Is the breakdown of marriage costing taxpayers?
A study (the first of its kind) by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi makes that very claim:Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing costs U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.More from Tuns: "The authors claim their estimates are low, although the $112 billion number seems a huge number at first glance although in the larger scheme of things -- total government spending or the size of the US economy, it isn't. The takeaway point is that this report quantifies the economic ramifications of the disintegration of family life. The best social program is not, as many conservatives like to say 'a job' but stable families. If libertarians are interested in keeping the cost of government in check, they might want to reconsider the cultural influences on family breakdown (divorce, the contraception mentality, etc...) which they generally support.
Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages.
An executive summary of the report Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing can be found here. A fact sheet is available here. The press release announcing the release of the report today here. See AP's coverage here."
â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢
At first glance, you may think that pumping more taxpayer dollars into pro-family programs is the solution, like Tuns is suggesting, however, it's not. It is much more complicated then that. Although, some may say that it isn't.
Anyway, yours truly would love a world where everyone is happily married and contributing to the economy, but let's face it, that world (though utopian) doesn't exist anymore. And to think that policy makers believe that forcing people (against their own will and choice), through government programs, to remain in a failing marriage will somehow be more beneficial to society is absurd to say the least.
What needs to change is the way we educate our youth and the values we instill in our communities. This can only be accomplished through personal responsibility, not by government coercion or bureaucratic pilot projects. Let's remember, a happy taxpayer is a good taxpayer.
12 Comments:
Not quite true. Clearly the government can't legislate happy marriages but they can encourage them through family friendly policies (income splitting would be one) and actually recognizing the importance of strong families and marriages. "Til death do us part" means so little to so many now that it might as well be changed to "Til I find someone better". Marriage is proven crucial to our society. It's about time our politicians actually recognized that.
I disagree. Which is why I don't agree with the "targeted tax cuts" by Harper, especially since they resemble a social engineering experiment more than a fair tax cut.
I would rather see tax policies that are beneficial to everyone (not just those who are married and whose kids play hockey or piano).
Also, I'd rather see aggressive tax cuts across the board that would wipe out unfair clauses in the tax code that hurt both married and unmarried individuals. I mean, everyone is single before they are married, right?
Plus, I think these policy makers are suggesting more spending on pet projects and government programs to build the family, not through the tax code. If I had to pick, I could live with the latter.
But if people who live in broken homes make more use of government services, like Medicaid, then aren't more costly to the system then if they weren't in that predicament?
This one's a pet issue for me as you know NBT.
And as this study shows, we ALL benefit by strong families. I don't for one second think government is responsible. Ultimately that is up to the families to take it seriously. But promoting strong families is important and the government should do what it reasonably can to foster that IMHO.
anon: good question. However, it is not fair to say that all broken marriage act the same, nor are they all in the same financial predicament. Many highly educated, wealthy professionals break up, but they aren't necessarily using medicade or costing the economy money. They pay taxes like everyone else and they and their kids lead fairly normal lives. maybe even better then if their parents were in a bad marriage.
spinks: Fair enough. And I don't disagree that marriage is important (even though I'm single). Plus, I've heard the spiel thousands of times from my brothers married friends on how their finances improved upon marriage. So not only is it beneficial to society, it is beneficial to the GDP of any particular economy.
Where I find difficult with my friend, Paul Tuns' argument, is that he and some of the other policy makers believe that pumping more $$$ into pro-family programs is somehow more beneficial then anti-proverty programs or welfare benefits. As a libertarian, though I realize the importance of some of these social programs to individual survival, I will never accept their longterm benefits to getting people off welfare or social assistance. This can only be accomplished by further education, training and employment. That is the best social program of them all. Which is why I see these possible pro-family programs in the same manner. Well meaning, but useless to the underlying challenges.
I agree with spinks on this one. You can't quantify the value of marriage. It's benefits reach far past what can be measured. And certainly, adding in its development and ensuring its survival and strength is vital for any government. It's practically their duty.
Sounds like a proposal to finally implement Bush's compassionate conservatism.
absolutely it does!
Look at all the programs that are aimed at single mothers, including daycare, low cost housing, education credits, and cash hand outs. The Government makes it attractive to have children out of wedlock and then makes the taxpayers foot the bill for dead beat dads or moms.
What sweeping generalizations here! Wow.
Not every marriage is healthy enough to save. I don't believe there is a sense that most people have changed the vow to "til I find someone better." I believe that most people go into a union with hopes and dreams and expectations that it's going to be lifelong. And for whatever reason the marriage fails, you can be assured it has FAR more to do than some twit thinking they can find a sexier little fish to swim with.
Childcare is utilized by both double parent AND single parent famiilies. In fact, the childcare centre my children attended? The VAST majority of the families had both parents living under the same roof. It's just that they were both working!! And can I add here, since this will most likely lead to some archaic comment about the child being better off staying home for the first 5 years of their lives? My children and the children they attended daycare with? WEll, they are all socially and emotionally fine thank you very much and were VERY ready to start kindergarten in a more advanced literacy level than the kiddies who stayed home and watched teletubbies.
Nbt.....I'm with you. The key is to promote education and skills training for each and every human being, single or married. Government intervention is needed in this area. What they SHOULD put their time and effort into is to eradicate family violence, which btw is rampant and soul destroying when one looks at the individuals who find themselves needed a chance to restart their lives, protect their children and find their souls again while living in subsidized housing.
Yes, divorce rates are way too high.....education and learning how to critically think, problem solve, to learn how to be confident in one's own decisions, to be independent and have the potential to be finanicially self sufficient.......these are the lessons.
Oh, and I think they need to outlaw bs reality shows like Springer's.........or they should come with a warning...."do not try this in your own home...."
The key is to promote education and skills training for each and every human being, single or married. Government intervention is needed in this area. What they SHOULD put their time and effort into is to eradicate family violence, which btw is rampant and soul destroying when one looks at the individuals who find themselves needed a chance to restart their lives, protect their children and find their souls again while living in subsidized housing.
Absolutely awareness! Which is why I was shocked to see our pal mikel over in spink's thread say that "social welfare HELPS keep families together". Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, it may keep families physically together, but the emotional pain they suffer from chronic poverty spills over into anger and makes for a very bad social upbringing for all family members involved (but mostly the kids).
Which is why, as you said, there has to be efforts to eradicate violence in the family (especially against women as well as child abuse). A lot of times there is no outlet for either on a 24/7 basis.
This is why I love Awareness. She always brings a different perpective. (not enough female bloggers eh NBT).
I don't think too many people go into marriage with that attitude awareness but with 50% divorce rates clearly the vows aren't always taken seriously. Marriage IS a lifetime effort of husband and wife working at it. It isn't always easy but it can be worth it for each other and if applicable for the kids. Encouraging strong marriages benefits society as a whole. Unfortunately marriage has become so marginalized (married couple just recently became the minority for the first time) no wonder young people so often look at it as a joke.
So true spinks!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home