Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <605@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 15:27:30 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.605
Posted: Wed Feb 13 15:27:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 02:29:55 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP>, <399@wxlvax.UUCP> <501@homxb.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 56
Xref: watmath net.taxes:652 net.singles:5850 net.women:4447

> Let's put the question another way:
> 
> Why should two people living together without the
> formality of marriage pay less taxes than a formally
> married couple?
> 
> Whether the question is put this way, or the way it
> was phrased in previous questions, it is not always true.
> If two people are living together, not married,
> but one earns all the income, then they would pay
> more taxes than if they were married!
> 
> Can anyone suggest a solution which would not have any
> inequities.
>
     Sure!  Make income taxes independant of marital status.  Simple. 
> The underlying philosophy of the present systems is
> that families are taxed, not individuals, and you
> are not a family if you are not married. (or just a
> family of one.)
> 
     I think you may be reading too much into the 'underlying philosophy' of
the present system.  The fact is that the government doesn't like families
with two wage earners (maybe because of unemployment?), and provides higher
taxes to those people as an economic disincentive for this type of lifestyle.
This is similar to what they do with cigarette and liquor taxes.
     This is just the government's way of showing it's support of working
married women: tax the *^$% out of them.  Just a quick rummage through my
tax tables here for a numerical example:  Suppose origionally, spouse #1
made $35K and paid $6,225 in federal income taxes.  Suppose spouse #2 takes
a job for $25K.  Now their total taxes are $15,168 if filing jointly or
$15,398 if filing seperately.  *Or* $10,798 if they get divorced quick enough.
Since most people don't want to get divorced for tax reasons, spouse #2
effectively only makes the equivalent of $19K before taxes and $16K after
taxes.  Since the primary wage earner in most families is still the man,
it is women attempting to enter the job market who find themselves in the
position of spouse #2.  I guess the government just wants to keep them 
barefoot and pregnant.
> You might define a family as two individuals of oppsite
> sex (given that like sex individuals cannot get married
> under present rules in any case) who are sharing the
> same dwelling.
> This would have the advantage that they could also get
> benefits under each others benefit plans.
> What would happen then if they had to be separated for
> some reason, by a change in job locations for example.
> 
> I would like to see some creative response to all the above.
> 
> Herman Silbiger

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "Is everybody happy?" -- M. de Sade