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.
Don't complain. It was right there in the Prospectus: "Substantial penalty for early withdrawal." Mrs. L will confirm that one.
I seem to recall a Monty Python sketch on this subject. Can anybody find it?
If your proclivities match even a fraction of your claims, you’ll be broke before Q2-2011.
I’d make out if we had a “sex tax”. Because I don’t “make out.”
Or something.
However we don’t have laws against adultery unless you think we should..
Aren't they sort of already? At least to quite a few...anyway.
Anything thatdisproportionately affects males is OK.
If they are white & hetero.
I could answer you but the answer would get pulled.
...someone may get pregnant.
And with that one brilliant statement you have handily solved this Country's debt problem! Congratulations!
The title suggests this is a satire. But, I have always stated that sexual promiscuity is the most expensive and irresponsible “sin” in the country. It drives up welfare costs and medical costs, and often shortens people’s lives as well. Children live in more poverty and abusive homes. Women eventually look for another man and often do not use much discretion in the process, and the whole situation repeats itself over and over again.
I would feel better if this article had been from someone other than Charles Colson. Not because I do not like him, on the contrary. It’s just that I would expect Charles Colson to have this much sense, so it is not a big breakthrough. Just my humble opinion.
I don’t get how many FReepers here don’t get Colson’s simple explanation of a Sex Tax.
To put it simply - Tax (or cut funding for) those leftist welfare staters who pump out babies and live the liberal lifestyle.
I suppose I’d be “married filing separately”...if you know what I mean.
Oh we get it. We just realize that it's an extremely stupid idea.
Tax (or cut funding for)
I chose B. I'm sick and tired of being forced at the point of a gun to pay for other peoples irresponsibility. That way we won't have people like Colson floating goofball ideas like this.
L
Understood, but I don’t agree. I’m of the opinion that remarriage is not ultimately desirable, when possible. Even though I married a women with two children, and then had two more with her, I’m not a fan of blended families or step-parents.
“A sex tax would even out the marriage penalty.”
And therein lies the problem. I have spoken to couples who finally got married and then discovered how much the marriage penalty cost them. Right now, 5 years after my husband of 44 years death, I have a wonderful man whom I would love to marry. However, there is a social security calculator for the 1040. If you are above a certain income you have to pay taxes on your social security, if below you do not. If you are a single person there is a $25,000 deduction from your gross income. If you are a couple there is a $35,000 deduction. If you are two single people living together you have a total $50,000 deductible. Thus if married we would have both a marriage penalty and a social security penalty.
What a choice!! Thanks Uncle Sam. Our government promotes cohabitation, under both R and D administrations. This is something the defense of marriage people should take a good look at.
Next comes a masturbation tax.
I believe this post is meant to be satire.
Sorry if you can’t take a joke.
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.