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 KoomenWhy 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.