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}