November 10, 2010
Taxpayers Subsidize Cohabitation?
by Mike McManus
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
money from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would
not.” Thomas Jefferson
a recent column suggesting that cohabiting couples be encouraged to marry by
proposing that if they did so, welfare, Medicaid and other subsidies would
not be cut for a year, and then would be tapered off at 25% a year. Many
couples would marry, cutting taxpayer costs. Here’s how to reduce huge state
my column was published by The Baltimore Sun, with my email address,
Harold wrote me, “Mike, my girlfriend who lives with me and I support (but
not legally married) has my child, is she able to obtain any support from
responded, “No. The benefits are for single mothers with children whose
income is below or near the poverty line…I assume your income and hers are
well above the poverty line.”
fired back a response: “Since she is unemployed and technically single could
the child obtain some benefits? My income is above the poverty line but
hers is below.”
Reluctantly, I replied, “Yes, I think she would be eligible. However, dare
I say that the better answer for both of you is marriage. I wrote a book
with my wife, “Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers,” which outlines the
risks and myths underlying cohabitation, and our answer of taking serious
marriage preparation, which is offered by various churches in the Washington
area. I could recommend them, if that is of interest. Nine out of ten
cohabiting couples will break up before the wedding, or afterwards in
Harold’s answer, which was fired back in 12 minutes, was disturbing. It
ought to be studied by every state legislator and Member of Congress:
“But why should I get married if the state will help raise my child?
The monetary benefit is more compelling than the commitment.”
federal and state deficits in the tens of billions, why should we be
subsidizing moochers like Harold and his girl friend?
week Census released a report which estimated that 28 percent of the 1.5
million births to unwed mothers were to cohabiting couples. I thought it
odd, because the National Center for Health Statistics issued a study in
February which stated: “By 2001, the majority of nonmarital births (52%)
occurred within cohabiting unions, compared with the 33% of nonmarital
births between 1980 and 1984.”
could not explain why its numbers in 2010 were about half of those a decade
ago. Is Census correct? It was the first time its Current Population Survey
asked unwed women if they were living together. The NCHS data goes back
estimated that a third of unwed births were to cohabiting couples three
decades ago, when only 1.6 million couples were cohabiting. With five times
as many couples cohabiting in 2010, surely there could not be only 28% of
births to unwed couples. There must be an error in Census methodology.
question remains, why should taxpayers subsidize cohabiting couples?
Harold’s case, his live-in girlfriend, the mother of his child, has the
benefit of his income, and does not need government subsidy. Why should
taxpayers give what the Heritage Foundation estimates is a subsidy of
$28,000 to such a couple?
Welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidies for
day care and housing are based on the assumption that the mother is single,
living alone, and needs support from the government to have a decent
standard of living.
course, Harold will tell his girlfriend to apply for the goodies. Why are
our agencies foolish enough to give them? I called top officials at the
Department of Health and Human Services, and no one would answer my
Therefore, in addition to offering an incentive for cohabiting couples to
marry, I propose that birth certificates indicate whether the mother is
cohabiting with the father. If so, she should be ineligible for various
government subsidies. If she lies, and it is discovered that she is living
with the father or another man, all benefits should be cut immediately.
Taxpayers need a stick as well as a carrot.
has seen the number of cohabiting couples soar 17-fold from 430,000 in 1960
to 7.5 million! Stop the subsidies, and those numbers will plunge. Why fund
Taxpayers will save billions.
more couples will marry. It would make economic sense.
2019: Column 1965: Protecting Girls from Suicide
Eight Reasons To Marry
Ten Myths of Marriage
The Ministry of Marriage 911
The Message by Eugene Peterson
Green New Deal
Christian Persecution Rising Abroad
Gun Control Laws Needed
The Worst Valentine:
Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
Sextortion Kills Teens
Cohabitation: A Risky Business
same sex marriage,
abortion and infanticide,