you get to three children that you see an increase in population.  As well as an increase in tax revenue.

Assume each of the people, or taxpayers, at 20-year intervals earn a median income of $50,000.  They pay an effective federal income tax rate of 18%.  In addition to 12.4% for Social Security taxes (both employer and employee).  And 2.9% for Medicare.  Added together they total 33.3%.  This tax rate on total income at each 20-year interval produces the tax revenue in the above graph.  Note the revenue graphs are the same shape as the population graphs.  Showing a direct correlation between tax revenue and the population growth rate.  The tax revenue provided by couples having only one child disappears within two centuries.  Revenue provided by couples having only two children peaks out at $6,660,000.  As couples only have enough children to replace themselves.  Maintaining a constant of 4 taxpayers (2 parents and 2 children) after 80 years.  Showing that couples having 2, 1 or 0 children cannot support an expanding welfare state.  But a couple having 3 children can.  As long as it’s not too big of a welfare state.

You just can’t have an Expanding Welfare State with a Falling Population Growth Rate

The more children a couple has the greater the tax revenue.  For the more children they have the more people enter the workforce and become taxpayers.  If 50 couples have 3 kids each (as do their descendants) they will add $30.4 million in federal tax revenue in one century.  If they have 4 kids they will add $99.9 million in revenue.  If they have 5 kids they will add $264 million.  And if they have 6 kids they will add $599.4 million.

In two centuries these numbers are even more profound.  Couples having 4 kids will provide $3.2 billion in federal tax revenue.  While couples having 5 kids will provide $25.8 billion.  And couples having 6 kids will provide $145.6 billion.  If, that is, 100 pregnancies weren’t aborted 2 centuries earlier.

In the long-term revenue would soar if people simply started having babies again.  For birth control and abortion have greatly reduced the number of babies we’re having.  Causing tax revenue to fall.  We can bring revenue back up by having more babies.  But after some 30 years this baby dearth has pushed us into the flat part of these graphs.  Requiring up to a century or more to make large population gains.  And large gains in tax revenue.   And without these gains in revenue we simply cannot afford an expanding welfare state.

It is rather ironic that two tenets of liberalism clash here.  Liberals believe in both a welfare state.  And free birth control and abortion on demand.  They believe in one thing that requires women to have a lot of babies.  And another that helps women to have as few babies as possible.  Which is another reason liberalism will ultimately fail.  Paradoxes like this.  For you just can’t have an expanding welfare state with a falling population growth rate.  If you try you get trillion dollar deficits.  And $16.4 trillion in accumulated debt.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Birth Control and Abortion have reduced Tax Revenue and House Values for Seniors

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 26th, 2012

Week in Review

Birth control and abortion will bankrupt Social Security and Medicare.  And they will bring down Obamacare, too.  When Social Security became law we had a growing birth rate.  More people were being born each year.  So the population was expanding.  And the Roosevelt administration thought it would keep expanding.  So they created a Ponzi scheme.  Social Security.  Where more young people (i.e., taxpayers) pay into the system than retirees (i.e., tax consumers) collect from the system.  A foolproof system.  As long as the population continues to expand.  Keeping the base of the pyramid growing larger than the top of the pyramid.

Well their assumptions didn’t hold.  Women stopped having babies beginning in the Sixties.  Just as the Johnson administration gave us the Great Society and Medicare.  Based on the previous assumption that women would keep having babies.  So the funding mechanism was a flawed as it was for Social Security.  And now Obamacare is going to expand the Medicare model.  In the face of what is now a declining population growth rate.  Meaning the number of taxpayers will dwindle as the number of tax consumers retiring will explode.  Causing the aforementioned bankruptcies.  And that declining birth rate is causing even more financial damage (see Is Our Aging Population Partly to Blame for the Slow Recovery? by Philip Moeller posted 8/21/2012 on U.S. News & World Report).

As the unusually weak economic recovery continues, you’ve at least got to wonder if future studies of what ails us will include our aging population as a material cause. Simply stated, older people tend to liquidate assets to fund their retirements. Younger people tend to acquire financial assets as their personal wealth rises and they build their own nest eggs.

The United States has enjoyed nearly 40 years where the number of people acquiring assets was greater than the number of people disposing of them. This condition is being turned on its head. We now face roughly 40 years where there will be more people in this country wanting to sell financial assets than buy them. This supply-demand shift could put a lid on asset values and depress overall economic growth.

So on top of the government failing us in our retirement even our own retirement savings are going to fail us.  It will be like being on the far side of a housing bubble after the bust.  Where seniors want to sell their houses to finance their retirement.  Only to get tens of thousands of dollars less than they had planned.  For just as there are fewer taxpayers to pay the taxes to support an aging population there are fewer homebuyers (as well as other asset buyers) to buy the houses of an aging population.  Lower demand means lower selling price.  And a less comfortable retirement.  All because of that generation of greed and selfishness.  The baby boomers.  Who were all about sex, drugs, rock & roll, birth control and abortion.  And not so much about raising children.  Of course they, too, will suffer the effects of their selfish ways.  As there will be fewer taxpayers to support them in their retirement.  Or to buy their houses.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries