The $2.6 Billion Gay Wedding Boom
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f2567/f2567847a884797290d0c9cc28d2c2034fe0c2e3" alt=""
States in the Southeast that had banned gay marriage prior to last week’s Supreme Court decision legalizing it stand to gain the most from the ruling financially, according to a report compiled at the end of last year by the Williams Institute at UCLA and Credit Suisse.
The study found that states in the Southeast could see a total economic benefit of $733 million in the first three years after legalization of gay marriage, thanks to pent up demand and increased spending on weddings and tourism.
Researchers estimated that gay marriage spending nationwide could reach $2.6 billion over the next three years. Gay couples tend to have smaller weddings, with an average of less than 80 guests, according to TheKnot.
Related: How Gay Marriage Can Help Reduce the Deficit
Men spend an average of $15,992 on their wedding, while women spend an average of $13,055. More than 20 percent of gay couples spend more than $20,000 on their nuptials. The average opposite-sex marriage costs more than $31,000.
In addition to boosting consumer spending, which helps GDP, the ruling may also be a boon to federal coffers. While married couples now benefit from the financial protections of marriage, they also now have to pay the tax penalty.
The legalization of gay marriage in New York in 2011 led to an estimated $259 million in spending and $16 million in revenues for New York City, according to the mayor’s office.
Stat of the Day: 0.2%
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9abaa/9abaa367a1dc7e2205cee9cb4939d73181c3caec" alt="U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 23, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 23, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst"
The New York Times’ Jim Tankersley tweets: “In order to raise enough revenue to start paying down the debt, Trump would need tariffs to be ~4% of GDP. They're currently 0.2%.”
Read Tankersley’s full breakdown of why tariffs won’t come close to eliminating the deficit or paying down the national debt here.
Number of the Day: 44%
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e687d/e687d40f8608dacca6ed138238f13abcff1617e2" alt=""
The “short-term” health plans the Trump administration is promoting as low-cost alternatives to Obamacare aren’t bound by the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to spend a substantial majority of their premium revenues on medical care. UnitedHealth is the largest seller of short-term plans, according to Axios, which provided this interesting detail on just how profitable this type of insurance can be: “United’s short-term plans paid out 44% of their premium revenues last year for medical care. ACA plans have to pay out at least 80%.”
Number of the Day: 4,229
The Washington Post’s Fact Checkers on Wednesday updated their database of false and misleading claims made by President Trump: “As of day 558, he’s made 4,229 Trumpian claims — an increase of 978 in just two months.”
The tally, which works out to an average of almost 7.6 false or misleading claims a day, includes 432 problematics statements on trade and 336 claims on taxes. “Eighty-eight times, he has made the false assertion that he passed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history,” the Post says.
Number of the Day: $3 Billion
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cfd77/cfd778b378b11c5acb21e97a6bbd95de46e84399" alt=""
A new analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services finds that Medicare’s prescription drug program could have saved almost $3 billion in 2016 if pharmacies dispensed generic drugs instead of their brand-name counterparts, Axios reports. “But the savings total is inflated a bit, which HHS admits, because it doesn’t include rebates that brand-name drug makers give to [pharmacy benefit managers] and health plans — and PBMs are known to play games with generic drugs to juice their profits.”
Chart of the Day: Public Spending on Job Programs
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3f7e/c3f7efc67e05718134524b0aaf8d89558db5745a" alt="Martin Rangel, a worker at Bremen Castings, pours motel metal into forms on the foundry’s production line in Bremen, Indiana, U.S. June 16, 2016. REUTERS/Tim Aeppel Martin Rangel, a worker at Bremen Castings, pours motel metal into forms on the foundry’s production line in Bremen"
President Trump announced on Thursday the creation of a National Council for the American Worker, charged with developing “a national strategy for training and retraining workers for high-demand industries,” his daughter Ivanka wrote in The Wall Street Journal. A report from the president’s National Council on Economic Advisers earlier this week made it clear that the U.S. currently spends less public money on job programs than many other developed countries.