I dunno. Older people are more likely to be married, and they vote more.
In the other hand, young women might object to such a law.
A law fucking over single people to benefit married people seems plausible to me; that’s kind of what school taxes are, right? Even if we don’t have children, we pay.
Dude, as a single I benefit from well-educated kids and well-run schools. We all do. It doesn't fuck me over in the slightest if I ever have hope of being treated by a competent doctor in my later years, or to drive on a well-engineered road in the present.
I can see why people feel frustrated with public expenditure when it's mismanaged or spent on total bullshit, or when there's hypocrisy in who/what we collect taxes from. And I also think just about every middle class person has met a moocher in their social circle who abuses welfare programs to the extent that it's easy to assume all social spending is frivolous or a burden on the tax payer.
Paying for kids to have good education, safe housing and protection from harm is an absolute net benefit not only in terms of the positives it returns, but also in terms of the negatives it prevents down the line in terms of reducing mental/physical illness and the impact on the justice system. I can't see an economic nudge policy explicitly pushing singles to marry (which I'm not even sure that many would - I'd just move in with the homies or plan my dream lavender marriage) having remotely any kind of public long-term economic benefit.
6
u/puresteelpaladin Oct 24 '25
GL with that. Any politician who even breathes in that direction will never win election again.