I’m not a big fan of government telling people what to do, but I’m also a realist in that I know people in general respond to material incentives and disincentives.
First of all, I start with the presumption that it’s better to have less divorces than more, compared to how many there are today. Secondly, the law that I propose would apply only to no-fault divorces.
Proposed law: Both of the parties in a no-fault divorce would be required to pay a one-time wealth tax similar to the estate tax, in that the amount is assessed on the “estate” of the soon-to-be divorcees, however that is calculated. It would be a graduated and progressive tax with marginal rates for each of the brackets the highest not exceeding 50%. Also, the tax amount will also be adjusted based on how many kids the married couple has, and how long the couple has been married, the amount increasing as the former increases and decreasing as the latter increases.
If all no-fault divorces were to be punished with a “divorce tax,” wouldn’t it incentivize people to not marry on a whim or frivolously? I.e. celebrities who do that wouldn’t do it anymore, and families would stay together. And to penalize something in this way is not unprecedented, for not purchasing health insurance (and thus making it more likely the cost of one’s health care will be passed onto the insurance-paying part of the public) will be penalized; I am arguing that the third-party social costs of divorce (mainly to the children of the divorcees involved) could reasonably be asked to be paid as well.
Again, it’s really none of my business and I couldn’t really care less, but from a purely objective and policy-oriented perspective, I think it could make sense to tax divorce, if the “broken family” thing is something that is not desired socially speaking…
Dumbest fucking idea I’ve heard today. And I’ve been reading the gun grabber threads, too. Forcing people to stay married when they really do not want to be married does nothing positive, and could lead to some very negative outcomes, including increased domestic violence and child abuse/neglect.
Why is it that Republicans such as yourself can’t simply let people live their lives, Supery00n? To quote Pierre Elliot Trudeau, “. . . there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”
You and your fellow Republicans would do well to take his advice, rather than continue to attempt to restrict the rights and freedoms of people.
How is this an extreme idea? Call it what you want, but a divorce rate of 50% is really “marriage in name only.” When divorce is relatively easy, people will find ways to rationalize it (i.e. celebrity marriages?).
What is so “fucking stupid” about a policy whose intent is to encourage better social outcomes and discourage negative ones?
Because the only rationale you have provided that inhibiting divorce (and burdening unhappily married people) is socially undesirable is your say-so. Someone who’s never been married. Maybe we can implement a celibacy tax too? (Mussolini, after all, recognized the value of reproduction for the state.)
Additionally, people will just split up without getting formally divorced (then what will you do, pass a law requiring married people to conduct their households according to your specifications?) to avoid your ridiculous penalty. Which, in turn, will inhibit them from entering potentially happier, longer-lived marriages.
Speaking as a divorce attorney who spent about a decade working for a non-profit legal aid outfit, there are times when divorce is a good thing. Drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, child abuse/neglect…those are real negatives. Sometimes those things exist, but are difficult or expensive to prove. No fault divorce offers a quicker, cheaper, less emotional and often faster alternative to let everyone involved get on with their lives to the extent possible.
How many celebrity marriages do you think there were last year? How many non-celebrity marriages were there? The rationale for getting a divorce is not wanting to be married. Nobody is getting married just because divorce is so awesome, because it’s not. Even no-fault divorce is usually financially and emotionally draining.
If someone thinks that people getting out of broken marriages is a negative social outcome, I’m not sure how that person would be convinced that this is a bad idea. From that kind of diseased point of view, yes, this is just an awesome idea and it will only lead to good things.
If you want to dissuade people from getting divorces, you need to do it at the marriage end. People aren’t going to think about a divorce tax when they get married, because they still think that they have the greatest love in the history of the earth at that point. A marriage tax would stop a whole lot more silly marriages than a divorce tax.
Bullshit. It’s a disgusting combination of nanny-state with a side order of “Help me, Jeebus!”. It also has the potential to make divorce economic suicide. So yeah, “fucking stupid idea” sums it up nicely.
And they would say, “We’re not divorced, so no tax is due. We just live in different residences.” And then, I guess you would say: “Married people must live together in this fashion:…”—followed by your “progressive libertarian” diktat of how married people must organize their household.
Let me also add: This penalty will also discourage even first marriages. So if your rationale is (the unsubstantiated claim) that married households produce more socially desirable outcomes, your tax regime will suppress people from risking potential divorce. That is, it will depress all marriage rates.
Call yourself what you will. The bottom line is that you will not let people live their lives without your meddling in their most personal matters. Quite simply, the marital status of other people is none of your business what-so-ever.