Federally funded ad campaign holds up value of marriage

[RobJohnson]

The average age at first marriage is now almost 26 for women and 28 for men. And a growing percentage of Americans aren't marrying at all: Provisional federal statistics released Tuesday report 7.1 marriages per 1,000 people in 2008, down from 10 per 1,000 in 1986.

Faced with such numbers, the federal government is funding a $5 million national media campaign that launches this month, extolling the virtues of marriage for those ages 18 to 30.

Waste of tax dollars

The feds have set up a website to promote marriage: www.twoofus.org


Who else thinks this is a waste of money?

[Jim]

as this is in the pervue of promoting the general welfare, I'm OK with it.

God knows we need people getting married and being grownups for a change.

[Chris_]

Doesn't a married couple usually end up paying more in taxes than a single person? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this because I really don't know. I remember reading about couples not marrying because they would pay less in taxes.

When the government promotes the "benefits" of marriage, I suspect they are more interested in the tax benefits that goes directly into their coffers.

I think it's a stupid self-serving campaign.

[MrsSmith]

Doesn't a married couple usually end up paying more in taxes than a single person? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this because I really don't know. I remember reading about couples not marrying because they would pay less in taxes.

When the government promotes the "benefits" of marriage, I suspect they are more interested in the tax benefits that goes directly into their coffers.

I think it's a stupid self-serving campaign.

My tax rate was dramatically lower as Head of Household...and Mr Smith's was slightly lower as Single.  Our taxes rose far more than I anticipated after we married.   

 

[RobJohnson]

Doesn't a married couple usually end up paying more in taxes than a single person? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this because I really don't know. I remember reading about couples not marrying because they would pay less in taxes.

When the government promotes the "benefits" of marriage, I suspect they are more interested in the tax benefits that goes directly into their coffers.

I think it's a stupid self-serving campaign.

Good point Jen.

I did check out the twoofus.org website and it does link to a few interesting articles, but I don't find those articles worth five million bucks!!!!

I think this is just a plot by the Obama administration to make sure Chris, Jendf & RobJohnson get married some day!!!! 

[ace61502]

Two single people with no children do not see a substantial increase in taxes when getting married ANYMORE. There used to be a big "marriage penalty" because the deduction for a married couple was less than double that of two single people. Now it is exactly double.

Now for someone who did file head of household previously, yes, the tax burden would go up upon getting married. But part of the push for marriage is so that our children grow up in intact homes instead of single parent households. Even when mom and dad "live together" the kids don't grow up as secure as kids who grow up in a home with married parents.

Now I'd like to see a program to help married couples STAY married. That's the biggest detriment to our kids. More and more "experts" are beginning to admit that even a less than happy home is better for kids than a broken one.

[rich_t]

Two single people with no children do not see a substantial increase in taxes when getting married ANYMORE. There used to be a big "marriage penalty" because the deduction for a married couple was less than double that of two single people. Now it is exactly double.

Now for someone who did file head of household previously, yes, the tax burden would go up upon getting married. But part of the push for marriage is so that our children grow up in intact homes instead of single parent households. Even when mom and dad "live together" the kids don't grow up as secure as kids who grow up in a home with married parents.

Now I'd like to see a program to help married couples STAY married. That's the biggest detriment to our kids. More and more "experts" are beginning to admit that even a less than happy home is better for kids than a broken one.

Do you want such programs (which already exist) to be federally funded?

[Eupher]

The whole idea of "marriage" is a states' rights issue and has no business at the fed level. Tenth Amendment, anybody?

So yes, I have a problem with spending taxpayer dollars on moral/societal issues.

But hell, Congress doesn't give a shit about the 10th Amendment and certainly feels empowered to do all manner of things that they shouldn't be doing.

[ace61502]

Do you want such programs (which already exist) to be federally funded?

Not really, but I do believe it would be a lot cheaper in the long run since married couples are a lot less likely to use other social programs. The ones that already exist are costly and often don't work. The biggest problem is that the social stigma of divorce is GONE.

[EastFacingNorth]

Not really, but I do believe it would be a lot cheaper in the long run since married couples are a lot less likely to use other social programs. The ones that already exist are costly and often don't work. The biggest problem is that the social stigma of divorce is GONE.

We're in a situation right now where the government feels that, since they bailed out AIG, they should feel free to direct AIG policy.  In effect, AIG has already been nationalized, they simply don't know it yet.

Not all costs are monetary.  Giving the federal government control over marriage promotion programs, while it might be a money saver, will cost much much more in the long run.

[Eupher]

...snip.

Not all costs are monetary.  Giving the federal government control over marriage promotion programs, while it might be a money saver, will cost much much more in the long run.

Bingo. h5.