Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!sun!dgh
From: dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <1990@sun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 21:50:56 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1990
Posted: Tue Feb 12 21:50:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 17:16:10 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgh@sun.UUCP (David Hough)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 38
Xref: utcs net.taxes:588 net.singles:5624 net.flame:7962
Summary: 

In article <285@calmasd.UUCP> stj@calmasd.UUCP (Shirley Joe) writes:
>Question:  What's the difference between big difference between SOs
>living together and SOs married?
>IRS:  The married ones are poorer because they get to pay more taxes.
>
>After looking at the tax tables, I figured out that married, we are at
>the marginal tax rate of 38%.  If we were single, both my SO and I would
>be taxed at 30%.  But because we are married, we cannot file as single.
>There is a category of "married, filing separately" but that tax rate is
>even higher than the married rate (I calculated that too).
>
>It seems to me that something is terribly unfair here.  And the
>incredible thing is I don't hear anybody else complaining about it.  Is
>there anyone else out there that has run into the same problems?  Is
>there anything we can do about it?  Any suggestions?  Should we get a
>divorce?
>
>Spike
>{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!calmasd!stj

	There's a reason people have been complaining about the marriage
penalty!  Congratulations on earning comparable incomes ... if one spouse
earns an insignificant amount compared to the other, the marriage penalty
is not a problem.  Most Congressfamilies are in this category which is why
most Congresspersons are not too concerned about it.
	It's no more or less "fair" than most any other aspect of taxation.
I used to hear about people that went to someplace like the Dominican
Republic for their Christmas vacation every year and got a quicky divorce,
then a quicky remarriage after New Year's... but I think one of the Reagan
tax increases attempted to prevent that.  You might want to look further
into it to get an authoritative answer.
	The ultimate answer, of course, is that if the government attempted
to do many fewer things, it would require much less money and lower taxes
would benefit everyone even if the taxes weren't any more fair than the
present ones.  But that's getting into the realm of net.politics.

David Hough