It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday! This week, I mentioned that taxpayers in California may be on the hook for the choice that Nadya Suleman (“octuplet mom”) made to be implanted with a number of embryos. Suleman receives food stamps and other government assistance for her family of six previous children aged 2 to 7, for a total of fourteen children.
Some taxpayers have expressed anger that Suleman was not required to provide proof that she was financially sound before receiving the implants (this is apparently required in some states): the 33-year-old single mother is currently unemployed and in debt, having reportedly used $100,000 of money that she received while on disability to finance her in vitro procedures.
Others argue that there should be no requirement to show proof of solvency, noting that there are no such requirements for “normal” pregnancies. You don’t have to prove that you are a fit parent in any way before having a baby naturally (interestingly, this is not the case for adoption).
The arguments on both sides of the “Octuplet Mom” debate have been interesting. It’s largely been couched as an ethics issue but I wonder if that’s really the case… While some people embrace the Duggar family (18 children with plans for more) and the Gosselin family (of Jon and Kate Plus 8 fame) for their large families, there is a considerably different mood towards Nadya Suleman. This makes me wonder: is this really about ethics or is it about money? Would we care about this at all if Suleman were wealthy (for example, if she were, in fact, her apparent idol, Angelina Jolie)?
So today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:
Is there a distinction that should be drawn between behaviors that we may not approve for moral and/or ethical reasons and those that cost taxpayer money? Should we impose restrictions on behaviors that people may find morally offensive only if it can be proved that there’s a cost to the state? And if so, where’s the line? If it includes taxpayer financed pregnancies, should it include taxpayer financed abortions? What about drug or alcohol related hospital stays? If taxpayers shoulder the burdens for certain kinds of behaviors, should they be allowed to make the rules?
Not clear to me where such a distinction could be drawn since the tax code is itself already a moral and ethical document. And really, what behavior couldn’t be reckoned in terms of its cost or benefit to the state? We’re all taxpayers. We all shoulder the burdens for (and sometimes reap the benefits of) all kinds of behaviors. And we do make the rules–at least through our reps.
It certainly is a slippery slope to think we should not allow some one to become a parent unless they can prove financial responsibility. However you need a license to operate a car or get married or go hunting or fishing, and in some places rent out a house or run a business, why not have a license to be a parent, and/or maybe a tax break for those who are. One might learn that if one has 2 to 7 children already that 1 or 8 more isn’t a good idea.
We do however give people tax incentives for behavior many of us think are not good for our society. For tax purposes one could never advise a client to get married for instance. Even though the “marriage penalty” was mostly taken away, clearly if there are children there is no incentive to be married, in fact there is every incentive to live apart from the other parent and even more to have one child live with one parent and one child live with the other, a couple will pay quite a bit less in tax with this strategy. Of course their housing cost is greater (maybe).
I really should divorce my wife have her make a little less money file as Head of Household and take her as a dependent. My tax bill would go way down.
Can of worms. A lot of tax policy is driven by moral issues. Smoking is bad, so non-smokers (the majority of taxpayers) approve of heavy taxes on tobacco. A lot of benefit policy is driven by moral issues. Medicaid won’t pay for an abortion — a totally moral exclusion, since paying for abortions probably would reduce future medicaid costs that would have had to be spent on the aborted babies.
However, did Medicaid pay for her in-vitro procedures? Or did she just save up $100,000 from her disability payments and pay it “out of her own pocket? (Has she even lived long enough to collect that much?). I can’t believe that. (Where did she get the $ for the alleged Angelina Jolie plastic surgery?)
If Medicaid ponied up then the rules could be changed so that for these kinds of “elective” procedures, you’d have to get prior approval — and then, of course, don’t approve it. If you’re on the dole and on Medicaid then almost by definition you can’t afford more children.
Obviously, the criticism and public disgust is a result of her obvious “abuse” of the system, creating huge bills that taxpayers will be paying. If Angelina Jolie herself, with her millions and millions, had produced eight in-vitro babies at once people would be shaking their heads and sayig she sure is weird — and People Magazine would be paying her more millions for photos of the babies for the nextr20 years.
I don’t understand how someone could be legally “disabled” and carry 8 babies in their womb. Talk about hard on the back, which what I have read was her injury, let alone walking the floor all night holding a couple of sick ones. Someone should review her disablilty case.
