Refusal: The issue is probably more one of unmarried women having babies than women raising children after a divorce. At least with the latter there is some legal mechanism to get child support. I don’t have the statistics, but I’d guess the incidence of child support where the couple was never married is much lower than if they at least were once married.
Homebrew:
Point taken, but I have a few quibbles. First of all, insurance rates have nothing to do with tax policy, nor with government endorsement of marriage. Married people also tend to be healthier, or so I’ve heard, but that also has no bearing on income tax rates.
The fact that I don’t have to write a will to bequeath all my stuff to my wife also isn’t a tax benefit. It’s barely a benefit, period, except in terms of convenience. Writing a will that says “When I die, this person gets all of my things” is easy and inexpensive. You have a point about the estate tax, but I feel the estate tax should be repealed anyway, so I don’t consider that to hold much weight. Also, the estate tax only applies to very few people, so it’s pretty insignificant wrt to the marriage argument at large.
And as far as tax-free health coverage, I don’t know about most people, but I know that the money I save on this tax break is far outweighed by the amount I have to pay for this “mythical” marriage penalty.
Eva Luna:
While I respect your opinion, do you have any evidence to support your position? I think my formal study trumps your anecdote, sorry. 
I also suffered through parental divorces, and managed to turn out as a well-adjusted individual, but I’m just a statistical blip. Anyway, I know a girl who lived with parents who were absolutely miserable and had no business being married in the first place, yet she’s in a happy and stable marriage now, so the anecdote game goes both ways.
Jeff
Jeff:
Statistics are merely compilations of anecdotes; even you say that children whose parents are married to each other are only “generally” better off. I don’t doubt that there are large numbers of kids who would be better off in happy, intact families. However, the choice between happy, intact family and miserably divorced family is a false dichotomy, and there are infinite shades of gray in the middle.
There are couples who probably never should have gotten married to begin with, but made a mistake and tried to make the best of it for a long, long time, sometimes many years, before throwing in the towel (like my parents). There are single parents who became such by virtue of an irresponsibly unprotected one-night stand. There are couples who took precautions, conceived accidentally, and got married because they were about to become parents, but otherwise might have delayed marriage or never married each other. (Have you been ready to marry every single person you’ve ever had sex with, if something had gone wrong?) There are couples who got married long after they became parents, sometimes multiple times. There are couples who got married purely in order to become parents. And there are couples who get married, but for various reasons never become parents at all; parenthood isn’t the only issue affected by a “marriage tax,” so why make marriage rather than parenthood the object of further legislation?
These are just a few marriage/parenting combos off the top of my head, but lots of people don’t fit into these boxes, and I’d hate for the government to make determinations about the relative value of each of these combos based on the sole factor of civil status. The world just isn’t black and white that way, and there is a significant enough proportion of children who are harmed by their parents’ participation in pointless or even harmful marriages that it’s not a decision I want the government to be making without a much more detailed and individual analysis than a check-the-box tax bracket determination.
“Statistics are merely compilations of anecdotes”
You might want to start a thread about that and see what others think. Statistics, when used properly, are a good representation of reality. Anecdotes are typically one sample out of, possibly, millions. A terrible representation of reality.
Oh, also when you have a collection of anecdotes, there is no guarantee that the subjects are answering the exact same question. Each anecdote is a story which may or may not address the same issue and be able to be compiled into meaningful data.
Eva:
Well, yes, statistics are made of anecdotes. However, they’re made of a large and varied enough selections of anecdotes that it’s assumed that some sort of pattern can be discerned. Thus a study that has observed hundred of people is, generally speaking, a better indicator of reality than “Hey, I knew this guy once…” I never claimed that every child of a broken home would’ve been better off with unhappily married parents, only that this seems to be a general trend. From this I draw the conclusion that if your marriage is having some problems, it’s probably better for the kids involved for you to stick it out and try to make it work. And even if you’re sure that you’re going to be unhappy if you stick around, it still may be in the children’s best interest for you to just deal with it. Certainly this isn’t an absolute, and I recognize that shades of gray exist. But general guidelines are useful, no? Or do you just flat-out refuse to accept the conclusions of this study because it conflicts with your single anecdotal data point?
By encouraging marriage, you increase the likelihood that children are born to wedded parents, and thus parents that are more likely to stick together. You also strengthen marriage in general, which will add positive feedback to the whole marriage creation thing. It’s also easier to legislate marriage rather than parenthood, especially given that people can have children with multiple partners.
