I received this from reliable home-schooling friends & am passing this info onto interested/concerned taxpayers, since I've read TMFTaxes articles regarding the reality of the tax marriage penalty.*******************************************************Marriage Tax Penalty--Finally Everyone AgreesRequested Action:Call your congressman by Wednesday, February 2, 2000, and give them this message (you do not need to be a home schooler): "Please SUPPORT marriage penalty relief in the Ways and Means Committee that provides the quickest resolution of this unfair provision in the tax code." You can contact your congressman directly or by phoning the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121. Following are the members of the committee that need to receive calls:Bill Archer (R-7-TX), ChairmanPhilip M. Crane (R-8-IL)Bill Thomas (R-21-CA)E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-22-FL)Nancy L. Johnson (R-6-CT)Amo Houghton (R-31-NY)Wally Herger (R-2-CA) Jim McCrery (R-4-LA)Dave Camp (R-4-MI)Jim Ramstad (R-3-MN)Jim Nussle (R-2-IA)Sam Johnson (R-3-TX)Jennifer Dunn (R-8-WA)Mac Collins (R-3-GA)Rob Portman (R-2-OH)Philip S. English (R-21-PA)Wes Watkins (R-3-OK)J.D. Hayworth (R-6-AZ)Jerry Weller (R-11-IL)Kenny Hulshof (R-9-MO) Scott McInnis (R-3-CO)Ron Lewis (R-2-KY)Mark Foley (R-16-FL)Charles B. Rangel (D-15-NY)Fortney Pete Stark (D-13-CA)Robert T. Matsui (D-5-CA)William J. Coyne (D-14-PA)Sander Levin (D-12-MI)Benjamin L. Cardin (D-3-MD)Jim McDermott (D-7-WA)Gerald D. Kleczka (D-4-WI)John Lewis (D-5-GA)Richard E. Neal (D-2-MA)Michael R. McNulty (D-21-NY)William J. Jefferson (D-2-LA)John S. Tanner (D-8-TN)Xavier Becerra (D-30-CA)Karen L. Thurman (D-5-FL)Lloyd Doggett (D-10-TX)Issue Update:Finally everyone now agrees -- married couples are unfairly treated in the American tax code. One of HSLDA's top legislative priorities over the last two years has been to eliminate the built-in penalty against married couples which currently exists in the American tax code. Because of your tirelessefforts, congressional leaders have finally made marriage tax relief a priority. Last week the congressional leadership announced that their top priority for this session would be to eliminate the unfair marriage penalty in the tax code, and last night President Clinton included the issue in his State of the Union address.The question is, how fast will the penalty be eliminated? Some prefer phasing in the reduction over 10 years, others are encouraging a quicker resolution of the problem, with a phase-in over 5 years. HSLDA strongly prefers that this unfair provision be eliminated as quickly as possible.The House Ways and Means Committee is poised to move on legislation to eliminate the marriage penalty as early as February 2. It is critical that the members of the committee hear from families immediately and hear that you prefer that they phase in the reductionas soon as possible.It is likely that this bill will move to the House floor the following week.You have received this alert because you live in the congressional district of a member of the Committee. Your response is critical.Background: The marriage tax penalty is unfair.Under the current tax code, the marriage penalty taxes the incomes of a married couple at a much higher rate than that of a cohabiting couple. If a married couple -- with one income or two -- makes the same income as two singles, the married couple will likely be payinghigher taxes simply for being married.According to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,increasing the standard deduction and rate schedule for joint filers would compensate for the 66 provisions of the existing tax code thatcreate marriage penalties.Elimination of the marriage penalty is not only a necessary form of financial relief; it is also a very important policy change. It provides an opportunity for the government to recognize and support the vital contribution marriage makes to our society.Eliminating the marriage tax treats all married couples equally, whether they earn one income or two.Elimination of the marriage penalty would provide substantial relief to millions of American families. Couples who marry should not be penalized for making the daily commitments and sacrifices necessaryto support their families.- 85 percent of Americans think the marriage tax penalty is unfair(61 percent think it is very unfair). Wirthlin Worldwide, 8/99.- 80 percent of Americans favor eliminating the marriage tax penalty(58 percent strongly favor its elimination). Wirthlin Worldwide,8/99.- 67 percent of Americans support using the budget surplus to eliminate or reduce the marriage tax penalty. Harris poll, 12/97.Elimination of the marriage tax penalty provides the government an opportunity to recognize and support the vital contribution marriage makes to the betterment of our society.-------------------------------------------------------National Center for Home EducationP.O. Box 3000Purcellville, VA 20134(540) 338-7600http://www.hslda.org-------------------------------------------------------
What this propaganda does not say is that the current system benefits millions of households. It benefits those households of married couples where the husband works, brings home oodles of dollars, and presumably votes Republican, and the wife stays home and paints her toenails. This view of what families should be like is the basis of the current rules. You will note that if the little woman goes out and earns something, her first dollar will be taxed at 31% or whatever is the couple's marginal rate. Therefore, it's hardly worth it.Of course, the questions of the wife's sense of self-worth, and what skills she will have in the case of death or divorce, are not considered.Once I become King (this will require several Constitutional amandments) everyone will fill out individual tax returns.
Once I become King (this will require several Constitutional amandments) everyone will fill out individual tax returns.JABoa for King! I shall pester my congressman for that amendment now.Seriously, you bring up an interesting view, Jim. Your description of the type of family that benefits from this tax law is a fading example (husband works, brings home oodles of dollars, and presumably votes Republican, and the wife stays home and paints her toenails. ) This "ideal" is no longer relevant even within our Congress. The boomer generation is dominating the corridors of power and many of them have spouses with careers of their own that often bring in oodles more to the marriage coffers.That shift alone should see some changes made, as our elected leaders tend to support legislation that benefit themselves and their constituency.Cheers,Jeanie-with-the-unpainted-toenails :)
King,Your post makes it clear why it is better to have a functioning (?) democracy rather than a King.The basis of your argument is that the government has a right to tell you what kind of a family you should be. Thru its tax code the government is carrying out social engineering - in essence telling you how you should live to save more money (on taxes). Buy a house, save money. Shack up instead of marriage, save money. Have kids, get a deduction. Etc.Etc....Let the people decide how they want to live and spend their money.
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 |