Divorce Penalty
You’re paying it. Other people’s divorces and failure to marry costs you money. Or maybe, your divorce or failure to marry is costing us money. $112 billion a year, according to a study by a coalition of marriage advocacy groups. Washington Times:
The breakdown of marriage in America costs at least $112 billion a year, owing to costs of health care, criminal justice, welfare programs and lost income-tax revenue, according to a study released today.
“This study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are also costing taxpayers a ton of money,” says David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values (IAV), one of four sponsors of today’s study.
Even a small improvement in marriage rates — for example, a 1 percent reduction in the rate of “fragmented families” — would save more than $1 billion, Mr. Blankenhorn says.
The $112 billion — which is equivalent to the state budget for New York — stems from “increased taxpayer expenditures” for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and lower levels of taxes paid by people whose “adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation,” says Benjamin Scafidi, an economics professor at Georgia College & State University and principal investigator of the report.
Every year, for instance, the nation supports single-parent families with about $28 billion in Medicaid and an additional $35 billion in other welfare programs, says the report, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States.”
An additional $9 billion is spent on child-welfare costs.
Single-parent families often struggle with joblessness and involvement in criminal activity, so $23 billion is estimated in lost tax revenues and $19 billion is estimated in maintenance of courts, police, prisons and jails.
The report does not call for a reduction of welfare programs or any other services to support single-parent families.
Instead, it argues that divorce and unwed childbearing are grave public concerns, and the nation would be wise, economically and socially, to invest in strategies that strengthen marriages and families before they break up.
“These numbers represent real people and real suffering,” says Randy Hicks, president of the Georgia Family Council, which co-sponsored the study with IAV, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP) and Families Northwest.
Americans “fight problems like racism, poverty and domestic violence because we understand that the stakes are high,” says Mr. Hicks. “And while we’ll never eliminate divorce and unwed childbearing entirely, we can certainly be doing more to help marriages and families succeed.”
Sounds like a somewhat partisan study. But it makes a very good point. Throwing billions of dollars at all kinds of social problems without doing anything whatsoever to bolster one of the most stabilizing, healthy and enriching social institutions we have doesn’t make much sense. The decay of marriage is a devastating social problem the usual social handwringers shrug about, being disinterested in marriage unless it is of the gay variety, because they see its collapse only as a byproduct of enhancing individual freedom from responsibility.
OK, that’s not exactly how they’d put it.
Obviously pro-marriage policies alone aren’t going to solve poverty and crime. But undercutting marriage sure hasn’t helped. So what to do. Eliminating divorce, compelling people to stay together doesn’t make much sense. That’s where incentives come in. I have no idea what kind of platform those groups are pushing, and I’m not much interested in perusing wonky advocate websites this morning. Be my guest and report back in comments. Here are my quick ideas. How about a big fat marriage tax deduction? Cohabiting couples only. They have tax deductions for day care. How about a big fat tax credit for the parent who chooses to stay home and raise the kids, while the other goes to work. How about mileage and expense deductions for stay-at-home parents. Low-interest minivan loans. Married couple, one at work, one stay-at-parent, having trouble getting into your own home? Expanded low-interest starter home program, down payment tax credit. Tax credits for your kid’s high performance on standardized tests. Deductions for after-school enrichment activities for the kids … if you drive them there yourself, after they get off the school bus and have their milk and cookies. Deductions for milk and home-baked cookies. Credits and deductions for parents who participate in after-school enrichment programs. Den mothers, Little League coaches, that kind of thing.
There’s some social engineering for you. What could possibly be more important to the domestic welfare of our nation than healthy, happy intact homes? Studies over the past few years say being married and raising your own kids is good for you and good for them, offering various benefits in health, wealth and stability. But the shame of unwed parentage went out the window a long time ago, and marriage has been allowed to be viewed as an inconvenient bind rather than a bond. How about, to counter Hollywood’s frivolous, pandering onslaught of pro-divorce, pro-single-parenting propaganda, a concerted, serious effort to point out the benefits of getting married and raising your kids in the house. In health classes, in public service ads, whatever.
Policies that support and encourage stable families — as opposed to supporting and encouraging instability — are not terribly likely with a Democratic majority, definitely not with a Democratic president. Not with all they have invested in the infrastructure of social engineering and social support. Never mind the philosophies those programs represent.
Here’s an idea. Gay marriage has been shoehorned in via judicial activism, administrative action and piecemeal, half-measure legislation, with no little or no debate about whether we want to fundamentally alter the structure and norms of our society. In my state, we were informed by four judges that the founding fathers who drafted the Massachusetts constitution intended for men to be able to marry men, and women to be able to marry women. No debate, no vote, no appeal. Well, there was an appeal to the Massachusetts Legislature. The Democratic leadership bigfooted the efforts to put the question on the ballot. That’s history now, and it’s becoming a fact in more places in the U.S. and around the world. It’s a free country, where the pursuit of happiness and individual rights and liberties are paramount. So let people marry who they want. We’ll set aside for the moment various troubling questions, such as whether Warren Jeffs and his followers should be allowed to marry whoever/however many they want, for example, or related tangents such as whether the state and society at large should recognize a man’s right to declare himself to be a woman, regardless of the state of his physical alteration, in fact whether the state should subsidize that alteration. All that stuff can be sorted out by activist judges. But if marriage is so important, how about supporting it?
For all the support of marriage as an institution more people should enjoy, the last thing the social engineers want to do is actually provide any support for a healthy society’s most fundamental bulwark. The defense and support of marriage is a marginal cause, supported by partisan rightwing nutjobs. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the AP:
NEW YORK (AP) — Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.
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. Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments — notably job creation — would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.
Not only does the reporter inform you at the outset, before giving the study authors a chance to talk, that he considers this study to be full of it, he proceeds to devote as much space to shooting it down as he does to explaining what the study is about. Sounds fair, but I can assure you, compared to the wire’s usual handling of social studies, a quick press release rewrite and a couple of quotes, this is an unusual amount of reporting effort being applied to discredit this study. The perspective of the reporter is clear. Combating assorted social injustices must remain a high priority, but making stable families is irrelevant and will never be a part of that.
Topics: husbands and wives, moms and dads
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:14 am on Wednesday, April 16, 2008
4 Responses to “Divorce Penalty”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
[...] Jules talks about a divorce penalty and how we are paying for it. He cited this study: The breakdown of marriage in America costs at least $112 billion a year, owing to costs of health care, criminal justice, welfare programs and lost income-tax revenue, according to a study released today. [...]
April 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Yes, the report contradicted accepted liberal theology, er, ideology, so it MUST GO DOWN, AND IT MUST GO DOWN HARD.
On the other hand, I actually somewhat agree with the AP editorial, er, article. I’m not a big believer in using taxes for social engineering.
I guess my ideal income tax system would be something like this:
1. How much did you make: $xxxxxxxx
2. Is it over this much?: xxxxxxxx
3. If so, pay (#1 - #2) * xx%
4. Also, we’ve put x% of your money into a cafeteria account for you to use when you get old, or to leave to your heirs if you die.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:57 am
How about an incentive to put off having a child? Basically, as long as a couple is married without children, they can dump money into something like an IRA. If they have kids, they can get it back with some extra percentage or it can go towards, e.g. college. If they never do, it’s just an ordinary IRA, but it’s always there in case she pops.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:04 am
[...] US commentator thinks Government have too much invested in fixing the adverse social consequences of our [...]