Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!homxb!hrs
From: hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <501@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 11:44:42 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.501
Posted: Wed Feb 13 11:44:42 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 02:24:27 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP>, <399@wxlvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.taxes:651 net.singles:5849 net.flame:8328


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.

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.)

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