Who costs government more, women or men?

Great Debates
21

The Ryan: why is it that when it is reported that males are a disproportionate percentage of those in jail, people automatically conclude that this is solely because males commit more crimes

“People” do? Did anyone here say “solely”? I imagine most “people” here would consider it quite reasonable to assert that women are sometimes “under-sentenced” because of sexist assumptions that women are incapable of being aggressive or dangerous. (Although I doubt that it explains most or even much of the discrepancy in male vs. female convictions.) Similarly, black males are somewhat “over-sentenced” on account of racism, although of course that’s far from the only reason that there are black males in jail. What’s unreasonable or inconsistent about that? I think your opponent is full of straw, Ryan ol’ buddy.

22

Let’s look at it this way:

Answering the OP as to who uses more government resources, I’d say men probably overall. Looking at what the government will pay for, most of it is in defense, arguably for wars caused by men, and on a more local level, for protection and jails - and most crimes and inmates are men. We excecute men mroe often, and those are always quite taxing (har, har) on tax dollars too.

Transportation is probably something men cost more for. More men drive, a man is probably more likely to drive than a woman, and more men commute to jobs than women probably.

For other things, women may have an edge. Women are more likely to raise kids on PA than men, but it could be argued that men are responsible for this in many cases by leaving in the first place. Women live longer than men on average, but men have other things which might cause them to tax the system in their shorter lives.

All that said, men make more money then women on average, and if a person is not working at all, that person is more likely to be a woman than a man for a variety of reasons. As such, maybe men do “cost more,” but they also pay more.

Lee, this is another thread of yours where you try and put a dollar sign on something - you did it with the “How much should you earn before having sex” thread.

You’re the kind of person who, when going out for lunch with the girls, demands your poor server separate the checks because you wouldn’t DARE spend a penny that your good friend should be paying, aren’t you…

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, five days, 20 hours, 5 minutes and 11 seconds.
6913 cigarettes not smoked, saving $864.18.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 5 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **

23

I would guess that men and women get sentenced about the same but that we commit different types of crime. Men, IMHO, are much more prone to violence which carries hefty penalties.

And if you don’t agree I’LL RIP YOUR FREAKING HEAD OFF! :wink:

24

Well that’s kind of interesting.
Just as a WAG, from some recent research I have been following in a non-biologist layman fashion, apparently you sorta have two choices.

A really active immune system that works too well, and causes stress and damage to you - result, you die earlier.

A slightly more wussy immune system that doesn’t get as easily excited. Result, you get sick more often and longer, but live longer.

Is this the case? It’d sorta make sense that women’s immune systems would have to be a bit more suppressed to reduced problems with child bearing.

25

No, Satan, I am not. First to answer your hijacking personal attack, I can’t recall ever going out to lunch with the girls, as the people I lunch with are all adults. I am by nature a check grabber. The last few times I went out to dinner or lunch with a friend I picked up the entire check and tip and I left the tip the last time I was treated to lunch for a friend. When going out to lunch with co-workers, we split one check and tip evenly. I always order from the middle to lower half of the menu, unless I know I am treating.

I bring up money because everytime I try to discuss issues and what should be, someone opposing my view tries to trump me by saying the costs are what matter and people should pay their own way no matter what, etc. I get sick of this, but rather than let the matter stand or simply see the same debate happen online, with the same dreary ending, I start threads and bring money into it from the beginning and see what develops.

Recently, I heard a rant about how women were the cause of the large national debt mainly due to the burden placed on the system by welfare mothers and their children.

In college a good friend of mine was on welfare with 3 kids because she left her abusive husband. I was told by a few that it was all her fault for having sex with him in the first place when she did not have the resources of her own to fall back on if the situation soured. I was told she should face the consequences without any goverment aid. ( side note, she was able to get her associates degree during the short lived project chance and was offf welfare withing months of getting the degree)

I have been told that it is ok to deprive women giving birth of pain relief because they can’t pay cash on the spot, even if the relief would be paid for eventually by medicaid.

I have been told that it is only fair to deny medical assistance to those without cash or private health insurance. No reason anyone should pay for anyone else.

I have been told that women should pay extra somehow because they are not required to sign up for selective service.

I have been told that poor mothers should be forced to give up for adoption any children they cannot support and then have their wages garnished to help pay for their children’s care.

I think in all of these situations that there is more to determine what is right than money. By bringing in money to start, maybe something besides money will decide the issue.

26

Yikes! Lee, that is a lot of straw men.

I have been told that people must suffer the consequences of bad decisions somewhere in the world, but I can’t seem to find where they actually believe that.

Here we make financial decisions on the warm fuzzies, as do all entities witth sound fiscal policies.