I agree with you, Jill! 😉 My last baby was a big one and he nearly killed my back. I can’t imagine it being worse – I think Nadya told NBC that she gained 100 pounds?
When you expect someone (tax payers) to pay for the way you choose to live…
Your choice.
How much help would her $100,000.00 disablility check have done for her other children?
As it is Taxpayers are mad because it is set up for her free choice to become a burdon for all tax payers. Ergo MAD!!!!
If a personal choice then, better start begging for help……It sould not be a funtion of Government to support at our expense.
Start righting your Senators,Congressman,President, local,state officials,just as you express yourself here. Get it changed.
As the laws are now the taxpayer is stuck!
Common sense says that she was in no position to properly support her six children much less have even one more child.
Now she is a single, unemployed mother with fourteen children to support and must go from there with whatever assistance is available?
Bottom line is, What was she thinking? Is there more to this story than we are hearing?
What she does makes no difference to me as long as it doesn’t hurt or cost anyone else. The problem is that her decisions are going to cost innocent people. People that make good decisions and contribute to society. She takes what she has not earned with no regard for those paying it.
That is why we need time limits on welfare. 2 yrs worth of benefits for a life time should cover every able bodied citizen in the event of hardship. Once they have used up their benefits, they are on their own. Truly disabled people that cannot work would still qualify for social security disability after being evaluated by independent doctors and proven to be truly disabled.
Welfare for life for able bodied people is absolutely immoral because people are forced to continue to pay for other peoples bad decisions w/o accountability; forever. No innocent taxpayer should be forced to pay for someone else’s bad decisions for life.
A limited system that provided a safety net w/o enabling abusers to collect endless entitlements is a truly bipartisan compromise. The libs get their welfare and the conservatives get to stop non stop abusers like this woman. Because of her decisions, the tax payers will be on the hook for all 14 children until they are adults. Our system enabled her to make that decision. The decision she made was truly selfish and she had no regard for the families that will give up their hard earned money to give welfare to people like her.
While we’re at it, perhaps we can establish a way to test for a certain level of IQ before childbirth as well…of course, that would be redundant as anyone with any semblance of intelligence wouldn’t have six kids nowadays let alone 14…
Didn’t she work for a mental hospital before she ended up on disability…can we really be certain she wasn’t one of the patients who escaped? I mean for god’s sake…14 kids???!! Two can be a handful…let alone six…but 14??!!! they need to check her last place of employment for any escapees…
Disability is the most abused government program we have. I’ve known… at least… (counting on fingers) a dozen people who were on 100% disability, and of those, not more than 2 or 3 were what you and I would call “disabled.” They were perfectly capable of walking, driving, cooking, shopping, and — if they had any interest in doing so — earning a living. Yet they were able to get their doctors to sign off on their “bad back” as a 100% disabling condition. That’s a ripoff. Yeah, yeah, I know how tough back problems can be — I’ve had some myself, at one point bad enough that I’d have to drop to the floor at a moment’s notice, like Dennis Rodman used to do when he played for the Pistons and had his own massage guy on call at all times. But I’ve known too many people parlay a temporary injury into “permanent, total disability” to be interested in having my tax money pay for their SSI and SSDI. One of my dad’s buddies is a truck driver — he’s been “100% disabled” for 20 years, collects from the government, and drives a truck for cash. Nice work if you can get it!
Talk about tax dollars at work, for anyone that doesn’t know-low birth weight babies or premmies get a small Supplemental Security Income disability check while in the hospital $35.00, then when they are discharged, they get $637 (California pays more)per month until at least age 1, when or if they are reviewed by Social Security to see if they still meet the criteria of not functioning at their age-appropriate level. $637 times 8 is $5,096 in addition to the $1911 per month she gets for her three older disabled children, WIC, food stamps-what’s her incentive to go back to work.
