Interessante artigo de Ari Fleischer no Wall Street Journal de hoje. Se o governo quer diminuir a desigualdade de renda deveria estimular o casamento.
Apenas 7,5% das famílias em que pai e mãe estão estão na pobreza. Enquanto, a porcentagem de mães solteiras que vivem na pobreza é de 33,9%. Isto vale para brancos, hispânicos e pretos. Mas, a porcentagem de crianças que nascem sem que os país estejam casados é bem maior para negros, 72,3%, contra 52,5% para hispânicos e 28,6%, para brancos.
Mas o foco de esquerdistas, como o Presidente Obama, o prefeito de Nova Iorque, Bill de Blasio e o presidente da França (François Hollande), é diminuir a desigualdade de renda tributando os ricos ou dando dinheiro aos pobres. Como se os ricos não fossem capazes de mudar de cidade ou de país ou de usar os melhores contadores para aliviar os pesos dos impostos e assim manter a desigualdade de renda. E como se os ricos não fossem aqueles que empregam os pobres. E como se nos Estados Unidos, o pobres pagassem impostos. E como se dar dinheiro estimulasse o trabalho.
Leiam abaixo:
How to Fight Income Inequality: Get Married
In families headed by married couples, the poverty level in 2012 was just 7.5%. Those with a single mother: 33.9%.
Jan. 12, 2014 6:07 p.m. ET
If President
Obama
wants to reduce income inequality, he should focus less on
redistributing income and more on fighting a major cause of modern
poverty: the breakdown of the family. A man mostly raised by a single
mother and his grandparents who defied the odds to become president of
the United States is just the person to take up the cause.
"Marriage
inequality" should be at the center of any discussion of why some
Americans prosper and others don't. According to Census Bureau
information analyzed by the Beverly LaHaye Institute, among families
headed by two married parents in 2012, just 7.5% lived in poverty. By
contrast, when families are headed by a single mother the poverty level
jumps to 33.9%.
And the number of
children raised in female-headed families is growing throughout America.
A 2012 study by the Heritage Foundation found that 28.6% of children
born to a white mother were out of wedlock. For Hispanics, the figure
was 52.5% and for African-Americans 72.3%. In 1964, when the war on
poverty began, almost everyone was born in a family with two married
parents: only 7% were not.
Attitudes toward marriage and having
children have changed in America over the past 50 years, and low-income
children and their mothers are the ones who are paying the price. The
statistics make clear what common sense tells us: Children who grow up
in a home with married parents have an easier time becoming educated,
wealthy and successful than children reared by one parent. As the
Heritage study states: "The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste
system with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the
high-income third of the population, children are raised by married
parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children
are raised by single parents with a high-school diploma or less."
One
of the differences between the haves and the have-nots is that the
haves tend to marry and give birth, in that order. The have-nots tend to
have babies and remain unmarried. Marriage makes a difference. Heritage
reports that among white married couples, the poverty rate in 2009 was
just 3.2%; for white nonmarried families, the rate was 22%. Among black
married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for
non-married black families was 35.6%.
Marriage
inequality is a substantial reason why income inequality exists. For
children, the problem begins the day they are born, and no government
can redistribute enough money to fix it. If redistributing money could
solve the problem, the $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars the government has
spent on welfare programs since 1964—when President
Johnson
declared the "war on poverty"—would have eliminated income
inequality a long time ago.
The matter
is influenced strongly by decisions and values. The majority of women
who have children outside of marriage today are adult women in their
20s. (Teenagers under 18 represent less than 8% of out-of-wedlock
births.)
Rather than focusing on initiatives that might address this issue, President Obama, as well as Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren
and New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio,
believe that the income gap can be closed by increasing taxes on the better-off and transferring the money to the poor.
Good
luck with that. The tax code is already extremely progressive, as a
December study by the Congressional Budget Office makes clear, yet
poverty remains a significant problem. According to CBO, the top 40% of
wage earners, those who make more than $51,100 a year, paid 86.4% of all
federal taxes in 2010, the most recent data available. The bottom 40%
of earners paid just 4.2% of all taxes. The top 40% paid virtually all
of the income tax collected, while the bottom 40% paid a negative 9.1%
of all income taxes. Paying "negative" taxes is possible because of the
earned-income tax credit and other public-assistance measures that give
the bottom 40% refunds for taxes they didn't pay.
Given
how deep the problem of poverty is, taking even more money from one
citizen and handing it to another will only diminish one while doing
very little to help the other. A better and more compassionate policy to
fight income inequality would be helping the poor realize that the most
important decision they can make is to stay in school, get married and
have children—in that order.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário