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.
Should We Have a Sex Tax?
If we do, homosexuals will be exempt by the government because it would be considered a hate crime.
I support none of these ideas, but must share:
Tax birth control, with exemptions if you show a marriage license.
Tax children, unless both parents are in the house (5 year exemption when a parent dies). Do this by limiting children as tax exemptions to married filing jointly couples.
>>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.
Instead of a new tax, why don’t we, the taxpayers, just stop paying women for pumping out rugrats by the bushel? Problem solved.
Your delight will compound tax free until after retirement when you begin to, ahem, withdraw.
What about homosexual sex? Certainly drives a lot of consumption of medical services and an adadictomy isn’t free either..
The joke here is that after a few years of marriage, married folks wouldn’t be paying much in sex tax anyway.
They would have made a fortune off of the Kennedys.
Aren’t you getting unwanted sex from them all the time, now?
Why do you want more?
This just made me curious. Why five years? Is the child of a woman 7 years widowed somehow less deserving than the child of a woman 4 years widowed?
Sin taxes are a sin. Period.
Should We Have a Sex Tax On Planned Parenthood?
Should We Have a Sex Tax on Junior & Senior Proms?
I don’t blame God, I just believe He is ultimately responsible for all that happens. I believe He has a plan, and what happens, must be part of His plan.
Hey, in my loony schemes (that I said I don’t agree with) you have to pick a number.
Of course, the reason is to encourage remarriage.
(You may now un-knot your knickers).
If the plan calls for something akin to the Earned Income Tax Credit for married Fathers, count me in.
I'd hit it.
Speak for yourself... ;-)
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.