Can’t afford more kids so that’s it – no more for you? Thinking about our 5 kids and 15 grandkids – Our first was born while I was In Viet Nam making about $78 a month plus combat pay. The second – same scenario except a little more money – I think probably about $150 a month. Our third? I was working two jobs and going to college – you don’t get much broker than that. The 4th and 5th we were a little better off – but I cannot imagine life without them and don’t even want to think about it. But suppose someone had said we couldn’t have them because we were too poor? As far as an IQ test goes – I know I would have flunked that – 2 out of my 3 tours in sunny Southeast Asia were vouluntary which would be proof positive I was nuts. Wouldn’t even need a test to show that. I don’t know the answer to any of the questions raised regarding morality or whatever – all I do know is that I will pray that all those children grow up to be well adjusted, healthy, happy kids and if it costs the taxpayer a bundle for that to happen – well, so be it – I can’t think of anything more worthwhile to spend money on then kids – whosever they are – they, and only they, are the important things we leave behind – everything else is just nonsense.
It is a false dichotomy. Unless we are prepared to consider her behavior an illness, she is voluntarily stealing from society for her own amusement. That is both a money and a moral issue. True it is difficult to separate those who are compelled to, say, abuse drugs versus those who simply do not try and resist their impulses. And we do not always do a sensible job of it.
Morally of course neither she nor the Duggars are paragons of virtue. The world is overrun with humans in general and Americans in particular. I doubt that it is necessary to restrict individuals who can afford their children. As to the rest, the sensible thing is to limit AFDC so that a family gets no more for 8 kids than it does for 4 (or 2 or whatever). This would result in forcing folks like Ms. Suleman to give up the new babies. Which would be a good thing, no?
Yes, several of her children get disability. This money is intended to help pay for the increased cost of raising such children. It looks to me like she embezzled that money to help pay for the implantation. Were I the local D.A., I would immediately investigate that possibility. If so, she should (1) be prosecuted; and (2) lose all parental rights, permanently.
Skip – while I agree with you regarding your message, with all due respects, the cost ratio to live these days is not what it once was in the 60-70’s. My parents bought their house in ’69 for $24000 on cumulative wages totaling at most, $18,000 annually. Those same houses are selling at $400k plus…so if we were to try to equal the income ratio alone to match the time, a family would have to earn a cumulative income of $300k annually.
What I am trying to say is that the cost of living and the cost of housing including rent (especially here in California) is so out of whack that it doesn’t compare to the times in the late 60’s, early 70’s.
But you are right…we all hope the children are well-adjusted, healthy and happy…
As far as the IQ test, that was my attempt at bad humor…
Thank you for serving our country and devoting your life to your children…it sounds like they had a wonderful father! From the sounds of it, you never lived off the system…it sounds like you worked very hard for your family to get them the best you could afford, and you deserve kudos for that. Realistically, I have a tough enough time affording three kids making close to 100k a year…imagine the cost of 14…
That is the biggest issue most people have with the mother of those children…
Not only did she ALREADY have six, which in this day and age is almost impossible financially unless you are wealthy, but she had EIGHT more…using artificial means….while it sounds like you tried your heart out to be responsible, this woman is clearly irresponsible….worse yet, she was living off the system, unlike you…We are all paying for her to have 14 children…that is what angers people…it didn’t have to happen and probably shouldn’t have…
Robert, I agree re the price of homes relative to today’s salaries. Also an issue? Down payments. I’ve gotten a lot of flak for saying so, but I think down payments should be required in order to get a mortgage. I think that makes it feel more real when you have some ownership in a home. In contrast, there are folks who owe more than the house is worth from the outset. Not the best start…
Robert – my response was apparently an example of not walking in other folks moccasins – But you are right – I have absolutely no idea what younger families are going through now – I do know, however, that I am glad I am not having to do it. Three of my kids stopped by earlier and I asked them to read the original question and give me their thoughts – both of them thought the doctor and the mother ought to be taken out and shot – condemned for being too stupid to be on the planet. But the one daughter I have who does not have any children asked a pertinent question – this daughter is a psychiatrist – who in the world would give the lady a job as a counselor?
Skip: Shot? i was thinking a public flogging would suffice…but seriously…
Unfortunately, with that many children, she could never afford to work another day in her life, unless she were to find free daycare. Her other six kids are not very old from what I understand so unlike most large families that grow naturally, where there is enough of an age gap from oldest to youngest where the oldest bear the burden of helping care for the younger ones, her kids will likely not be too much help with the younger ones.
I am not sure if she was a counselor…is that right?
Well…good chatting with you…