Quote Originally Posted by mike
Quote Originally Posted by Aaa
Quote Originally Posted by mike
I think the number of unwed mothers and illegitimate children has more to do with their @@@@ economic situation and poor sexual education than this fabulous and luxurious lifestyle of living off public welfare that you seem to believe exists (which doesn't).
I never said that living off welfare was "luxurious".

Think about it this way: a poor woman on welfare with 2 children out of wedlock meets a nice man. Does she marry him? The answer is often no, because if she DOES marry him, she loses benefits. And there's no disincentive to having more kids out of wedlock, because her payments will go up. Heck, if she already has the clothes, etc., having another kid might increase her net worth!
I think most poor women on welfare with 2 children would KILL to meet a nice man to marry. For one thing, they could use the increased income from the spouse. If these women aren't married, it's probably because most men won't even date women who have children let alone think of marrying them.

It's not saying that it's a large amount of money, it's that getting married involves a pay cut, thus preventing marriage. If you're poor, you'll do everything you can to maximize your net income, including avoiding marriage and having children.
No it doesn't. Getting married means two sources of income combined. If she's getting his income and hers (most likely this is going to double the household income) why the hell would she need $1200 in welfare assistance? A poor person is much better off married than single, because two salaries paying one set of bills is better than one salary plus welfare. You can't possibly be below the poverty level if you believe otherwise. I think you must have lived in the middle class or higher your entire life to have such a distorted and inaccurate impression of how we live. Also, having children in a marriage IS an incentive for the poor. It means we get to claim more dependents and child credits on our income tax returns, which usually means a refund greater than what we paid into the system in the first place.

No, getting married does NOT mean 2 sources of income combined. It means ONE source of income (his), as her welfare will be cut off. Since his income will now have to support 4, instead of supporting only himself plus the bit he gives to help her, he takes the largest cut.

As a result, couples are economically encouraged NOT to marry. And if they move in together and want to merge finances, they'll be "common-law" married, and again will lose benefits. So in all those border-line cases where the couple might or might not marry, they end up not married.