Quote:
Poverty is most concentrated among broken families. For all families, the poverty rate was 13.1 percent. But 34.2 percent of families headed by a single female were considered below poverty, and 22.8 percent of households composed of unrelated individuals were considered to be in poverty.


I would guess there is a correlation between education level in the above stats also. Taking out the ones with addiction problems. So what do you do about it?

Say you have a single parent with kids. Assuming they want to work - the cost of child care & transportation can be more that what they can earn.

Should the government refocus aid to subsidize transportation and child care to enable poor parent(s) to work?

(03-09-2014 01:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  do what every it takes to stay together.

I've been married for over 20 years. My best advise is this....treating her like a queen will take care of 99% of the work.

That is a very good answer, Fitbud. I can agree 100%. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Civilly, legally, not religiously, what is your answer? 1 or two sentences. What is your legal obligation?

"I am getting married. I am agreeing to______________________"

UNLESS 'what it takes' brings to harm the children


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-09-2014 10:38 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  do what every it takes to stay together.

I've been married for over 20 years. My best advise is this....treating her like a queen will take care of 99% of the work.

That is a very good answer, Fitbud. I can agree 100%. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Civilly, legally, not religiously, what is your answer? 1 or two sentences. What is your legal obligation?

"I am getting married. I am agreeing to______________________"

I am agreeing to be as miserable or as perfectly happy as she wants to be, for eternity.

When she started being miserable, I was miserable with her because misery loves company. Then she realized being happy is more fun, and we haven't looked back.

(03-07-2014 06:01 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Anyone else willing to try the question? C'mon. You guys are all opinionated and most of you are quite smart, so I'd like to hear it before I give you my answer and then we can discuss another question:

I don't care whether they go to a JOP (Justice of Peace) or whomever is legally recognized to perform it, I am interested in what, exactly are they agreeing to do.

Civilly, under the law; leave religion out of it. What did you agree to do when you married your wife? Use this format:

"I am getting married. That means I agree to___________________________." 1 or 2 sentences if you can, go ahead if you need more. It's a simple question. I will answer after I see a few others' posts on the question. It's interesting trying to put it into words.

Take a minute and see how you answer the bolded question and then post it. Thanks.

It's really tough for me to leave religion out of it as marriage was originally defined by God. Marriage is meant to bond one man and one woman for their life on earth.

That said, I'll fill in your blank with this.....

"... have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."

The traditional vows are as clear as day. You're agreeing to spend the remainder of your lives together through the good times and the bad. It takes a lot of work..... from BOTH sides, even when you're the "perfect fit" for each other. Health, finances, children, in-laws, etc.... all throw things for a loop at one time or another. The problem is nobody takes the traditional vows seriously anymore (especially regarding the bad times) for reasons you've asked us to not get into. A lot of people just want to bail when things get rough. Lots of people only care about themselves also.

Another thing, lots of people do a piss poor job of talking about the things that really matter to them BEFORE getting married. Religion, politics, kids, extended family, finances, debt, etc.... should all be discussed at length when considering marriage.

Being married doesn't mean you are good parents.
Being divorced doesn't mean you aren't.

2 parents aren't always better than one... it depends on the one... or the 2.

Marriage has no bearing on your responsibilities for the obvious risks in the act of sex.

REGARDLESS of whether or not you are, or ever were married... The moment you have sex, you have agreed to take on the potential issue of caring for a child. Certainly you can take all sorts of precautions, but nothing is perfect... and YOU (the two participants) are responsible for those actions. Being married or not, or formerly being married or not doesn't in any way impact that responsibility.

(03-10-2014 01:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Being married doesn't mean you are good parents.
Being divorced doesn't mean you aren't.

2 parents aren't always better than one... it depends on the one... or the 2.

Marriage has no bearing on your responsibilities for the obvious risks in the act of sex.

REGARDLESS of whether or not you are, or ever were married... The moment you have sex, you have agreed to take on the potential issue of caring for a child. Certainly you can take all sorts of precautions, but nothing is perfect... and YOU (the two participants) are responsible for those actions. Being married or not, or formerly being married or not doesn't in any way impact that responsibility.

