Posted on 04/19/2008 3:03:01 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Imagine a stranger coming up to you and demanding to use your credit card to finance a weekend fling. Any rational person would refuse. Now imagine that the stranger's good time showed up on your credit card bill anyway, and your credit card company insisted that not only did you have to pay but that the money would come directly out of your paycheck.
It's not imaginary. A nationwide study released last week by Ben Scafidi of Georgia College & State University found that children born out of wedlock or left to the support of only one parent after a divorce cost taxpayers more than $112 billion a year. The costs, as calculated by Mr. Scafidi, included increased direct expenses for assistance such as Medicaid ($27.9 billion a year) and indirect expenses such as lost tax revenue ($22.3 billion).
Let's put those numbers in perspective. The discretionary part of the 2007 federal budget spent about $56 billion on education, $34.7 billion on housing, $10.7 billion on transportation and another $10.3 billion on parks and conservation. That adds up to $111.7 billion, or about $0.3 billion less than the cost of insufficiently supported children. And don't let that $0.3 billion fool you into thinking it's not all that much: Expressed the same way, the largest Powerball jackpot (as a 30-payment annuity, not a lump sum) was $0.295 billion.
In any case, children relying on taxpayer help because only one parent is in the picture cost more than the federal government's discretionary spending on schools, housing, transportation and conservation put together. As David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, said: "The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are costing taxpayers a ton of money."
Messrs. Blankenhorn and Scafidi said reducing those costs "is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators."
One mechanism for reducing those costs is already in place. All that is required is the legislative will to mandate that an absent parent contribute to a child's upkeep through the same sort of automatic withholding already enforced on everybody else to subsidize that parent's child. Another would be to make it clear as a matter of law that the financial security of children be the top priority in any divorce proceeding, perhaps with a mandatory trial period before any divorce becomes final, just to make sure all support payments are being made.
Here's another way to think about it. About 130 million tax returns were filed for 2007 as of last week's deadline. Those who filed individually are expecting economic stimulus payments of up to $600; joint filers will be getting up to $1,200. But by the time those checks arrive, children born out of wedlock or left stranded by a divorce will already have cost an average $861.54 per return. In other words, even with the stimulus money, single filers are $261.54 behind.
What Mr. Scafidi's study shows is that financially, it doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a mother and a father.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
This wouldn’t be the case if BOTH parents were required to both support and raise the child (hands-on, not long distance), regardless of marital status.
EITC has been available to single parents for quite a while now.....a very big check every year.....at our expense...
LBJ’s Great Society - the gift that keeps on taking and taking and ....
In theory, that’s a sound idea but, who’s going to “require” it? Government? Do we need more intrusion?
I paid for my kids education but after age 21 they were on their own.
For cryin’ out loud will someone go ahead and cue up Master of the Obvious....
Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush did nothing to stop it.
What's the solution?
The federal intrusion already happened when the federal courts took control of state and local laws.
Now people are trying to get back to the standards of a Judeo/Christian culture but government won’t let them.
“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
- George Washington, Circular Letter of Farewell to the Army, June 8, 1783 -
torches and pitchforks?
The return of teaching children morals.
The return of quality education.
The return of personal responsibility.
Don't hold your breath on any of the three.
While true, that has nothing to do with what I replied to.
But we can’t talk about abstinence or say a word to discourage divorce or infidelity.
The costs, as calculated by Mr. Scafidi, included increased direct expenses for assistance such as Medicaid ($27.9 billion a year) and indirect expenses such as lost tax revenue ($22.3 billion).
What are these indirect expenses? Lost tax revenue? From who? For what? Are we talking about all children living with only parent, or only those situations where parents are poor off financially consuming tax dollars via Medicaid, food stamps, WIC...?
Did somebody come up with a formula showing that divorced families collectively start qualifying to pay fewer taxes after splitting, so the government is getting screwed? Are we required to arrange our lives so as to maximize the revenue government extracts form us? Maybe that's part of the authors' point here. Maybe it isn't. Who can tell?
by the time those checks arrive, children born out of wedlock or left stranded by a divorce will already have cost an average $861.54 per return. In other words, even with the stimulus money, single filers are $261.54 behind.
$861.54? Are you sure it isn't $861.543948594? Once again, who are we talking about here? Are we talking about children born out of wedlock or stranded by divorce, then left dependent on tax payers for direct support? Or are Bruce and Demi's kids too?
It would be a whole lot easier to judge if the authors should be indigent, if they offered some clue what they were indignant about.
My experience has been that most single mothers will do anything they can to avoid working, or otherwise helping to cover the cost of rearing their children. If they do take a job, it will be something part-time and easy that doesn’t interfere with their social life.
When the system is set up to extort large amounts of money from the taxpayers or from the sperm donor, and societal stigmas regarding bastard children are all but gone, there is little incentive for women to take steps to avoid having children out of wedlock in the first place. Any way you cut it, their irresponsible behavior gets them something for nothing.
The state gives too much to single mother’s now. There is lots of help to have kids without a husband, or divorce a husband and get help.
The states get federal money for every father they have making payments to the state instead of direct.
Women make false claims of domestic violence to get a restraining order..which means the state gets money for a free divorce lawyer.
I think single mothers who give birth should have to prove that they are capable of supporting the child..or give it up.
I agree there are a lot of women like that out there. However, we hear stories (which originally were mostly widows) about single women who moved mountains to provide for and raise their children properly.
These women were admired and rightly should be. Unfortunately, I think it glorified single motherhood to the extent that it is used by many women as a way to get by. We get requests all the time in my office from all sorts of people. We always know who the single mothers are because they always mention it as a reason we should meet their request.
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.