Hi, Neildd, somehow I don't think I'm going to be able to push the necessary amendments through to allow me to be King.Be that as it may, any tax system has social implications, as you point out. I really don't think it's the case of "the government tells you...". Various interest groups (and I'm not saying it's bad to be part of an interest group) make their case, and sometimes they win.When the income tax came in in 1913 or whenever it was, there was no question of a marriage penalty because almost all women did not work outside of the home, and I believe they could not even own property in their own right.Then things flip-flopped once women started making their own money. There is an article in the Caltech Alumni magazine from a couple of years ago on this topic. I'm sorry I can't give you a specific reference, but my mother was coming for a visit and I threw it out in a housecleaning.As Jeanie says, the momentum currently is to tax married couples more like individuals, and a significant reason may well be that the spouses of those Congresspersons have jobs. If ever the "family traditionalists" gain the upper hand, we'll see it turn back.If by your last sentence you are implying you are against taxes period, let's take that discussion over to the Water Cooler board.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<