Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site mit-hermes.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg From: jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame Subject: Re: Re: Marriage penalty Message-ID: <2316@mit-hermes.ARPA> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 15:54:10 EST Article-I.D.: mit-herm.2316 Posted: Fri Mar 8 15:54:10 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:25:29 EST References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <2297@mit-hermes.ARPA> <897@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <1062@ihuxw.UUCP> <793@loral.UUCP> <894@ihuxk.UUCP> Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA Lines: 40 Xref: watmath net.taxes:771 net.singles:6186 net.flame:8758 > A married couple (1 or two earners) with X income pays appreciably > LESS tax than a single person with X income. (Check the tax tables.) This > in effect recognizes the added expense of the traditional arrangement of > having one earner in a couple. > > The only marriage penalty is that a couple in which each person earns about > X/2 dollars (for a total income of X) pays higher taxes than are paid by > two single people with an income of X/2 each. This is an almost unavoidable > by-product of a progressive tax structure, in which doubling your income > results in a more than doubling of your tax bill. > > Thus, except for a compromise solution like we now have, there are only two > ways to eliminate the marriage penalty: > > 1. Eliminate the progressivity in our tax rates (probably not too likely) > 2. RAISE the taxes for married couple with one earner to be the same as > that on a single person with the same income (ie, use the same tables). > Then, every earner just pays the taxces on their earnings, regardless > of marital status. This eliminates the penalty by making everyone > pay the same penalty (in effect). > > Each of these has some fundamental problems. > > Bob Schleicher > ihuxk!rs55611 You assume that a married couple are "one flesh" and should be taxed as a unit, hence one's income is both's income. It doesn't seem to bother you that X and Y, married, are going to pay more taxes than X and Y, single. A Canadian told us that up there the tax code makes no distinction by marital status--why can't we do the same? And why didn't you offer that as an alternative? It would continue to subsidize some married people (though your alternative 2 denies this) because we'd still be supporting the housewife lifestyle--she'd be deductible as a dependant and get Social Security distributions when her husband retires/dies. John Purbrick decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA