Marriage Breakdown Costs Taxpayers at Least $112 Billion a Year But Is Marriage the Answer?
A US wide research study quantifies the cost of divorce being at the very least $112 billion annually. Ben Scafidi of Georgia State University in Atlanta was commissioned by advocates of government initiatives to bolster marriages. The Institute for American Values, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Georgia Family Council, Families Northwest, consider themselves as part of a nationwide “marriage movement”. Having put a dollar value on increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs the study goes on to suggest that the government could lower the costs by encouraging marriage. Yes divorce is being held accountable for just about every social problem there is.
Last year environmentalists claimed divorce to be bad for the environment, also leveraging off the now almost global trend toward solo status. Research in this instance claimed the added costs of housing, power and waste to support two homes not one, when families divorce, was big and on the rise.
In a global environment where economic instability is increasing, one might imagine marriage in offering some ‘economy of scale’ may be in favour. This is an old economic argument with merit. For much of our history marriage was more of a business arrangement, and only in more recent times has ‘love and romance’ been viewed as the reason for marriage, with economic concerns lying beneath the veil of love.
Yet economics is at the heart of the recommendations coming out of the American study. It suggests that government initiatives to encourage marriage would directly save the country in tax spend, as well as heighten work productivity by enabling parents to more effectively juggle childcare and work (increasing tax take). Clearly the sponsors of this research have determined that there is a strong economic argument for government to intervene and find new policy and legislation to counteract divorce.
Clearly sustaining a household with a single income is placing many on or below the poverty line but is hooking up with another beau the answer? With trends increasing toward solo status, it would appear that economics alone is not enough of a reason to ‘want to be married’. Instead divorce and short term relationships abound. This trend toward single status must indicate a deeper issue.
Are Single Mums to Blame or Absent Fathers?
In this most recent American research, Scafidi’s calculations are based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates and that this leads to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes. The $112 billion estimate includes the cost of federal, state and local government programs, and lost tax revenue at all levels of government. By implication single mothers are directly linked to poverty, crime, violence and welfare.
This recent report on the taxpayer costs of divorce suggests that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty reducing the burden on government benefits. That would be a viable argument if there were enough eligible, well educated and well healed suitors out there.
In New Zealand at least there is a shocking lack of eligible males, and so the dream of finding that perfect husband is made physically difficult given the lack of contenders. For men however there is an abundance of educated women. The New Zealand study by Paul Callister that looked at New Zealand’s reversed sex ratio and made some interesting reflections.
This New Zealand study highlighted a trend for less educated males being less inclined to marry at all, often fathering several children to several different women. Obviously the costs to the taxpayer in this instance would be considerable if the men in question have no lasting financial commitment to these children.
Similar problems abound for American women. This research reveals that more than a third of all U.S. children are born outside of wedlock, including 25 percent of non-Hispanic White babies, 46 percent of Hispanic babies and 69 percent of black babies.
Can You Afford to Marry? Can Marriage Bring Affluence?
It is interesting to reflect that in many societies men had to demonstrate (and still do in some places) they can afford to marry and have a family. For Muslim men who are entitled to take more than one wife, the rule of thumb is based on economics. He has to be able to afford to support more than one and to treat them all equally. In our western history women without money found it hard to marry well, as having a dowry to bring to the marriage attracted similar status and wealth. Now in modern times it seems that men often partner up with women more educated and in better jobs in the knowledge that their economic contribution will enhance their lifestyle and remove the traditional expectation of being a sole provider. Many men have children but do not enter into a committed supportive relationship to raise those children.
Tim Smeeding, an economics professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, remains unconvinced that marriage-strengthening programs work. “I have nothing against marriage — relationship-building is great,” he said. “But alone it’s not going to do the job. A full-employment economy would probably be the best thing — decent, stable jobs.” He also noted the distinctive problems arising in black urban areas where the rate of single-mother households is highest. “A high number of African-American men have been in prison — that limits their future earning potential and makes them bad marriage partners, regardless of what kind of person they are,” Smeeding said. “A marriage program doesn’t address that problem at all.”
Clearly we have lost most of the traditions in support of marriage. In the past you knew what the likely wealth of your prospective marriage partner was prior to marrying. Those that had no economic wealth to bring to the marriage often lived out their days as bachelors or spinsters. But a lot has changed, not just our traditions but our economic environment. Without a defined set of socio-economic traditions and continued economic instability there are no guarantees in marriage. Our partner may be in a job one day and unemployed the next. Although more marriages and less divorces may look good on the statistics survey, there are no guarantees that marriages will last, and even less likelihood that second time round marriages will make it to “happily ever after”. Marriage is no longer a protective economic institution.
Your thoughts are welcomed by the Divorce Anthropologist
Posted by d1vorcedebate 
