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