Oh here we go.... Study: Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

[devilgrrl]

Study: Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

NEW YORK (AP) -- Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages. Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments -- notably job creation -- would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.

There have been previous attempts to calculate the cost of divorce in America. But the sponsors of the new study, being released Tuesday, said theirs is the first to gauge the broader cost of "family fragmentation" -- both divorce and unwed childbearing.

The study was conducted by Georgia State University economist Ben Scafidi. His work was sponsored by four groups who consider themselves part of a nationwide "marriage movement" -- the New York-based Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, Washington, and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.

"The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing -- besides being bad for children -- are costing taxpayers a ton of money," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values.

"We keep hearing this from state legislators, 'Explain to me why this is any of my business? Aren't these private matters?"' Blankenhorn said. "Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt."

more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/15/fragmented.families.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch


Allow me to be the first to call B U L L S H I T ! ! !

[slackmaster]

1. The numbers may be valid, but the proposed cure is not

Marriage is not a fix for poverty.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Exactly

I would be very interested in seeing the correlation between single-parenting and poverty, directly as a result of having a single income rather than two. Likewise, compare the costs associated with being a single NON-PARENT relative to being married NON-PARENTS.

In short, there are too many variables that have not (apparently) been eliminated for the study to be valid.

[Iris]

26. well, yeah. Because one way to create a single-parent family is for the parents to divorce!

God. this shit makes me sick.

What about the war in Iraq? How much is that costing us? Why not study how to get us out of THAT!?!

[drmeow]

69. I doubt even the numbers are valid

To easy to twist numbers to say what you want them to say.

[atreides1]

2. And the war in Iraq costs $144 billion a year

So it's simple, instead of the government promoting an illegal and immoral war, or marriage, they should leave Iraq and gain $34 billion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I come up with 262 billion

$720 million a day.

But yes, this was my first thought as well. It appears to be okay to spend money on war but not on health care and day care.

[Skittles]

68. what do you suppose the Institute for American Values says about the war

let's all make a huge guess about THAT :o

[Downtown Hound]

3. A great argument for abortion. n/t

[Snarkturian Clone]

34. ditto NT

[KG]

4. for a society that professes to love its children, why does it act like they are a burden?

[devilgrrl]

7. How do they know it costs $112 Billion?????

I can't believe everyone here is taking this at face value.

"Oh, it is written! It must be so!"

:crazy:

[Lorien]

53. Not surprisingly, the article doesn't say. Not even a hint.

Hmmm. I was raised by a single mother, my sister is a single mother of one, neither she nor our mom ever took a dime of government aid. So where is the cost coming from? Isn't a two parent home where only one has an income-then gets laid off-just as vulnerable? I suspect that these groups are advocating more state funding for religious programs as an answer to this "costly problem" (that they have invented). If you really want to help families of every size, then invest in quality public education, employment opportunities, and health services.

[seabeyond]

8. smokers cost, non seat belt wearers cost, i guess we need to outlaw single

parents.... per some on this board.

oh well.

seems to be the bottom line for many here

[devilgrrl]

10. Isn't it disgusting?

:nuke:

Un-FUCKING-believable!

[cynatnite]

9. It's probably legit, but marriage sure as hell isn't the answer...

Start with improving sex education, offering contraceptives to anyone who wants them and another good start is doing more to get these single parents a better education.

A lot of these parents I bet are getting assistance from the government. Getting them off by way of better jobs and education will also make a difference.

But let's also look at the government's wasteful ways, too. Ten trillion dollars in debt, billions spent in Iraq and billions more in wasteful spending as well.

If I ran my household budget the way this government does, we'd be homeless and my kids would be starving right now.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

29. Well a healthy marriage helps

Marriage in and of itself wont make things better but a healthy marriage splits the effort in raising kids 50-50 between adults, consolidated homes mean less spending on things like rent/mortgage, some utilities, insurance, .... and hugly on childcare.

Take two people who make 30-40K a year and put them in one household 70-80K is not all that bad but individually either would struggle to raise a kid.

