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