I understand what you are saying, but most studies say that children raised in households with a mother and a father generally have the best opportunity to do well. That's not to say that children in other arrangements cannot do better than a child in a mother/father household. I think the idea is the best achievement opportunity occurs in these families. I grew up with neither actively in my life and in an area where many other kids faced similar circumstances. Not having both a mother and a father in your life creates a lot of messed up kids on the whole.

As to the latter part, I once dated a girl that told me she wouldn't have sex with someone she couldn't see raising a child with. I think that is a good way to see things.

(03-10-2014 01:30 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, but most studies say that children raised in households with a mother and a father generally have the best opportunity to do well.

I don't disagree with this. I'm merely saying that to take something that isn't true a significant amount of the time... whether it be 20 of 40% and 'make it law' (which is sort of where this thread was heading) is a bad idea. The facts you note are 'not true' often enough that while it may well be the most common answer, it shouldn't be the law. There shouldn't be a penalty for a 'no fault divorce'.

As I said, it is about the kids welfare... not the parents.

Quote:That's not to say that children in other arrangements cannot do better than a child in a mother/father household. I think the idea is the best achievement opportunity occurs in these families. I grew up with neither actively in my life and in an area where many other kids faced similar circumstances. Not having both a mother and a father in your life creates a lot of messed up kids on the whole.

Precisely. 2 parents, whether married or not... so long as they generally agree on how kids should be raised is best... but so often those seeking divorce do so because they don't see things the same way... often including raising kids. If two parents disagree and fight all the time and the kids don't know which set of rules to follow today, they will be screwed up. In your situation, you might have been better off with conflicting guidance... and certainly would have been better off with single guidance.

once again, the focus should be on the kids and not the parents.

Quote:As to the latter part, I once dated a girl that told me she wouldn't have sex with someone she couldn't see raising a child with. I think that is a good way to see things.

Too often, people are convinced that pregnancy can't happen... or that pregnancy is a 'solution'. Both might or might not be statistically true, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of 'exceptions' to those rules out there having the most trouble.

I will take a different perspective. I think one problem is that we (society and parents) put children ahead of the relationship of the parents. I think the number one focus should be on your marriage and your relationship. A child has the best opportunity where s/he is living with both their mother and father, working together in a, hopefully, loving relationship. A child will follow that example in their lives. If your relationship is bad, you will have a negative impact on your child's life. I am not saying a person should stay in an abusive relationship (or a child should be around an abuser), for example. Nor, am I saying that a child cannot succeed in a broken family. But, broken families are tough for kids and create a lasting wound in their lives. If you really want to do right by children, parents need to work on their relationships.

IMO, NFD should be reformed. Either couples should face some type of marriage counseling before being granted a license or they should face a greater rigmarole to get a NFD, or both. Part of that red-tape could be counseling (marriage and family) and/or court costs. On a side note, we also need to start scaling back programs that allow people to shift their responsibilities onto the taxpayers.

In the end, neither gov't programs nor NFD were really about the kids -- they were about the adults. It was a way for people to easily avoid the responsibility of being parents and spouses. When you start putting that responsibility back on the adults, they will start making better choices given the consequences.

(03-07-2014 02:47 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 02:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  But here you have stumped me.

Exactly what do you think you are agreeing to when you get married? Can you put into words, a sentence or two, the nature of your commitment? Perhaps that would help me better see where you are coming from. Thank you, with utmost respect.

What part stumps you?

I don't think divorce should be allowed unless there are extenuating circumstances (husband beats the wife or kids, wife is a drug addict that steals from the family to feed her addiction etc.). In other words, and I am trying to leave religion out of it, but it needs to be grounds for annulment.

It is worth clarifying the difference between a divorce and an annulment, because they are two very different things that many people think are basically the same:

An annulment (or, more properly, having it declared null and void), means that there never was an agreement or marriage. It never legally existed at any time. It can be due to any number of factors: you are both 6 years old and have not reached the age of majority recognized to make an agreement valid in the eyes of the state; you were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, etc... or otherwise mentally incompetent to make such an agreement, etc...