[cynatnite]

40. The government has no place in marriage. Period.

They shouldn't waste their time in promoting it.

A good education is far better in the short term and long term for everyone involved.

Perhaps communal living for expense reasons is an option, but the government needs to stay out of marriage.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

48. I never said they did

and I never said they should...

Thanks for playing..

I just said a healthy marriage helps both parents

[truedelphi]

11. This study is faulty in the same way that a study of ice cream eating and drowning would be faulty

The study of either of these two events (ice cream cone eating/drowning -- broken marriages or never married parents/high costs to society) are presented as being statistically inter-woven, but when closely examined, there is not even a real realtionship.

Yes, it is true that if you eat an ice cream cone on a given day, your chances of drowning are higher. But that is only because both swimming and ice cream cone eating are both functions of a warm summer day. The ice cream is irrelevant to the actual occurrence of drowning.

So too is the "scientific" conclusion of this study as it relates to single parenthood, divorced parenthood and the cost of children to a society.

Normally, middle income people marry in order to offer full protection of the economics of their union to their offspring. This is one of the reasons that the gay community is fighting
so ardently for the rights to be married.

But in societies that are apart from the middle income manner of life, marriage is not as important as an extended family.

However what we have seen of the family since the widespread use of hard drugs in the mid eighties is a dissolution of the family. When the mother is addicted to crack cocaine, she is no longer able to be the cement holding her family together. And as I type this, heroin addiction is becoming rampant in some parts of the country, with meth amphetamine becoming rampant in other areas.

It would probably be far more beneficial to extend financing drug treatment options than to carry on a Public Relations campaign about the benefits of marriage. The communities where an economic incentive to get married already exists don't need that PR, and the ones that are too poor to seek the economic advantages of marriage are not going to respond to the PR.

[enki23]

12. the most practical solution? bring on the forced polygamy!

force single moms to wed wealthy males. the single males that couldn't, or wouldn't take care of their current and future progeny would be taken out of the picture entirely. just imagine.

:sarcasm: for the impaired.

[truedelphi]

21. A magazine proposed just that in the early nineties

Forget whether it was "Mother Jones" or some other progressive magazine.

And of course it was offered as a spoof.

But still, if you have a bachelor such as the unmarried Bill Gates (he was unmarried at the time the mag wrote this up) his wealth could be split up by as many as 55 brides, all of whom would still be billionaires.

[MaryBear]

13. Could absent parent be the problem/expense

rather than the single parent?

What would happen if the absent parent paid her/his support to the single parent,

and spent time with her/his kids in a manner supportive to the single parent?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

30. Even if an absent parent pays as much as they can

you now have two homes to support, two sets of bills, and the like its just going to cost more..

[MaryBear]

62. It is not an easy thing to support two homes, however

poverty per se does not in my mind necessarily mean kids are messed up, and does not mean social services are involved thereby costing tax dollars. If the absent parent paid what s/he could, and cooperatively parented with custodial parent who of course would need also to cooperate, children would not then require services. Few win in a family break-up, but if the children are the focus for both parents, then the public cost is less. I am tempted to go on, however will not in the interest of avoiding a thread hijacking from these costs to the costs and consequences of the drug war. -mb

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

14. what exactly are you calling "B U L L S H I T ! ! !" on...???

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

16. The figure. How do they know it costs 112 Billion?

And why do you buy it?

[Iris]

28. and why is that worse than the huge $$$ we spend on the war in Iraq every day?

inquiring minds want to know.

Will we get an answer?

[devilgrrl]

35. Oh, okay. Single parents cost the tax payers 112 billion

yup, sure, right, uh huh.... it's so true....



Yep, they're a burden.



They need to be snuffed.

[Iris]

36. yeah. just like all those welfare queens

Just the 1980s all over again.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

31. I have not read the study

have you?

[Wind Dancer]

72. Hmmmm

Are you a supporter of James Dobson and Focus on the Family?

[dysfunctional press]

60. why do you assume i "buy it"...?

