Posted by Christine on: 06.09.2008 /
Christine Wicker is a journalist, an author, and a friend of Off The Map. Her latest book is entitled “The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis inside the Church“
So I was surprised to see this story calling for a change in tax policies toward the poor. Granted FOF is mainly concerned with encouraging marriage, one of its core issues. (And who actually opposes that idea?) But this time, the solution sounds decidedly liberal. Here’s the beginning of the story:
What if the federal government forced couples to pay 20 percent of their annual income just to get or stay married? And suppose a couple could avoid this tax if they either got a divorce or never got married in the first place?
Does it sound like good public policy to force a couple earning, say, $60,000 a year to pay $12,000 just for being married?
That’s more or less what we demand of millions of low-income Americans who receive government welfare benefits. For most couples on welfare, getting married is among the more expensive decisions they will face as newlyweds, because saying “I do” will reduce the benefits they receive, on average, by 10 percent to 20 percent of their total income.
We shudder to think what would happen to marriage in America if all of us, and not just the poor, faced such a pernicious incentive system.
My happiness about this beginning isn’t because I think liberal approaches are the only way to fix problems. But because this is an approach that doesn’t focus on controlling or punishing or educating women, as so many fundamentalist ideas do.
Religious right evangelicals have often wanted large sums of tax money to control, punish or educate the poor as a way to support marriage. Since poor women are generally as eager to be married as any other group of women, control, punishment or education isn’t what they need. The problem has to do with the type of man available for marriage, whether he’s going to bring income to the family or take money from it, and perhaps it’s also about the tax policy.
Here’s the solution being proposed:
For these reasons, it’s time to eliminate the marriage penalty for low-income Americans. Our proposal is simple: Don’t make them pay it. We should allow newly married couples to continue to receive all of their benefits for the first three years of marriage, thus mitigating the marriage penalty currently paid by lower-income couples. This adjustment should give newly married couples a sufficient grace period to realize the economic benefits of marriage — and save some money to stabilize their financial situation — before government benefits cease.
When that day comes, the government’s message to low-income Americans will have changed dramatically. We will be saying: Your marriage matters — for you and for all of us. We will no longer penalize low-income Americans who wish to marry.
Liberals ought to support this idea, because it means more money for the poor. Conservatives ought to support this idea, because it is pro-marriage, and because it may help to reduce welfare dependency over the long run. Everyone ought to like this idea because it could help reduce the suffering that so frequently accompanies family fragmentation and divorce.
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007521.cfm
This just proves, once again, that good ideas come from all sorts of places.
Comment by: Elaine
1Yes, good ideas can come from all sorts of places and people. :) I hope they are successful in promoting this.
I noticed they aren’t putting any age restrictions on this - so, I wonder if it would benefit the elderly? You often hear stories of the elderly who chose to live together rather than jepordize losing their deceased spouses benefits, etc.
What does it really cost a family of 4 to live in this country?
I thought you might find it interesting to see the Federal Poverty Guidelines:
A family of 4 has to make less than $21,200 to qualify. (I do realize they use some special formulas where they multiple this number by 125% ($26,500) for certain programs and 185% ($39,220) for others)
See the full chart at: 2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines
It does make me wonder if they’ve ever tried to feed a family of 4 on $21,201 - plus housing expense, normal school expenses, clothes, and now transportation - and forget health insurance because they make too much to qualify for govt. assistance. Ugh!
It certainly helps me better understand the term “the working poor” and how people can be one paycheck from homelessness.
If you want some interesting reading - when you go to that link - go to the FAQ on “How was the poverty line developed?”
[21 years ago, I was a single parent with 3 children barely making $21,000 and barely getting by]
Comment by: Rachel
2Thanks for this article, Christine! This is certainly an idea I can get behind and I applaud FOF for recognizing that it IS possible for government assistance programs to advance the common good. This is a significant departure from their usual philosophy and one that I hope will continue.
Comment by: Christine Wicker
3One of the greatest surprises of the book campaign I’m in right now has been the response of many evangelicals. These are often people who wouldn’t agree with me about politics or about the Bible or much of anything else. But they call in on radio shows and write to say that they agree with what I’m saying about the state of evangelical life, and feel as though they’ve been used, and sometimes even bless me for telling the truth.
I sure didn’t expect to be blessed for this book. And probably don’t deserve it.
They’ve reminded me once again of how really caring and kind so many evangelicals are. Okay, some are not. Some are mean people using religion to be meaner, but not most.
The majority are truly seeking to be good and do good, and if they aren’t acting that way, it’s because their leaders have misdirected and used them in ways they ought to be ashamed of. Nothing makes me more angry than seeing the way the Bible is sometimes used to guilt good-hearted people into behaving in ways that they know isn’t right. They stuff their misgivings down as deeply as they can because some preacher or power-seeking leader claiming he’s been talking to God tells them they have to.
Comment by: Elaine
4I am not surprised to hear you are getting these kinds of calls from evangelicals.
Having someone take a stand and speak the truth is very powerful. And for those in the church who have been “guilted” into silence, even shunned, it means a lot to hear someone speak what they have been thinking.
Comment by: Christine Wicker
5Elaine,
Thank you. Anyone would hope to be that kind of force.
I never imagined I would be.
Comment by: Elaine
6your welcome. thank you.