Divorice Tax.

[Me14k]

These facts say enough:

Number of marriages: 2,230,000,
Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)
(National Center for Health Statistics, July 21, 2006)
That’s over 1 MILLION DIVORCES in the U.S. population (300+ Million)
-“only about 15% of marriages involve such high levels of spousal conflict, while 50% of marriages end in divorce” (Sociologists Frank F. Furstenberg Jr. and Andrew J. Cherlin, authors of Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part, July 5, 2002)
-As a result of the changing marriage and divorce statistics, married couples with children now comprise only 25 percent of all American households. The number is expected to fall to 20 percent by 2010. By that time, the bureau predicts, single adults will make up 30 percent of all households. (U.S. Census Bureau, May 7, 2004)


With all the divorice rate predicted to keep increasing, I feel that the best way to keep the numbers down is to place a tax on getting divoriced. I think 5% of net income would suffice..

The tax will not include divorices due to abuse

 

[Crimson King]

Hell no. First off, they have no right to force people who do not love each other to remain together. Secondly, if abuse is the only way to void a divorce tax, then imagine all the couples forced to stay together due to cheating spouses which can cause mental anguish.

I'm sorry but this is a TERRIBLE idea.

 

[Eor]

So, instead of letting people who don't love each other get divorced, you want to bribe them to stay together anyways.

If people want to get divorced, then they should be allowed to get divorced. Why tax it? What possible good would that do?

Minus the strain it causes on children (though I'd imagine its less then what they'd have living in a home where their parents hate each other), I cannot see a strong problem with divorce. What that tax would do is try and force people to stay together who don't want to, for no purpose at all.

 

[snex]

marriage should be abolished. the government should have zero say in what two people do together.

if they want marriage benefits, then they can draw up a civil contract for it.

 

[Me14k]

you guys are right. Why keep a couple together who hate each other?

Also, snex you bring up a good point... when a couple gets divoriced they lose their marriage benefits, that is enought to keep a couple together.

I thought this would be a good debate because it is currently in congress..but I guess its hard to debate a one sided argument.

 

[Kalypso]

Noooooo way. Horrible idea. Everything I'd say about the issue has already been said here.

 

[Skywalker]

If a couple is already fighting over their property, who gets what, the cost for a lawyer may be large. Afterward, if one person lost custudy of much of their belongings, the losses would be even greater. Also, for many citizens, 5% of the net income taken away would be the result of hours of work put to waste. Some of these jobs, like the one my mother has, take a toll on the workers health. Backpain, sore joints, coal dust etc. I do not understand the logic in this too. A person can technically get an injuction placed on another who is giving them trouble for free. As both injuction and divorce both involve the permenant (or possibly temporary) separation of two parties, I don't see why one must pay for one but not the other.

Being someone who won't wed for 10+ years, this is a definite no.