Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!unc!dyb
From: dyb@unc.UUCP (Kent Dybvig)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <169@unc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 10:43:40 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.169
Posted: Thu Mar  7 10:43:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 04:43:18 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <2297@mit-hermes.ARPA> <897@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <1062@ihuxw.UUCP> <793@loral.UUCP> 
Reply-To: dyb@unc.UUCP (Kent Dybvig)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.taxes:768 net.singles:6156 net.flame:8726
Summary: 

The marriage penalty becomes apparent when you consider the individuals.
What it really boils down to is that a member of a two-earner marriage
pays more federal income tax for a given income than any other individual.
Each individual pays a higher rate than he/she would if single or married
to a nonworking spouse.  For example, if I earn $30k and I am:

   (a) single, I pay approximately $5782 in income tax
	(w/std deduction + $1000 personal deduction)
   (b) married to a nonworking spouse, I pay approximately $4321
	(std + $2000 personal deduction)
   (c) married, spouse earning $30k, I pay approximately $6729
	(std + $2000 personal + $2500 working couples deduction)

It is clear, then, that I am taxed at a higher rate when my spouse
works than if my spouse did not work or I were single.  Does this
mean I am truly worse off financially?  Perhaps yes, perhaps no --
there are extra expenses we incur and other expenses we share.
But if we had never gotten married, we'd both be paying at the rate
in (a) instead of the rate in (c), so it costs us the difference to
be married.

        Kent Dybvig
        ...decvax!mcnc!unc!dyb		{Usenet}
        dyb.unc@Csnet-Relay		{ARPANET}