Now we Know, Marriage is Cost-Effective
It’s long been known that family break-up inflicts massive social costs on communities and children. But what about the burden it imposes on the American taxpayer?
It’s a proven fact that family dissolution places children at greater risk of poverty, mental and physical illness, juvenile delinquency, abuse, substance abuse, and educational failure. A few years ago Wade Horn, former director of the federal Administration for Children and Families, revealed, “My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs… the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages.â€
But what about the impact of heavier demands on the criminal justice system? Medical care services? And losses in tax revenues? At last we have a good idea of the answer.
Last week — Tax Day to be exact — the Institute for American Values released its ground-breaking report, “Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing.†[www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm] Researched by economist Benjamin Scafidi, the document lays out an elegant four-step logic:
1. Anti-poverty programs like TANF, housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, etc. – family break-up is responsible for 32% of these programs’ costs.
2. Government programs for children such as Head Start, SCHIP, school breakfast programs, etc. – family dissolution causes 36% of these costs.
3. Justice system — 24% of crime is the result of childhood poverty.
4. Lost taxes – Newly employed workers would presumably pay taxes to the IRS (10% of wages), state and local government (11%), and FICA (15%).
Tally up the numbers and – voila! – the total taxpayer cost of fragile families comes out to $112 billion dollars a year. That’s billion with a B.
But what’s clear is these numbers vastly underestimate the financial impact of family break-down, in at least three ways.
When men marry, their wages go up 8-15%, thus increasing tax revenues.
Second, children who grow up in a single-parent household are at greater risk of health problems and sexual promiscuity. Even if they don’t fall into the clutches of poverty, they will likely call upon federally-subsidized programs to render medical help and care for their children.
And single elderly women are four times more likely to be warehoused in a nursing home, compared to their married counterparts. That places an enormous burden on Medicaid.
In one respect, though, the Institute for American Values report is flawed. To encourage persons to marry, IAV proposes “marriage-strengthening programs.†But touting the marriage education Band-aid is like saying we can fix a broken welfare system by teaching teenage moms to refrain from sex.
The reason for plummeting marriage rates, of course, is not a dearth of marriage education. The problem is tangle of laws and programs that weaken the role of marriage, marginalize fathers, and dangle incentives in front of women to leave their families.
Like the school curricula that teach gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual union.
Like the no-fuss, no-fault divorce laws that allow partners to casually discard their sacred vows.
Like the gender studies programs that brainwash co-eds into believing marriage exploits women. (According to rad-fem Catherine MacKinnon: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.â€)
It’s the domestic violence programs, underwritten to the tune of $1 billion in federal money each year, that escalate partner conflict and prohibit couples counseling, all the while fostering contempt for men.
It’s ham-fisted child support programs that take away persons’ drivers’ licenses and toss low-income dads in jail.
It’s the deplorable Supreme Court Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that precludes a father from being informed about his partner’s plan to abort.
And it’s female empowerment programs like the federally-endorsed “Girl Power!†that undercut the role of families.
For years social and fiscal conservatives have co-existed in a sometimes uneasy alliance – call it a marriage of convenience if you will. “We’ll tolerate your musings on abortion and gay marriage, just so long as you don’t fool with our tax cuts and de-regulation plans,†the green-visored conservatives would say.
But now, both wings of conservatism have found common ground – restore the traditional family, rally around the needs of children, staunch the growth of social welfare programs, and save billions in taxpayer money.
Call it a match made in heaven.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Well stated and presented Carey
The term ‘taxpayer money’ has a new meaning these days. Used in the conventional sense it meant: “Money that the Treasury Dept collected as income tax and was available to pay for government programs”. Every dime that is collected as income tax is distributed as interest on the Federal Debt and the Treasury Dept must borrow money at interest to pay for government programs. Now ‘taxpayer money’ means: “The exorbitant bill that is being put on our children’s tab”.
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” (1920 – Josiah Stamp, former director of the Bank of England)
April 24th, 2008 at 6:00 am
You frequently hear feminists claim that when you compare a woman’s per capita income during marriage versus after divorce, that the woman’s per capita income goes down.
The stat I like…which is more relevant for men and which very few analysts ever cite…. is comparing the per capita income of men prior to marriage, versus the per capita income of men after divorce.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I understand where you’re coming from, but wonder if cause and effect is reversed w.r.t. incomes of married men. I know I made quite a bit more money as a single man, because I had more time to spend working and focusing my attention on work. It could be that the correlation is because men of means are in a better position to get married; not that marriage increases their incomes.
Also, I posted your article on freerepublic. Someone asked if abortions actually reduce welfare spending. The question makes sense; and is a reasonable one in response to an article focused on government / taxpayer costs.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:55 am
The report involved David Blankenhorn and Ron Haskins. They have traditionally been openly anti-father and never saw an anti-family policy they didn’t like. Their job is to put a conservative pro-family spin on pork and arbitrary government intrusion.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Why if we made marriage an enforceable contract ie held women , who incidently break up most of the marriages, accountable. If we punished women and the government thugs who back their “little acts of rebellion”
We could save billions, that’s billions with a “b”. The only problem the “government thugs” have with this savings is that the moneywill stay in our pockets and they would have to get a real job.
In fact, not only would they have to get a real job, when people started to realize that the problems subsided and in some cases disappeared completely, there would be an investigation. People , not being stupid like the government thinks they are, would quickly figure out that it was not only a good idea to fire these “terrorist bastards” , but it might also be a good idea to prosecute some them. A good charge might be “high treason” and in the case of the “child support terrorist” those evil bastards could be charged under 18 U. S .C ie the “antipeonage law”. Since inefect child support is not even legal under our system and it has imposed slavery, which is what peonage is , on millions of people.
When we convict the bastards, we give the little peons, twenty year at hard labor, just for giggles and we give the big wigs , life without parole and for the really evil bastards at the top, the Saddam Hussein treatment, ie death by hanging. Now they are going to whine and kick and scream, because in their “warped little brains” they will never admit that what they did was wrong and the punishment is well deserved! ( I imagine that when they get to hell, the devils is going to laugh at them and say”sorry, folk, but wrong is still wrong, no matter how you dress it up or how ” politically correct” you try and make it , so ‘welcome to hell. It’ll be a pleasure to have you.)
April 25th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Someone asked if abortions actually reduce welfare spending. The question makes sense; and is a reasonable one in response to an article focused on government / taxpayer costs.”
Apparently Bill Bennet also claimed, via citing a 1991 study by Donohue and Levitt, that abortions, by reducing the black population, served to reduce crime.
Obviously the study’s finding is controversial. Social researchers such as John Lott have questioned its methodology and conclusions.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Hard, cold, accountants facts. Hot potatos that will have water thrown over them by mendacious social destroyers who will likey point to the ‘employment opportunities’ that go to all the rent-seeking scum that such ‘programs’ sustain – jobs which won’t be offshored.
Not that I am at all sure about that either. The Divorce Industry is a destruction line where ‘procedures’ have replaced thinking and Judgement. So much paperwork is already processed by ‘cost-effective’ outsource workers in India that I am sure the successor to Wade Horn, (former director of the federal Administration for Children and Families) will find a way to save a few dollars and have the Divorce Industry offshored in time.
Divorce may soon be done on-line with back-up queries dealt with on Skype by a 22 y/o woman in Mumbai called Indra who hasn’t a clue where you are.