X hits on this document

PDF document

Institute for American Values Institute for Marriage and Public Policy - page 42 / 44

95 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

42 / 44

Page 42

32. Based on table 3, assumption 2 suggests that family fragmentation is responsible for 36.1 per- cent of childhood poverty, and assumption 3 suggests that family fragmentation is responsible for 36.1 percent of taxpayer costs on these programs.

33. For example, under current rules, if increases in marriage moved some children off the Head Start rolls (because they are no longer poor), then other children who are eligible but do not currently receive Head Start services would be admitted into newly freed-up Head Start spaces.

  • 34.

    Harper and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.”

  • 35.

    Sampson, Laub, and Wimer, “Does Marriage Reduce Crime?”

  • 36.

    Harry Holzer et al., The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: Subsequent Effects of

Children on Growing Up Poor (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, January 24, 2007), http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/poverty_report.pdf.

  • 37.

    See, for example, Ribar, “What Do Social Scientists Know?”

  • 38.

    See, for example, McLanahan and Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent.

  • 39.

    Holzer et al., The Economic Costs of Poverty.

  • 40.

    In the estimates for individual states, we use state-specific average tax rates from

TaxFoundation.org, “Tax Data: State and Local Tax Burdens Compared to Other U.S. States, 1970–2007,” April 4, 2007, http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html.

  • 41.

    The specific calculations for each line item and the data sources used are contained in table

    • A.

      1 and its notes. These taxpayer costs can be considered as annual recurring costs under the assump-

tion that current rates of single motherhood remain constant into the future.

  • 42.

    For example, the U.S. spends almost $500 billion per year on public education. See Thomas

    • D.

      Snyder, Mini-Digest of Education Statistics, 2007, NCES 2008-023. (Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

43. See, for example, Waite and Gallagher, The Case for Marriage; and Elizabeth Marquardt, “The New Alone,” Washington Post, January 27, 2008, B01.

44. As shown in tables 4–6 based on the 2006 Current Population Survey, single-mother house- holds with income less than 200 percent of the poverty line are 2.6 times as likely to receive Food Stamps, 2.9 times as likely to receive cash assistance, and 1.56 times as likely to receive Medicaid than married couples also earning less than 200 percent of the poverty threshold.

45. Using estimates and calculations from Gregory Acs and Elaine Maag, Irreconcilable Differences? The Conflict between Marriage Promotion Initiatives for Cohabiting Couples with Children and Marriage Penalties in Tax and Transfer Programs (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2005), we estimate the $0.5 billion amount.

  • 46.

    Holzer et al., The Economic Costs of Poverty, 6.

  • 47.

    Ribar, “What Do Social Scientists Know?”

  • 48.

    Thomas and Sawhill, “For Richer or for Poorer.”

  • 49.

    Of course, higher dropout rates would lower future earnings, and government spends con-

siderable resources on attempting to prevent high school students from dropping out and providing services to help dropouts earn a high school diploma or GED.

  • 50.

    See Waite and Gallagher, The Case for Marriage.

  • 51.

    Harper and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.”

  • 52.

    Sampson, Laub, and Wimer, “Does Marriage Reduce Crime?”

  • 53.

    Harper and McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration,” table 2.

  • 54.

    Doris J. James, The Pro ile of Jail Inmates, 2002, Special Report NCJ 201932 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2004), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pji02.htm.

  • 55.

    Ribar, “What Do Social Scientists Know?” 38.

  • 56.

    Based on data used by Jens Ludwig in “The Costs of Crime” testimony to the U.S. Senate

Committee on the Judiciary” on September 19, 2006, in the entire U.S., state and local taxpayers spent about $183 billion on the justice system in FY 2007, while the remaining $49 billion was spent by the

federal government (see http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2068&wit_id=5749).

Document info
Document views95
Page views95
Page last viewedFri Dec 02 22:47:55 UTC 2016
Pages44
Paragraphs1536
Words18187

Comments