A divorce means that there was a legally valid agreement or marriage, and that for whatever reason (or, in the case of no-fault divorce, it can be for a simple whim or for no reason at all) that legal contract is no longer recognized as valid, and the parties are released from it (often to be replaced with onerous new regulations that one party never agreed or consented to.)

I just thought it was worth pointing out the difference, since many people don't understand the how the seemingly slight technicality can make a huge difference in their lives.

eta: added parenthesis missing, spelling

(03-06-2014 01:41 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I wanted to separate this post on no-fault divorce and its implications on children, poverty and society independent of any religion out here in this thread because I would sincerely like to have the boards thoughts and examinations of the ideas I have put forth in it. I am not looking for any religious justification or conversation at all on this subject, so please save that for another thread you can start if you want to go down that route. Let's keep this one secular and approach it from a financial perspective. Thanks.

GoodOwl.

The quoted text was taken from the other thread on the War on Poverty: 50 Years, where that discussion continues:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-680158-page-3.html

Quote:Poverty is most concentrated among broken families. For all families, the poverty rate was 13.1 percent. But 34.2 percent of families headed by a single female were considered below poverty, and 22.8 percent of households composed of unrelated individuals were considered to be in poverty.

I want to first state that I believe all people should be free to voluntarily make their own choices, but that they should then be held responsible for the results of their own free choices, not society at large, especially where it comes to the financial costs of those choices.

I read the above quoted fact as families that once were whole (married and living together) and are now not whole (divorced and/or separated.)

It seems the first place to start is to significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and shore up the ties that bind two people who freely decide to get married to stay together. That would address the 1/3 of those families living in poverty, which is a significant number.

No-fault divorce should be eliminated as an option if there are any children of the marriage. Notice I am not stating that divorce for real grounds is not an option here. I am also not saying that no-fault divorce between two people without children should not be an option here. But when there are children involved in a potential divorce the grounds should be more than "I don't feel like it anymore and don't want to be responsible" because of the costs to those children and their future. If you don't want to risk it, don't freely choose to freely get married in the first place.

Some would say that would "trap" people in a bad marriage. This is incorrect. This change would incentivize people who freely chose to get married to honor their choice responsibly and have them deal with the consequences of their free choice, rather than making society at large pay for it. If there is a real reason for a divorce, then let it be known and so adjudicated.

Children are the real victims of no-fault divorce. Every time. The repercussions of no-fault divorce extend into creating the repeating cycle of need for the welfare state far beyond the capacity of the system to sustain it.

Marriage should be raised to the level of a privilege, with respective positive benefits and incentives, not a negative drag on society.

Marriage is a social contract freely entered into by two individuals. The individuals freely exercise their power of choice when they decide to create a marital bond.

Once there are children of that marital bond, the primary responsibility of both parents is no longer to themselves and their own selfish desires, but to their children, who need to be raised as they cannot take care of themselves independently. No one forced them to have the children, they freely chose to have them.

The option to leave, without grounds for doing so, is the problem in these cases, which comprise a significant portion of the poverty population. The answer then lies in first raising the bar of marriage much higher than it has been. It should not be easy to get into a marriage, and it should be much more difficult to get out of one, especially once there are children of that marriage.

No one is suggesting that a spouse should be required to stay with an abuser at all. On the contrary, people in abusive relationships also contribute to poverty levels. But abuse must be proven, not merely allegated. Today, this is most often not the case, and a major cause of this problem. The court system provides a mechanism to do that, but it is seldom used. Most divorces are settled outside of court without any grounds, and that is a fundamental problem of the failed "no-fault divorce" experiment of the last 40 plus years.

Many divorces are settled without any real knowledge of the legal system, behind closed chambers by judges without any public disclosure of the proceedings. No court reporters are currently required. It would better protect the interests of the children if court reporters were made mandatory in any divorce proceeding that involved a child. The couple seeking the no-fault divorce would be required to pay for that record, and it should be required that it be entered into the public record (striking out personal financial info such as social security and bank account numbers, etc...) Again, criminal divorce trial with grounds alleged, those grounds would have to be proven. Court would provide a court reporter in a criminal divorce case where none could be afforded, which protects the parties and the child from injustice in the proceedings.