The government isn’t making a decision for you, by any means. It’s simply noting, “Hmm, this behavior tends to help out society. Let’s offer a small incentive to implictly reinforce this behavior.” This doesn’t impede with the gray-scale nature of the world as it exists, because it doesn’t open up or close off any options that weren’t already there. It just sticks a small carrot above the decision that tends to be better, on average.
Jeff
To me, a program which “encourages” marriage is a waste of money. I don’t see how any amount of encouragement will have a real effect on an individual’s decision. (A small tax credit, or other incentive along these lines wouldn’t induce me to marry.) The only people who will benefit from any incentives are those who planned to marry any way. Nor do I see it having any effect on out-of-wedlock pregnancies. A teen is not going to think about marriage incentives in the heat of passion, nor will her boyfriend necessarily want to marry her just to get the rewards.
In a way, I feel that incentives actually cheapen marriage in a small way. “Well, the government’s going to give us_______, so what the hell? Let’s get married!” It strikes me that people who would make such a monumental decision based on a perk offered by the government aren’t people whose responsibility factor is high in the first place.
Instead of strengthening marriage, I think it could actually lead to higher divorce rates than we currently experience, especially if people who hesitated to marry do so for the benefits, and later regret their decision.
I’m sure that many women who this program would be designed to help would * love * to get married. The problem is finding a good, stable, financially sound partner. Marriage won’t necessarily be the “magic cure” for their troubles. Even with a husband, they may still live in poverty. If they lose their welfare or health care benefits by marrying, their living conditions could actually be worsened.
Instead of “encouraging marriage” the money for this program could be put to far better use in providing good day-care services and educational programs for poor women so that they can lift themselves and their children out of poverty.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
Oh, and elfje:
The way kids are raised nowadays would have an awful lot more to do with it.
I don’t think being married (or not) is fundamentally going to change the way you raise a child. Cohabitating couples do just as well, or even better in some cases.
Cite?
no cite, observations within my circle of friends/family/acquintances. There was a documentary yesterday on Channel 4, UK, about a seriously msbehaving child. Turns out the blame lay completely with the parents. And yes, they were married.
I also don’t have a site/cite for stating that most people do no longer see marriage as a lifetime commitment, I’m just going by marriage and divorce ratio’s. Currently 1/2.
stats for UK:
http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6905.xls
http://www.divorces.com/stats.html
and this is a US source:
Median age at divorce: Males: 35.6
Females: 33.2
Median duration of marriage: 7.2 years
Likelihood of new marriages ending in divorce: 43%
interesting reads, these.
Cite? While it wasn’t criminal to get a divorce, it was certainly frowned upon a generation or two ago, to the extent that it may as well have been illegal. Divorce was something you just didn’t do. I seem to recall that people still got married. I don’t know about the proliferation of domestic violence, but unless you can prove otherwise, I have no reason to believe it was dramatically higher in the past, nor that this had anything to do with divorce.
divorce was only legalised in Ireland in 1995. Before that, you literally could not get divorced. It was illegal So were contraceptives. And you’re right about the second part of your argument, according to this site (again, US source), cohabitating women suffer more domestic violence than married ones. So i was wrong about that. On the other hand, as you said, a few decades ago, you either got married, or you lived with your parents til you were old yourself. My great aunt did not want to get married, so in order to have a reasonably normal life, she joined an active convent, and was principal for an all girls boarding school for about 30 years. Something she never could have done were she married. It makes you think, doesn’t it, that in order to be free of society, she had to join a religious order? I mean, the irony of that!
Obviously, I disagree. Married couples are more likely to stick together during tough times, and if that couple has kids, staying together is extremely important. Even if the parents are unhappier by staying together, it’s generally better for the children if they do. And sorry, but once you have kids, your well-being takes a backseat to theirs (within reason, of course - nobody should have to stay in an abusive marriage, for example).
I disagree with “staying together for the kids”. Your link does not work for me. I’m purely talking from a personal point of view. I would have preferred my parents to divorce, than to keep the atmosphere the way it was in the home. They didn’t. They’re still not happy. But a study in the UK shows that your assertion is right. Only by one doctor, though, so I don’t know how representative this is.
http://www.globalchange.com/books/rpl6a.htm
to say that your well-being takes a back seat to your kids’, is quite correct, but I know, and see daily, that a lot of people do not think that way. They see the child as a nuisance, or they expect the child to adapt to their lives, as opposed to the other way around. or they feed them and clothe them, and think that that constitutes “raising”. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking marriage, there’s a lot to be said for it, but I don’t think that marriage is the answer to everything. The government can make this a better society, without having to discriminate against unmarried couples.