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

66. Why would you question my calling B U L L S H I T on it?

Not one response to this thread has addressed that figure of $112 Billion ... So far we've seen "it sounds legit..." "that's about right..." kinds of responses.:wtf:

This is scapegoating, plain and simple.

[dysfunctional press]

70. i was simply asking for some clarification as to what part of it you were calling "bullshit" on...

you weren't at all clear about it in your op.

[Matariki]

52. I call BULLSHIT on their motives

'unwed childbearing' is a dead giveaway.

[devilgrrl]

67. Isn't it?

The same shit happened during the "Just Say No" Zero Tolerance Reagan 80's - asserting that drug use was costing business X Billions of dollars a year. Then drug testing and the private prison industry.

What else is new?

[dger11]

15. Demonizing single moms is detestable, but

there are advantages to a two parent household. They usually have more financial stability (duh). More importantly, two parents have more time to nurture and care for a child, provided they're not abusive. Two parent homes are the key to upward mobility, but this advantage is dwindling by the day as both parents have to work more hours to make ends meet. This may be the whole root of the problem to begin with.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. The nurture part is the bigger one

no matter how financially secure one is sometimes dealing with kids can be so exhausting having another there to meet the needs is a God send..

[Iris]

37. yeah, but even married people have others who can help with that.

No one in my family gives birth to a baby without a tons of relatives and friends around to help out.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

38. Giving birth is one thing

and the help is appreciated but lets not even get into the terrible 2's...

Some of us have to live far from family, so its nice that every now and again I send my wife out for a day away from noise and she does the same for me..

[Iris]

41. ok, but let's not put everyone in one category based on your experience.

I would guess that most women who give birth single and young don't go very far from home.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

47. Well I dont think its safe to say one way or the other..

We live in a very mobile society but yes youre right in that its nice living near family but the ability to at the spur of the moment step outside for air without calling mom or sis over because the father is there is priceless..

I respect single moms, dont know how they do it..

[Iris]

55. Actually, there has been research that indicates most people live within 30 miles of where they grew

up. If the "family values" freaks really wanted to get to the heart of this matter, they would have studied the circumstances of the lives of single parents and not just try to come up with some big ass $$$ figure to justify some agenda they are pushing.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

64. Wow I never knew that...

Thanks for the info..

[marmar]

17. "Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest .."

That says all you need to know right there.

[devilgrrl]

18. Can believe all the people here buying this bullshit?

:wtf:

[Richard Steele]

49. It's just FASCINATING, innit? nm

[devilgrrl]

19. BTW everyone. Remember when casual drug users were determined to cost businesses BILLIONS of $$$$$?

Did you buy that line crap too?

[onehandle]

20. Force Marriage on Single Parents Now!

And since more Republicans get divorced than Democrats, start with them.

[alarimer]

22. Yes. Let them marry the lowlifes that got them pregnant and then deserted them!

Who would want such assholes around anyway? Kids are better off without the deadbeats who do not give a shit.

[seabeyond]

24. hey.... no victimization here. not into it. they chose to have sex with low life

in first place, lol. they do have a part in it at least (since they will be caring for the 10 months, (not really 9)). i am not into shifting responsibility quite so readily as you.

not judging either. shit happens in many ways for many reasons.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

33. Not all, nor a huge majority

of divorces happen because dad leaves..

[zanne]

42. And outlaw abortion!

How does that make sense? The same people who are pro-life are complaining about single mothers.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. While I do believe that un-wed mothers utilize more social programs than any other group, the study

and its amount don't pass scrutiny. The research was sponsored by four 'pro-marriage' groups. I read that children being born outside of marriage now make up something like 40% of all births. We must teach that there is more to parenting than just popping out kids! Anybody, married or not, must understand the costs involved to provide properly for a child and be able to meet them.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

25. Whats the Bravo Sierra part

the part where they cost money or the part where its any of the govt business..

Lets not run away from fact to support an agenda ok..

[LeftHander]

27. That is money that could be spent torturing and killing.....nt

[Burma Jones]

43. Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone and torture and kill

Single Parents and their children......

Now, watch this end up in Freeperville as a suggested solution........

