Business Insider recently blamed “post-World War II” marriage and family values for single women’s high cost of living. Citing “penalties” accrued across the rental and home-buying industries to workplaces and the tax code, the author attempts to argue that the economic strains placed on single people, particularly young single women, are the result of obsolete economic policymaking. Here’s why we push back on the idea that single people are being penalized for their relationship status and why our government should incentivize marriage and family.
The Economy Exists for All People
New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote last year that because the married will soon be a minority, we should “start asking ourselves whether it is fair and right to continue to reward and encourage marriage through taxation and policy.” The trouble is that families produce economic and relational stability for children who are their natural fruit. If we cease to incentivize marriage, future generations will inherit an economy that is hostile to their flourishing. Consider the word economy, which derives from oikonomía, meaning “household management or administration.” While economic activity gradually migrated from the household to industry and commerce, it has always been to serve (if not well) the needs of families. The economy exists for people, not just so that they can obtain the necessities of life but also to uphold life and human dignity, particularly through support of the family and the common good. Marriage, as traditionally defined, inherently serves the common good through children and the love that binds family members together. The goods of marriage ripple outward, which is why the category of “married people” is one of multiplicity. In other words, marriage is not just for the couple, but for their family, friends, and the greater society.
Single People Aren’t Penalized
Far from punishing single people for being unmarried, the government subsidizes marriage because it has an interest in preserving the surest means of raising children in stability. Though it’s true what Lily Kahng, an former attorney for the Department of the Treasury wrote in a 2010 law article on the costs of single living –
“There is never a single person’s bonus — that is, a single person never pays less relative to a couple, whether married or unmarried, with the same amount of income as the single person.”
– it’s not so cheap to be married or have a family either. Yes, single people will not receive many of the economic benefits that couples can do, but these are not so simple as “single people get the last slice of pie.” First, there is a marriage tax penalty which affects working couples who make equal or near-equal incomes to each other. This is the two-income trap Elizabeth Warren described in her 2004 book, and it actively disincentives marriage between low-income people who stand to gain the most from it in terms of upward mobility and generational wealth. Second, single people more often than not are interested, at least remotely, in marriage. How would eliminating the so-called “marriage bonus” improve their prospects for finding a potential spouse? How would they benefit from the an absence of married couples to give them a point of reference and support? Finally, the health and economic benefits conferred on married people have less to do with systemic privilege than with the behaviors and attitudes marriage fosters, especially in men.
We Should Always Incentivize Marriage
It’s not that “the economy hasn’t caught up” with Millennials who are “postponing or forgoing marriage,” as Business Insider contends. In fact, the Institute for Family Studies recently noted that America’s falling birthrate is the result of a cultural shift away from parenthood, not child-care costs or increasing student loan debt. The government should not abandon its duty to defend and uphold the future of our country, especially if it spells a frightening economic and social future. A society with more single people and fewer families means a dearth of much-desired intimacy and belonging in our deracinated time. Single people and families rely on each other for support as they grow and change, and perhaps transition into different stages of life. For families with young children, social connectedness is a matter of survival, when the early months and years of parenting resemble an around-the-clock job with no vacation time. Why make it harder for parents to divide labor along the lines of traditional gender roles in light of the all-consuming role of motherhood?
Reconciling Two Different Groups
That married couples who fall under this category can file jointly to receive a “marriage bonus” is not some relic of an overly-idyllic postwar order, but a reasonable recognition by our government that parenting is essential work requiring the attentiveness of a full-time caregiver. At the same time, the fact that singles feel so singled out in our society warrants a look at how we idolize marriage as an exclusionary romantic relationship. Are we too focused on the marriage relationship as the only and ultimate source of happiness? Are we forgetting to talk about the real trade-offs and struggles of marriage and family in our efforts to defend them? Do we emphasize the sacrificial nature of love which transcends relationship status? Rather than treating the issue as a zero-sum game, we should discuss ways that they can not only coexist, but mutually benefit one another. As Other Feminisms author Leah Libresco Sargeant puts it:
When we look at how we arrange our schedules, our neighborhoods, our laws, there has to be room for friendships to be taken every bit as seriously as marriage. There is no limit to the gift we can make of ourselves—our calling isn’t circumscribed by a ring.
