Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <858@ames.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 14:40:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.858
Posted: Fri Mar  8 14:40:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 06:52:11 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <2297@mit-hermes.ARPA> <897@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <1062@ihuxw.UUCP> <793@loral.UUCP> <894@ihuxk.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.taxes:772 net.singles:6187 net.flame:8763

> 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).

	Third possibility: allow everyone, married or not, to file separate
returns. Then those couples who get a bad break from joint returns will
have an alternative, whether or not they are married.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry