Posted on 01/11/2011 9:46:35 AM PST by Sopater
You heard a lot this election season about cutting taxes. Well in one case, I may be for raising them.
Politicians are always talking about taxes. Some of them want to “soak” the rich; others want to raise “sin” taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. But I can think of one “consumer item” we’ll never see a tax on: sex. But maybe we should. Sex—the wrong kind of sex, that is—is driving up the cost of government.
In a recent column, marriage expert Mike McManus explores the high cost of out-of-wedlock sex. For instance, over 7 million American couples live together. Four out of five of those couples will break up without ever tying the knot. But, McManus writes, if they’ve had a baby, many of those mothers and children will be eligible for Medicaid, housing and day-care subsidies, and food stamps.
Second, even when co-habiting couples DO marry, according to a Penn State study, they suffer a higher divorce rate than couples who don’t live together first. On average, each divorce involves one child. And like the never-married mother, the divorced mom is often eligible for many government benefits. According to the Heritage Foundation, McManus writes, “13 million single parents with children cost taxpayers $20,000 each, or $260 billion in the year 2004.” The total probably comes to $300 billion today, McManus says.
And that’s just the beginning.
A child born out of wedlock is seven times more likely to drop out of school, become a teen parent, and end up in prison. They are 33 times more likely to be seriously abused.
And we’ve all heard of the high rates of STDs affecting America’s teenagers—diseases that cost billions of dollars to treat.
So maybe we SHOULD consider a tax on non-marital sex—everything from one-night stands to living together arrangements. It’s costing us a lot of money. And such a tax might indeed pay off the national debt.
All joking aside, these figures tell us we need to do more to bring down the illegitimacy rate—starting with giving teenage girls the tools they need to say “no” to premarital sex. We must also keep fathers accountable for the children they help bring into the world. And we must preserve traditional marriage—because redefining marriage to mean nothing more than a contract between two or more people of any gender would further undo the institution of marriage, with all resulting costs thereafter.
Mike McManus, who also is the founder of Marriage Savers, has a few more ideas: States ought to create a marriage commissions to encourage marriage over co-habitation. State welfare offices, he says, ought to “provide information on the value of marriage in reducing poverty and increasing wealth, happiness, and longer lives.” And we ought to require public schools and publicly-funded family planning clinics to teach kids about the long-term benefits of rearing children within wedlock over co-habitation.
If we did all this, we could save hundreds of millions of dollars, McManus writes. Well, he’s correct. I wish political candidates were brave enough to take on this issue, but they won’t. Sex is considered the one great sacred right in our post-Christian culture.
But the evidence reveals what happens when we take it out of the God-given context of traditional marriage: poverty, disease, misery—and, yes, higher taxes for all of us.
A sex tax would even out the marriage penalty.
if the EPA can regulate a naturally occurring substance like carbon, I see no reason why they can’t regulate/tax sex. or not having sex. or even thinking about having sex.
Have this tax only in Nevada, and then, blame Senator Reid for it.
How about we take it even further and put a tax on entertainment that glorifies single motherhood, irresponsible sex, etc? Wait....that would bankrupt Hollywood... A Twofer! ;)
Great article. It reinforces what my tagline has been saying for months.
Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
I was going to say there already was one, called marriage.
Mark
How about we just stop the Government paying to clean up after people. I like that idea a whole lot better than instituting another stupid tax that tries to control peoples behavior.
Naw, that would actually make sense.
Here's a perfect illustration of the fraud that goes by the name of 'social conservatism'. There's nothing 'conservative' about it. They just want their grubby little fingers on the levers of power so they can make us all behave the way they want us to, just like the Libs do.
L
Disproportionately affects males.
>> So maybe we SHOULD consider a tax on non-marital sex
Glad they added the “non-marital” caveat ... otherwise I’d be broke. Bomchickawahwah.
On the other hand ... wouldn’t a sex-tax make the federal government a pimp to every unmarried woman in the country?
SnakeDoc
Guys in the locker room, naturally.
"Shoulda seen this hot blonde I picked up after the game last night. WOW! We were at it like dogs all night long!"
"Yeah, right. Show me the check stub!"
Talk about a tax that goes away when you get married...wait, what?
Don't give them any new ideas. They already got state lotteries, which are a tax on stupid.
Once they have us all "chipped" and registered with our GPS locations, they'll know exactly who's doing it, and even how.
(Unless Laz can help us think up some new "methods" to confuse them.)
If I miscalculate my withholding do I get sex back from the government at year’s end?
A while back, the Missouri state legislature actually outlawed all sexual congress, even between married couples. It was only for a short time, but it's a good example of what governments will do when you aren't watching them like a hawk.
Mark
I think that since girls already have the tools to say no, we should consider putting more effort into helping those that say yes, like more info on birth control for males and females.
If God hadn’t made it so much fun and feel so good, I doubt we’d have this problem. He must have known what He was doing and what the results would be.
I thought that is what people do when to visit a hooker.
Politician: Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM’s PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM nem. con. Give us a fag or I’ll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.
First Official I think he’s talking about taxation.
Politician Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very nub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.
Second Official I understood that.
Third Official If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir...
Politician Yes?
Third Official Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.
Politician What do you mean?
Third Official Well, er, smoking’s been taxed, drinking’s been taxed but not ... thingy.
Politician Good Lord, you’re not suggesting we should tax... thingy?
First Official Poo poo’s?
Third Official No.
First Official Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)
Third Official No, no, no - thingy.
Second Official Number ones?
Third Official No, thingy.
Politician Thingy!
Second Official Ah, thingy. Well it’ll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode15.htm#4
Would all nookie be taxed at the same rate?
I mean would short term coupling be taxed at marginal rates while embraces held for over one year enjoyed favored tax treatment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.