UK Op-Ed: With £42 Billion Annual Cost to Taxpayers, Family Breakdown Demands Coherent Family Policy


The Relationships Foundation in the UK writes:

Commenting on the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, Michael Trend, Executive Director of the Relationships Foundation said:

“With a £42 billion annual on-cost to the taxpayer for family breakdown – double the cost of alcohol abuse, quadruple the cost of tobacco abuse, it is time the Government had a real family policy.”

“Financial pressure contributes to family breakdown. With nursery places, rail fare regulation, and fuel duty changes this government is beginning to recognise the pressure successive governments have put on ordinary families.”

“But it is not all about financial pressure. If the Government wants to deliver on its outcomes, to bring public spending down, and to make UK tax and skills sustainable and competitive in the long term, it has to put family at the heart of policy making.”

“Investment in our social infrastructure is as vital as spending on physical infrastructure. Growth is about making Britain the most family friendly country in Europe – a pledge the Government has left to rot.”


  1. Scrounger
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Great post! Thanks! Financial stress (excessive debt, job loss, etc) is public enemy number one of marriage.

  2. John Noe
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    As has been shown from previos blogs SSM only makes this matter worse. If the UK is really serious about this then they will not pass SSM.

  3. Posted December 11, 2011 at 2:33 am | Permalink

    Marriage between a man and a woman provides the optimal union to produce not only children, but the human and moral capital that go with these particular kinds of families. Without them, no nation can long survive.

  4. Scrounger
    Posted December 11, 2011 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    @noe: where in the post does it mention SSM? How does it make other people's marriages worse?

  5. Louis E.
    Posted December 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    SSM removes the essential purpose of marriage and leaves the need to guarantee opposite-sex relationships preference unmet.

  6. Scrounger
    Posted December 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Louis, the law doesn't guarantee anything about a couple's marriage. The two individuals in the marriage contract do.

  7. Louis E.
    Posted December 11, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Scrounger,the government recognizes and accords benefits to relationships under the heading of "marriage" in return for what those relationships offer society thanks to their being opposite-sex.

  8. Little man
    Posted December 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    civil marriage is not equivalent to a 'contract', that's where we go wrong. Be it said that without this 'contract', the USA population would disappear. Be it said that without this 'contract', USA would need to be constantly re-filled with immigrants, most of which would be illegal, since they cannot all be found. If we start with an incorrect assumption, we will arrive at an incorrect conclusion, which doesn't fit with reality.

  9. John Noe
    Posted December 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    @scrounger: If one just simply reads the mountain of evidence from this blog and the Ruth Institutes Blog then your question as to why SSM makes things worse is answered.

    These blogs have also referred to other excellent articles posted that offer the proof.

    No need for me to reinvent the wheel.

  10. Bryce K.
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    And if you do, you'd be reinventing it for everybody! Because if you reinvent the wheel, everyone would be forced to use your wheels, and our previous methods of rolling around would be destroyed!

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.