27

Well, at a federal level, women cost us WAY more than men. True the prisons are some 80% male, but the prisons are such a small portion of the federal pie, that the normal “pie chart” does not even show them. I will assume they are some 1%. However, social services, ie Welfare, Social security. AFDC, food stamps, medicare, etc- is about 60% of the budget. And women get some 70% of that 60%. The military benefits everyone, so I don’t think that falls into the picture. true, more wars are started my Men, but that is just becuase more men are in positions of power. When a woman is in power, she send “the boys” off to war just as much (Margaret Thatcher, Mrs. Ghandi, etc).

On a State level, prisons are more like some 5%, and again, men eat up some 80% of that. But aid programs are again some 70% women, and they use 20>30% of the budget. One could argue schools are more to benefit women, as there are more single moms, but that is an iffy one.

So, since men, as prisoners, DO cost way more than women- BUT in a very samll chunk of the budget; and women cost more in a much larger piece- overall women use more go’vt resources than men.

I read that book, or at least part of it. No wonder it was on the remaindered section. Horsepucky.

28

Satan wrote:

You say that as though it’s a bad thing.

[Darth Vader voice]
If you only knew the power of economic reductionism!
[/Darth Vader voice]

29

[slight hijack]

Curiously, the notion that men should face higher tax rates than women is a fairly standard result in optimal tax theory. If you want a tax system which minimises efficiency costs of taxes, lower taxes on women make sense*.

picmr

*[sub]the efficiency cost of a tax varies with the square of the tax rate and the inverse of the labour supply elasticity (responsiveness of agents’ behaviour). Empirically, women are more responsive to changes in after tax wages than are men. Theoretically the result derives from the non-taxable status of home production.[/sub]

30

What percentage of the women are getting what they’re getting solely because some man dumped a kid (or kids) in her lap and then disappeared on her? Couldn’t you say that the man is responsible for the spending, even if he’s not directly benefitting from it? Couldn’t you even say that he’s indirectly benefitting from it?

And I’m curious where you get the figure that 70% of welfare spending goes to women.

31

Let’s not forget that most of that big “social services” lump is Social Security and Medicare: means-tested services are a much smaller piece of the pie. And let’s also not forget that a lot of the money in means-tested services is spent on children, not the adult women who care for them. Counting children as simply a “women’s expense” is IMO just as inappropriate and short-sighted as counting the military as simply a “men’s expense.”

That said, though, I find it plausible (though I agree it would be nice to see a cite) that women use about 70% of Social Security and Medicare spending, simply because of the longevity/morbidity differences.

32

Lee: Chill. It was an innoculous observation meant to be somewhat light-hearted. Sorry you took it so close to heart.

That said (and this is rare, methinks): What Mr Z said!

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, six days, 13 hours, 5 minutes and 42 seconds.
6941 cigarettes not smoked, saving $867.73.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 25 minutes.

*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **

33

I think it’s plausible too, but I don’t like seeing numbers that someone just pulled out of his ass being presented as if they were gospel truth.

34

One could argue that women who actually receive social services (ignoring the cost of care to their children) often must do so because they became impoverished because the man left them with too many mouths to feed.

But having chosen a rotten spouse once myself, I don’t think that I can put all the responsibility on the man. Still, it shows how difficult it is to quantify this.

satan wow, never thought I would see the day…

35

**

You could. But then that would ignore all those women who stayed with bad men. And no I don’t buy into the belief that all those men were really good to her and turned into bad men over night. And a man can’t simply dump a kid in someone’s lap and leave. It takes two to tango, no?
Marc

36

Not to turn this discussion into which sex is responsible for raising the children, but WTF?

Sure it took two to make the children, but the male only has to leave to “dump a kid on someone’s lap”. Look at all the women with children living below the poverty level with no man. This is somehow the woman’s fault for screwing a bad man?

This is just sexist claptrap ensconced in “PC” language.

37

Yes it is the womans fault. Because good people don’t suddenly become bad people and often the woman is trying to have a child to keep a relationship together.

38

A woman can’t do the same thing?

39

**

I’d say both. Hell, I’m fairly liberal in this regard so I think two males or two females can have a good family and raise a good child.

**

She shares some of the blame does she not? There are men and women who habitually choose lousy partners. Most of those men who left weren’t great guys who woke up one day and decided to be jerks. They were jerks to begin with and for whatever reason she didn’t see it.

If the truth is sexist then so be it.

Marc

40

I really didn’t want to hijack this thread.

Yes, she does share in the responsibility for making a child. She does not share any responsibility for abandoning her child if she does not abandon it. If the male is a jerk, he is not free and clear from blame because he acted as a jerk in the past.

How can a woman to blame for the actions of the man? I don’t understand this. Maybe I need it explained further. But not on this thread.