[EFerrari]

39. Hey! Who got my dough?!

lol

:hi:

[treestar]

44. What do they mean by "cost the taxpayers?"

Often that phrase means nothing more than that they pay less in taxes. Which makes sense, since they have only one income.

Sounds suspiciously like the "marriage penalty." Like when you have two incomes in one house you pay more in taxes, and that's supposed to be a "penalty" for getting married.

[Burma Jones]

45. Wanna Strengthen Families?

Strengthen the economy and stop selling our future off so those with money and power can take the money and run to Dubai.

Establish Single Payer Health Care

Make it easy, once again, for people to pay for college.

Start valuing Blue Collar work fairly.

Quit going apeshit over Same Sex Marriage and give Gay partnered parents the same rights and breaks as Straight partnered parents.


Also, and most importantly, raise your children so that they bear children responsibly.


I assume that these "thought leaders" of the Right Wing know very well that any government money shifted from direct aid to families to "more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages" will end up in the hands of Government Contractors and sweet sweet profits will ensue. Profits paid for by us and the government sanctioned transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich will continue.

[Spike89]

46. Statistics and ideology are a fun and potent mix!

I remember the fun the puritan/anti-sport business groups had figuring that the NCAA basketball tournament cost the US millions in lost productivity! Baloney! For the vast majority of jobs where people could sneak in a few minutes on ESPN.com, they already manage their schedule and either increased their personal productivity for the rest of the day, worked a bit longer, or weren't being productive anyway. The "loss" was in no way measurable or even provable, but lots of middle managers jumped all over their cube slaves armed with bogus science.

The reality is that the equations needed to accurately determine the cost of a single behavior on an economy as complex as ours is virtually impossible. Another great example used a lot is smoking. There are costs associated with having a % of the population addicted to tobacco, but ironically, it would be enough to bankrupt soc. security and medicaid if all those smokers quit at once. Too many people would live longer and suffer the much slower (and medically expensive) diseases of old age. Lung cancer is horrible, but it kills quickly and on the average is cheaper to treat than a series of age-related events.

The moral: don't expect science to make life simple or to "prove" your ideologies, second, just because some money can be saved doesn't mean it is worth doing (I don't think we should encourage more smoking just to save money!)

[Jed Dilligan]

50. Completely invalid assumptions in bought-and-paid-for study

What's shocking is that CNN will cover it.

[Matariki]

51. What about NON single, NON married ADULTS?

I smell an agenda. 'Unwed' childbearing indeed.

[varelse]

57. Well, they're not exactly hiding the agenda ;-)

His work was sponsored by four groups who consider themselves part of a nationwide "marriage movement" -- the New York-based Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest of Redmond, Washington, and the Georgia Family Council, an ally of the conservative ministry Focus on the Family.

NOPE, no bias there :P

[Matariki]

59. Nope. Not a *hidden* agenda. Just a stinky one.

x(

[varelse]

54. "Scafidi's calculations were based on the

assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading 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."

They assert that some $112 billion a year is being "wasted" on programs such as law enforcement, education, health care, and welfare, and they "assume" this to be "mostly" spent on households headed by a single female - they don't seem to have put forward any evidence to back that assumption up, it's just a "working hypothesis" for this study.

I'm skeptical.

[tjwash]

56. Damn single parents. wasting tax money that could be going to war and corporate tax breaks.

:eyes:

[varelse]

58. Yes, why would anyone think taxpayers wanted our money spent on

frivolous things like health care, education, law enforcement, justice, and aid for families with dependent children, when we could be paying for more important items like this? :shrug:

[RB TexLa]

61. So how much does my being childfree cost other tax payers?

[JeanGrey]

65. I don't believe in the cure, but I have no doubt of the figures.

This is nothing new.

[Nickster]

71. New Study: Republicans cost tax payers $3 Trillion.

[lostnfound]

73. ABSURD. Absolutely absurd. And will they demonize the widowed, too???

Not so sure that divorce is the worst thing for many kids. I would have said so at one time, but I know more than a couple children who are distinctly better off now that their angry, angry, angry parent is out of the picture.