Now, if the bar to get married were raised, and the bar to get divorced were raised, requiring grounds to be proven in court if there were children of that marriage involved in order to obtain divorce, then many people might choose not to get married in the first place and just have their kids out of wedlock, which the study says is also a major contributor to poverty and the need to spend money on all these programs that have been unsuccessful.

My response would be to begin redirecting a portion of what is spent on the programs to fix the problems created after it happens, to incentivizing the married couple to work out their problems on their own before they seek to get divorced, which the study shows would help reduce the level of poverty in the first place, thus saving the money it costs for the services and programs.

Society would be better served to spend more money on counseling and services for troubled couples seeking divorce, and to require thorough and intensive evaluation of the issues involved before going to court and before granting a divorce on grounds. The study results suggest that it is far better for society to seek to keep the marriage together in one household in order to reduce the poverty rate than it is to spend money and social programs on two separate households and a broken family afterwards, which is wasteful and inefficient.

Additionally, and necessary to address the out-of wedlock problems involving children, marriage should be incentivized far more by the social system with major tax breaks and financial incentives far beyond what we have now for married couples to be formed and to stay together. Any marriage is better for the children of that bond than any divorce, in general. Much research has been collected besides just this study over the past 40 plus years to prove this fact.

This is fundamentally where the greatest amount (but not all) of poverty and the related crime, imprisonment, proclivity to abuse of substances, infidelity, etc... present in our society today comes from. Those ills, which cost all of society and our economy greatly, would be vastly reduced by making the change of making any marriage worth obtaining and worth staying in instead of leaving, especially where children are involved.

Tax breaks should apply equally to any married couple whether filing jointly or married filing separately. The reason is that in our modern economy, where many people are self-employed or separate filers, this opportunity to participate in the financial benefits is not available to them, and it greatly weakens the incentive to keep a marriage intact, especially where financial issues are often the number one cause of divorce. Reduce the financial pressure on the two parties, and reduce the incentive to divorce as a false solution to some of their issues and thus also reduce potential and actual poverty after a marriage has been broken.

Another idea might well be looking into creating an Infidelity Tax in order to protect women (and more often today, men) from abuse, especially. Where it can be proven that a child is resultant from an affair outside of a marriage (which, lets face it, is happening far too often, and costs society in the potential and actual turmoil it creates on marriages and broken families) there should be a substantial financial penalty to be paid by the perpetrator in order to de-incentivize the behavior, which is shown to cost society in the tendency for an unfaithfully-conceived child to be the cause of a family breakup which the study shows is a major contributor to poverty and its related societal and government costs.

The goal is to incentivize and create good strong, stable marriages between two adults where they bear the responsibility and cost of raising their own children and staying together rather than society bearing the costs of peoples selfish running from responsibility without cause, for merely selfish reasons. These financial incentives would also generate interest between parties in creating marriages and not having them broken up or fixing them themselves before they do in order to retain the financial benefits of marriage that would be created, which really do not exist now.

Consider that a person who is married today, can in many cases, especially on the lower end of the income level, come out financially ahead by getting a no-fault divorce, or by having many children out-of wedlock than they can by striving for and getting help staying in a stable marriage. That statement is even more true if the person seeking the no-fault divorce is a woman. Not coincidentally, the majority of no-fault divorces are initiated by women with children.

Our present system is set up to incentivize the very social ills it then seeks taxpayer money to "correct". This is a**-backwards thinking.This has to change in order to address poverty. There is something fundamentally wrong with the social system as it is currently set up, and it has everything to do with financial costs to the women and children of society and nothing to do with any religion or religious belief. This is about money. Isn't that what everyone wants to have more of?

An interesting look at the problem. I wonder if the tax incentives would make a significant difference in keeping families together? I'm not sure how I feel about making it more difficult to obtain a divorce. You know the old saying about not being able to legislate morality.

