Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site calmasd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!calmasd!stj
From: stj@calmasd.UUCP (Shirley Joe)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <296@calmasd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 13:36:50 EST
Article-I.D.: calmasd.296
Posted: Wed Feb 27 13:36:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Mar-85 02:58:31 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <429@ssc-vax.UUCP> <2490@tekig.UUCP> 
Reply-To: stj@calmasd.UUCP (Shirley Joe)
Organization: Calma Company, San Diego, CA
Lines: 40
Xref: watmath net.taxes:752 net.singles:6050 net.flame:8611
Summary: 

In article  esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco) writes:
>
>                  . . . I especially dislike hearing them say they want to
>eliminate the "Marriage Penalty" by raising the single rate in relation to the
>married one: don't penalize me for *really* being single. . .

I don't remember anyone saying that.  Besides, that wouldn't really
solve the problem.  That would just raise taxes, which is what the
current administration wants to do.

>I think the major sticking point in this debate is terminology. Should
>unmarried couples living together be called (and taxed as) singles? Let's
>call them posslq's (and tax them appropriately). Don't complain about a
>marrige penalty-complain about the posslq loophole.

Boy, I'd like to see the IRS try to enforce that!  What about roommates
of the opposite sex?  What about motss? I can just see the IRS auditing 
you and asking about your sex life!  I don't think they would touch that
with a ten or twenty foot pole.

>							Michael Esco
>							Boeing Aerospace

Women have only recently become a major power in the American work
force.  This is attributed to high inflation and the womens liberation
movement in the '70's.  Because of this, there is still a relatively 
small percentage of families that are affected by the so-called "marriage
penalty."  This percentage is growing steadily because women are finally
attaining earning power equal to their male counterparts.  The "marriage
penalty" affects those couples who earn comparable incomes much more
than it affects the "executive-husband/part-time-worker-housewife
couple".

I think that more and more couples will be affected in the future as
more and more husbands and wives become equal earners.  Then perhaps
the laws will change, because after all, we are a democratic society.
(Aren't we?????).
-- 

Spike
{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!calmasd!stj