So yeah, I think the government should be encouraging marriage. As long as it’s not too overbearing in its methods, I think it can have a very positive effect overall.
disagree. Government should be encouraging marriage classes for prospective marrying couples. A lot of people (especially women) live for the wedding day, not the actual marriage. Government could organise parenting classes, and make them compulsary for expecting couples. There are tons more ways for the government to make society friendlier and more effective.
ElJeffe, I don’t by any means dispute that it’s possible to draw meaningful conclusions from statistical data. I just think that if even the statistical data shows that a large subsection of affected people might not be helped by the program you would like to implement, that perhaps those resources are best deployed in other ways. As others have mentioned, I don’t think a tax incentive of a few hundred dollars, or even a few thousand dollars, is going to convince most sensible people to get married or stay married, and the ones who aren’t sensible probably aren’t going to gain anything from being married anyway. And there is a significant proportion of children who would be no worse off, or even better off, with parents who are not married to each other. If one parent is an unemployed, philandering, drug-abusing, violent schmuck, what will the child gain by having that parent living under the same roof? Bonus: you aren’t giving bonuses intended for the promotion of responsible parenthood to married people who are not parents, or whose children are grown.
I think that if you are worried about the welfare of children born out of wedlock or living with divorced parents, there are waaaaay better ways to use those resources; education and job training for those single parents who need it spring to mind, not to mention child support enforcement.
Note that current tax law penalizes many couples a few hundred or a few thousand dollars if they get married rather than just live together. It’s possible that a certain amount of money may have more psychological impact as a punishment than as a reward. E.g., I tend to be concerned about overdue library books at 10 cents a day, but I wouldn’t travel to the library just to be paid a few dimes.
More broadly, I think money does influence people’s conduct, prehaps more than it should. Look at how much time and effort go into seeking bargains. Look at how many people routinely change jobs when they can get a raise. I think the success of welfare reform shows that welfare money had been encouraging welfare mothers to have more children and dizcouraging them from seeking employment.
Disagree.
What portion of the 64% of blacks in Georgia being raised out of wedlock fall into this category in your opinion? Can’t we agree that 64% is a weee bit too high of a figure?
Ha. You then go on to suggest that we should be giving bonuses to the children born out of wedlock.
Bolding mine.
So, we reward the behavior by giving them education and job training. That’s a great way of raising the amount of children born out of wedlock and into poverty, not lowering it.
Please explain why you disagree. Otherwise, this comment gets your argument pretty much nowhere. Or do you seriously think that all children are better off being raised by two parents who are married to each other, no matter what the circumstances?
Source? I’m honestly not familiar with the specifics of out-of-wedlock birth rates in Georgia, but 64% is way above the norm for the U.S. overall. (And do these figures apply to all children, or children who are born out of wedlock but are later legitimated by the marriage of their parents?) Yes, of course I agree that 64% is a ridiculously high figure. But I disagree that marriage is the solution to all childrearing problems.
(Also, note that you are taking one small subsegment of unmarried people, those who have conceived children out of wedlock and subsequently remained unmarried. What about couples with children who get divorced? What about married couples without children, or with grown children? They would also be affected by any government-created marriage incentive. Isn’t there a more effective way to address the problem of children being raised by one semi-functional parent, and of non-custodial parents not providing their share of child rearing and financial support?)
I think out-of-wedlock births are one symptom of a much deeper set of social ills. I doubt most women raising children out of wedlock consciously make a planned decision that “hey, I’m going to go out and get knocked up by the first guy I run into this morning, because I want to raise children alone, without a decent home or job or life skills. I think that would be a fun way to spend the next 18+ years, because raising kids is so much easier and more lucrative than working at a decent job.” Welfare recipients who are single parents of children born out of wedlock are frequently in their situation the result of poorly informed choices, inertia, and lack of life planning skills.
IMO if you address the reasons that lead women to have unprotected sex with unreliable men, not to mention the reasons that lead men to refrain from keeping their pants on unless they plan either to use a condom or support a child, you will end up with a lot fewer illegitimate births.
