Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!koomen
From: koomen@rochester.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <6857@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 12:04:10 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.6857
Posted: Wed Feb 27 12:04:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 04:13:53 EST
Sender: koomen@rochester.UUCP
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 26

From: Hans Koomen 

Why not just tax individuals irrespective of their marital status, and
allow any individuals to file jointly?  In other words, if person X
files a 1040, then X can include any other individuals Y who agree to
file jointly, where including means adding Y's income, and subtracting
Y's deductions (including standard).  Any Y's included except offspring
under 18 must provide SS# and sign X's 1040.  Surely it would be fairly
easy for the tax folks to check that any Y's included on a 1040 do not
file a 1040 themselves.  This has the benefit of simplifying things,
and make it more equitable for everyone.  I can include my dear old
great-grandmother whom I give $x/month if she agrees.  Of course, it is
NOT up to the government to make sure I'm actually supporting her!  Two
consenting adults ...

Any comments?  Would this get out of hand?  Would we get tax brokers
looking for human tax shelters?  If we do, so what?  Or should there be
a ceiling on the number of allowable inclusions other than offspring?

-- Hans  (Koomen@Rochester.ARPA  or  ...!rochester!koomen.UUCP)

PS.  I still think that the way to go is to abandon income tax
altogether in favor of a national, combined federal, state and local
VAT (with total percentage fixed constitutionally).  No exceptions,
loopholes, etc.;  IRS only hassles bussinesses, not individuals;
forces all low-income subsidies (and cuts thereof) to be explicit.