(03-09-2014 09:14 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quote:
Poverty is most concentrated among broken families. For all families, the poverty rate was 13.1 percent. But 34.2 percent of families headed by a single female were considered below poverty, and 22.8 percent of households composed of unrelated individuals were considered to be in poverty.


I would guess there is a correlation between education level in the above stats also. Taking out the ones with addiction problems. So what do you do about it?

Say you have a single parent with kids. Assuming they want to work - the cost of child care & transportation can be more that what they can earn.

Should the government refocus aid to subsidize transportation and child care to enable poor parent(s) to work?

There have been programs in the past that allow low income mothers to access daycare that is subsidized while they are either in school or working. I don't know how much of that is going on today. It does make sense to me. I would rather encourage work with my tax dollars rather than provide aid for mothers that just stay home. If daycare costs about as much as they can make at an 8-10 an hour job it hardly makes sense to work. If a mother is attending the local vocational school for 18 months and can come out with training as a medical administrative assistant, a welder or cosmetologist that can go off assistance altogether that is a great investment for the taxpayer. Three kids that grow up watching their mom go to work every day are much more likely to care about getting an education and going to work everyday when they are grown as opposed to three kids that come home from school to a mom that simply waits for the eagle to fly on Friday.

(03-12-2014 11:13 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  There have been programs in the past that allow low income mothers to access daycare that is subsidized while they are either in school or working. I don't know how much of that is going on today. It does make sense to me. I would rather encourage work with my tax dollars rather than provide aid for mothers that just stay home. If daycare costs about as much as they can make at an 8-10 an hour job it hardly makes sense to work. If a mother is attending the local vocational school for 18 months and can come out with training as a medical administrative assistant, a welder or cosmetologist that can go off assistance altogether that is a great investment for the taxpayer. Three kids that grow up watching their mom go to work every day are much more likely to care about getting an education and going to work everyday when they are grown as opposed to three kids that come home from school to a mom that simply waits for the eagle to fly on Friday.

Query, if 80% of what mom makes when she gets that job goes away to taxes and lost benefits, then how much incentive does mom have to go through the training program and job search?

(03-12-2014 10:57 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  An interesting look at the problem. I wonder if the tax incentives would make a significant difference in keeping families together? I'm not sure how I feel about making it more difficult to obtain a divorce. You know the old saying about not being able to legislate morality.

Thank you, for your response, dawg.

How about making it so people can choose whether no-fault will be an option at the time of their legal marriage? If they both agree at the time they sign the marriage license and pay the fee that they both do not wish it, they will have to prove grounds to get a divorce. Everyone can choose what they want that way, and no one can say they didn't know.

Will that work for you? Those who want divorces can get all the divorces your/their heart(s) desire(s), and I and those who do not want them will choose to marry someone who does not want to and will not be able to divorce. And both will be legally enforced, whereas now, only one is.

(03-12-2014 10:57 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  An interesting look at the problem. I wonder if the tax incentives would make a significant difference in keeping families together? I'm not sure how I feel about making it more difficult to obtain a divorce. You know the old saying about not being able to legislate morality.

Doubtful. Money can have an issue, I don't think the gov't can offer any significant incentives to make money a non-issue in a marriage.

Usually money is just an added issue that just adds to the large issues already afforded in a marriage.

In my marriage money was not the issue... well, to a certain extent it was because of how much she spent, but we made plenty of money to live a comfortable life. Other issues were the main players.

(03-13-2014 09:19 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 10:57 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  An interesting look at the problem. I wonder if the tax incentives would make a significant difference in keeping families together? I'm not sure how I feel about making it more difficult to obtain a divorce. You know the old saying about not being able to legislate morality.

Thank you, for your response, dawg.

How about making it so people can choose whether no-fault will be an option at the time of their legal marriage? If they both agree at the time they sign the marriage license and pay the fee that they both do not wish it, they will have to prove grounds to get a divorce. Everyone can choose what they want that way, and no one can say they didn't know.

Will that work for you? Those who want divorces can get all the divorces your/their heart(s) desire(s), and I and those who do not want them will choose to marry someone who does not want to and will not be able to divorce. And both will be legally enforced, whereas now, only one is.

bump.