Is it time for federal garnishing of wages for unmarried men?

Married taxpayers are busy paying for 18 years of health, education, and welfare of their own kids (22 years if parents pay for college), but the govt forces married taxpayers to also pay for 18 years of health, education, and welfare of for unmarried men’s kids. How is that social justice? Weak men who mostly want sex should not force the responsibility onto taxpayers when they refuse to marry and take financial responsibility for their kids. A federal garnshing of wages would help solve the injustice. The number of kids born to unmarried mothers has risen from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. If it was a samll percent, then it would be bearable, but it’s not. Why should one half of the population be forced to take a financial responsibility for both halves?

It would sure cut down on many problems. Some people are intentionally circumventing and cheating the system.

There have been severalarticles over the years about unmarried fathers whose children’s mothers go on welfare and who are then charged for child support, so I think it would be unfair to charge all unmarried men for the children of a few, esp since the unmaaried men who are not fathers also already pay, and pay more than those with children.

Had Medicare, Part E (Medicare for Everyone) passed, your wish would have already come true. Since so many Republicans/Conservatives are against national healthcare, we have what we have.

The one point I would agree, is that we need to stop letting women keep the name of the father of their child secret. Many do so that they may receive welfare benefits. In my opinion, if a woman who accepts welfare does not name the father, she should receive 1/2 the benefit.

Finally, the problem isn’t just weak men. It’s a society that has twisted morals and is just plain selfish. Ever since we decided that a child should not bear the stigma of being born to an unwed mother, we, for some reason, also started treating unwed mothers as “heroes.” That in turn has forced single fathers out of the family picture. Unfortunately, too many men are only too happy to oblige.

Could the moderators please change the title from “men” to “fathers?” Thank you.

I agree. 2 levels of financial aid would solve the problem: more aid if she names the father (the federal garnishing of wages), or less aid if she doesn’t (who would choose this?).

It would produce less abortions and less unwanted kids because men would suddenly become more conscientious about sex once their own money is on the line.

Maybe unmarried fathers who refuse to take responsibility for their offspring should be forced to work in government camps maintaining infrastructure, or hired out as cheap labor to businesses in need of strong backs, etc, for a specific wage. Then, 90% of said wage would go directly to support the child while the remaining 10% goes back to the government for providing shelter, food and work placement (the camp), for the duration of 18 years - 22 years if the child makes it to college. In about a week there would be NO NEW dead beat fathers. 18 years later there would be NO dead beat fathers.

Seems to me that many people respond to only two conditions, pleasure and pain, if it feels good I keep doing it, if it hurts I stop. At this time there are very few consequences to this specific behavior, and I would go so far as to say there are perks for said behavior.

Maybe not…:shrug:

It isn’t just the unmarried fathers that bear a responsibility in all of this, but the unmarried mothers too.

They could have said no just as easily as the father.

Keep in mind also that there are alot more men raising children alone than there was just a few short years ago.

There are two sides to this coin.

I would agree with the above…if the unmarried mother was treated the same. It takes two to make a baby, not one. Both parties chose to have sex outside of marriage and risk a pregnancy. Both parties should take part in the financial support of the resulting children. If he goes to a work camp for 18-22 years, so should she.

Not just from this post but from the others - wouldn’t knowing this push the fathers and the unwed mothers to seek out abortion in more cases? It’s just something to think about.
God Bless

I would think so :shrug:

I’m not sure I understand this thread. Unmarried fathers are, indeed, required by the various states to support children born to them, and an interstate compact allows one state to pursue and garnish a father in another state. The federal government allows those agencies to access the tax records of non-paying fathers so the can find the father and nail his wages or even prosecute him for criminal non-support.

But of course if an unwed father skips out and works for cash somewhere, that’s pretty hard to track down. It’s hard to track him down as well.

It would heighten the importance of the subject. It’s relevant on several levels. Does sex exist mostly for pleasure or mostly for real love? Men who are in love wouldn’t run from women if they truly loved them. Why should more and more taxpayers pay for other people’s acts? Where’s the social justice? It’s not fair to keep taxing more and more innocent people.

If anything, I could see it leading to more bulletproof birth control. The Church would have issues with this, but there are also moral issues with the alternative injustice of doubly taxing married parents.

It would provide more justice for the states that don’t have it, but more importantly, offering 2 levels of benefits would get more women to identify the men who need to be held responsible.

I have absolutely no problem with this adjustment to my post. It may even promote a relationship between the two, which would be an outstanding resolution…:thumbsup:

Wow, good point! I can definitely see where the selfishness of the original problem coupled with the panic of retribution may push those involved to extreme measures, namely abortion. Bummer.

I doubt that the problem can be solved until women begin having sex only with responsible men who are also their husbands.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually think it’s a great idea - but I fear that if it was put into service, you would have a lot more women saying it was “rape” and you would have a lot more fathers pushing the pregnant women to have an abortion. I hate that our tax monies goes for some of the things described here, but I just don’t know how to fix it - it seems like each solution comes with its own extra complications/problems

God Bless

Or until they stop wanting to have children, while not wanting to get married. Many women are choosing to remain single, while having a child or children and are doing quite well not using government assistance.

Yes, there are some who deliberately choose to deprive their child of a father. That’s an injustice to their children.

As a conservative , I take exception to your assertion . We already have virtual , universal healthcare in the USA . First , it is against the law to deny service at an ER , then you have state medicaid for children ( in NY state a family earning $ 86,000 a year qualifies for medicaid ) , then you have the VA , the healthcare system for Native Americans on reservations and other govt. provided programs . This covers 50% of Americans . Then you have the healthcare provided by the private insurance programs , which covers the rest .

What I object to is a "single payer system " like Canada’s or the UK . Single payer destroys excellence . Why would the best and the brightest go into medicine with all the time , effort and financial expense involved ? Single payer systems don’t value physicians . What’s ironic is that liberals value lawyers more than they do physicians . Maybe they should see them when they get sick .

During the summer of 2010 , the president of the Canadian Medical Association ( CMA ) looked into a camera and declared , " the Canadian Health Care System is broken " ( and yes , he is a physician ) . Why do you think that is ?

In the last 42 years , one ( 1 ) new drug has been developed in Canada , why do you think that is ?

Why do you think Canada has two sets of standards for drugs they import ; one for drugs to be exported ( and not Consumed in Canada ) , and another more stringent standard for drugs that will be consumed in Canada ?

The Obama administration told us that the Affordable Health Care Act would not provide healtcare for illegal aliens . But , it’s been revealed that the relevant regulations FORBID hospitals to inquire in to the patient’s immigration or citizen status . In the real world , what do you think that translates to ?

In Massachusetts , they have a state mandate for health insurance , what has that done to the cost of health insurance in that state ?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit