04-26-2008, 07:18 PM
04-26-2008, 07:23 PM
I can't seem to find this report on their site. Somebody with a basic knowledge of algebra probably tipped them off...
04-27-2008, 03:02 AM
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A new study says divorce and out-of-wedlock births cost South Carolina taxpayers $469 million each year.
The study released Tuesday is the first to estimate the state and national costs of what it calls "family fragmentation." It was commissioned by four groups that advocate more government action to bolster marriages.
The report says 73 percent of South Carolinians living in poverty are in unmarried homes.
The report ranks South Carolina 28th nationwide in what broken families cost taxpayers. The tally includes $227 million in criminal justice, $135 million for health care, and $94 million in lost taxes.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
The study released Tuesday is the first to estimate the state and national costs of what it calls "family fragmentation." It was commissioned by four groups that advocate more government action to bolster marriages.
The report says 73 percent of South Carolinians living in poverty are in unmarried homes.
The report ranks South Carolina 28th nationwide in what broken families cost taxpayers. The tally includes $227 million in criminal justice, $135 million for health care, and $94 million in lost taxes.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
04-27-2008, 03:06 AM
According to the NACCRRA, in 43 states the average annual price for an infant in a child care center is greater than a year's tuition at a public college. And why not start talking about college, even if said child is merely an infant? While the USDA doesn't include college costs in its estimates, since it covers kids only up to age 18, it should take into account the amount of money parents need to save in order to eventually afford those $50,000 tuition bills. Most financial advisers urge parents to set aside a minimum of $1,000 per child a month, which alone would nearly double the government's total childrearing estimate.
Other methodological hiccups mar the government's report. For example, though housing makes up the largest single cost across income groups
The point of these posts is, damn, all kids are expensive
Other methodological hiccups mar the government's report. For example, though housing makes up the largest single cost across income groups
The point of these posts is, damn, all kids are expensive
04-27-2008, 03:13 AM
Maenwhile, more fuzzy math [ in the US } it is aid that in order to retire (age 67) and lmake sure you have enough to live on until you ... um ... die How many years 10/20 . This adult needs to have saved 2 million US dollars. Hpw does that math work?
04-27-2008, 05:52 AM
Ethel Wrote:
This makes me cross... not just the dodgy maths, but the general idea that a person's right to exist is inversely proportional to how much it "costs" to support them.
You could use that to argue that NOBODY should have ANY children ever at all, because they cost so much money and they're so much hard work, and it's going to be at least 20 years before you see any sort of return for your investment.
You could use that to argue that NOBODY should have ANY children ever at all, because they cost so much money and they're so much hard work, and it's going to be at least 20 years before you see any sort of return for your investment.
Unfortunately this concept of worth being tied to expense is quite common. In the United States for example, most health insurance programs will drop any customer whose lifetime expenses exceed $1,000,000. They will also immediately share that information with all other providers and they will simply refuse to insure you.
Pages: 1 2