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