No, I suggest equipping single parents with the necessary tools to support their children without having to rely on state assistance to do so until the children reach adulthood. It’s a purely pragmatic opinion. Minimum-wage jobs generally don’t pay enough to support kids, especially in urban areas, and especially one-parent families with multiple kids, and especially if the kids are young enough to need full-time day care.
The circumstances of a child’s conception aren’t the child’s fault, and by allowing the continuation of the conditions that cause a child to be raised in poverty, you are allowing the perpetuation of the cycle. Don’t you think it’s more cost-effective in the long run to send the parent to a job training program for a few weeks, or even a few months, so they can acquire enough skills to support the child without additional state assistance? Think of it as a way to drag the child out of the poverty cycle. If that benefits the parent, it’s an incidental effect.
**Debaser, ** my apologies; in re-reading the thread, I missed your long post near the beginning, the one with the statistics.
My major points still stand, however. IMO out-of-wedlock births are a symptom of much deeper social problems that lead certain segments of the population to absolve themselves of responsibility for their fertility, for supporting themselves and their children, and for raising their children in a manner that doesn’t repeat the cycle. (Either that, or they really have no clue how not to end up pregnant or end up getting someone pregnant, but I think even the dimmest eight-year-old in this country generally knows where babies come from.)
And again, government incentives (or disincentives) affecting married people differently than single people are going to affect all sorts of people who aren’t part of the problem at all.
Oh, and **december, ** your comments on point #1 would seem to indicate that you believe it is solely, or primarily, the mother’s responsibility to raise and support children, and primarily her fault that she got into the situation in the first place.
What about the father? Or do you think that illegitimate children are primarily conceived by woman-on-man rape?
Right. I’m not saying that it should be that way. I’m saying that it generally is that way among the welfare population.
I don’t think rape is the main cause of illigitimate children.
Fair enough, but then why in this thread has nobody criticized men who can’t keep their pants zipped and/or be responsible for the natural result? Why no solutions aimed primarily at men, or blame placed on men?
Shopping around for the best price on paper towels or changing jobs aren’t as life-altering as marriage.
I’d like to see a serious study that “welfare moms” were encouraged to have more children. What I’ve found indicates the contrary.
The APA says:
Welfare doesn’t necessarily “discourage” work-- it’s just that often, there isn’t a job available that can compare to it. This CATO report states:
A person with little education isn’t likely to do much better than $10.00/hr. As the report continues:
No reasonable person would make the statement that regardless of other circumstances children are better raised by two parents.
However, can anyone disagree that in a general sense, lowering the amount of single parents would be a good thing? Having more children raised by two parents rather than one would be a good thing. Children raised by an unwed mother have all kinds of disadvantages and are likely to be poor their whole lives. Aren’t we all in agreement that the less single moms there are the better?
Note: by agreeing with this statement it doesn’t mean that every child would be better off with a drunken abusing father. Because most fathers aren’t drunk and abusing. Certainly 64% of the black fathers in Georgia aren’t. Although I haven’t ever been there. 
whoa. My position is that the government shouldn’t be rewarding behavior on this issue at all. Not for or against marriage.
[That wasn’t a Keanu Reeves “whoa”, that was a “slow down the horses” whoa. Re-read it again if needed. 
]
We already do this. However, it’s better to have women have children with father/husbands than fathers who are forced to pay support by the government.
Well, whether they say it aloud like you quoted or not, that is exactly what they are doing. Since birth control and abortions are freely available in our society and there isn’t even much social stigma about them anymore I would argue that yes, it is a Conscious decision. They don’t wake up one morning and have a 2 year old running around with no father. It is a result of planed decisions that they made.
The reasons are genetic. People like to fuck. How do you plan on addressing this? How do we make it go away?
Here we go. What you are saying in this paragraph is that we reward the behavior. Go ahead and have 6 kids with different fathers while your a teenager, the government will support you! No way. We shouldn’t reward marriage, but we shouldn’t reward mothers who have children out of wedlock either.
No, I don’t. Look, we both want whats best for these children. We just disagree on how to do it. It’s not that I don’t care. I just think that by trying to help, the government pouring money into this problem will actually make it worse. We have had welfare in this country for a long time, how come there are still poor people?
Getting the next generation of poor, young women in this country to not have babies out of wedlock by using a public awareness campaign would do more to “break the cycle” than supporting them all with tax dollars will.