Don’t be too depressed. Those kids are going to be paying for your Social Security, Medicare, and ObamaCare.

In addition, the government has already created economic incentives that favor families over single people. My, married friends’ household incomes are 50% greater than mine yet they pay 50% less in taxes.

Much of my property tax is used to pay for local schools even though I have no children. My property tax also subsidizes a county hospital that I will never receive care from (Parkland memorial delivers more babies each year than any other facility in the United States).

I do not believe domestic policy should penalize childless individuals, or non-intact families to an extent greater than what is already being done.

Becker is suggesting that we create economic incentives that favor the development of “intact families.”

How do you do this without penalizing non-intact families?

A never-married woman, that bears multiple children with an absentee father, is making a poorer choice than a similar woman that marries a mate who will stay and help nurture his offspring. In terms of evolutionary biology, it just reflects better planning to select a mate that assists with the offspring (that is why in biology, females that must care for offspring for an extended amount of time are always more choosy than males).

I’m skeptical that giving two unmarried parents a free house, to encourage them to cohabitate like one big happy family, will make the kids any smarter (or better educated) if the only thing holding the family together is a cheap place to live.

What I believe what determines success in life is partly the result of active parenting. Just because the parents are nearby doesn’t mean they are actually engaged in parenting!

I disagree with his reasoning.

Are intact families the cause or the result? Let’s assume that we offered incentives for people to marry. And in communities where there is the most abuse/single mother syndrome/social discord, we hand out such large subsidies that people can’t help themselves but get married.

Does Becker actually think this will work? The single women will make good choices and end up with stable, two-parent households? Isn’t there a reason that the woman is a single mother in the first place? Isn’t there a reason that she’s shacking up with an abusive guy?

Marriage is a by-product of cultural issues, and to think that you can fix under-performance in schools by adding incentives to get married is (in my opinion) a huge mistake. It doesn’t address the reason that these people aren’t married in the first place.