First of all, it’s a repeat of what social welfare programs under “The Great Society” did to the low income community several decades ago. If you know anything accurate about that period of time you would know that the welfare programs incentivized single motherhood and made it less profitable for poor couples to actually marry.
This began a vicious cycle of single mothers and father’s who weren’t willing to take responsibility for their own offspring. Thank Lyndon Johnson for the staggering poverty and single motherhood rate in the poorer communities (specifically black communities, shut up about racial bias, the statistics are available) which has been steadily increasing since the 1960s.
It’s a vicious cycle for our society to be in since, even in minority family’s, a child in a single parent household has far less chance of economic advancement for a variety of reasons.
So now Obamacare has set up a situation where, yet again, marriage is not financially responsible in the short term. Despite the fact that it is demonstrably better for children and their economic stability in the long term. If there’s one thing my involvement in politics has shown me, it’s that most people are not that good at thinking about the long term effects of their actions and decisions.
Let’s look at the situation of a 40-year-old couple with two children. The spouses’ annual earnings are $70,000 and $23,000, respectively:
The couple’s annual unsubsidized premium while married is $11,547 (OFA’s vaunted “tax credits” disappear at $92,401 for married couples with two children). But if they divorce and shack up while giving custody of both children to the lower-earning spouse, their combined annual premiums, at $4,317, will be over $7,200 lower. That’s over $600 a month. As was the case in the previous example, the savings from divorce will gradually increase every year. Parents will be torn between doing what Western civilization has considered morally right for millennia and their children’s financial well-being as never before.
There may be contrary examples, but in all of my research into the inner workings of Obamacare as embodied in Kaiser’s model, I was unable to find a single instance where staying married led to a lower net healthcare premium compared to divorcing and living together. Clearly, many couples who are considering marriage, especially after several years of seeing formerly married couples regress to cohabiting, will look at Obamacare’s “wedding tax” and say, “Never mind.” The effect on society will be incalculable, and certainly not for the good.
– Tom Blumer @ PJ Media
Not only has this move historically been bad for the economy and children, but it’s also put the Obamacare in the position of de-incentivizing gay marriage.
After all that fight, are gay people still going to want to get gay married when they are going to end up spending much more on healthcare premiums as a result? Based on a Huffington Post article from 2012, gay couples already have a higher average income ($10,000 higher on average) than the rest of the country, meaning this wedding tax is more likely to affect them negatively in any case.
Gay marriage? “Never mind” as Tom Blumer wrote in the article.
Ironically the overturning of DOMA has made this applicable to gay married couples even more than it would have been before. This is a federal plan, when DOMA was in place the IRS and Federal Government were not acknowledging their marriages so they might have slipped through the cracks of the “wedding tax” if only their individual state was acknowledging their relationship.
We’ve already seen the affects of federal programs that encourage single parenting and cohabitation vs. marriage.
Now the federal government wants to “help” people by doing the same thing?
Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
*Thanks to my mom for basically titling this whole post.