Marriage Tax ? How do you feel about it ?

[creativelcro]

One of the few things I liked about the new tax rules is the effective elimination of the so called "marriage penalty". The marriage penalty essentially taxes many married couples much more than if they were single with the same total income. It is unfair, because taxes ought to be based on income. Anybody supporting that should be required to call it "marriage tax". So, it is clear that it is a tax on getting married; and should be required to explain what the rationale is and how it helps families.

[PVnRT]

1. I'm confused

You start off by saying that you don't like the elimination of the "marriage penalty," yet go on to say how much you don't like it. Which is it?

[creativelcro]

3. you confuse me, sorry...

This is what I said.

"One of the few things I liked about the new tax rules is the effective elimination of the so called "marriage penalty". "


Not sure how you interpreted that as

>>
You start off by saying that you don't like the elimination of the "marriage penalty,">>

[papau]

10. I'm also confused - Bush's change does not end the marriage tax

It only helps moderate it.

And it gives him a sound bite - if the media refuses to note that their is still a "marriage tax"

I agree the Dem needs to address the 10% bracket, "marriage tax adjustment", and child tax credit increase - because our not right wing GOP controlled media will not stop to add back the benefits of aid to the states on state taxes - aid that is less because of our need to cover the tax cut.

They will say such increased aid is "unlikely" given the deficit - because they are paid to not understand the Dem arguement and to only reprint the GOP handout.

[liberalhistorian]

2. I think all taxes should be

based on INCOME, PERIOD! Marital and family status should not enter into the equation. I'm a never-married single parent who resents the myriad tax breaks given to married couples just because they're married, so if you're looking for sympathy from me regarding the so-called "marriage penalty", you're looking in the wrong place.

BTW, the "marriage penalty" generally affects only dual-income couples above a certain income. And there's nothing to stop people from filing separately rather than as a couple.

[creativelcro]

4. Can you mention some of the tax breaks married couples get?

[Brian_Expat]

65. There's a ton of money in the three primary marriage tax breaks. . .

Inheritance tax breaks -- widows/widowers don't have to pay inheritance tax on the house, car, or other assets after their spouse dies;

Transfer tax breaks -- married spouses can transfer wealth between each other as much as they want without any penalties;

Dependent tax breaks -- in many jurisdictions, single-income married couples can list the non-working married person as a dependent and get a big tax break.

[mojo2004]

12. Filing Separately doesn't help....

the rates for filing separately do not reduce the marriage tax penalty at all. It does mostly effect dual-income earners though, but I am not aware of a 'myriad of tax breaks given to married couples'. There are tax breaks for having dependants and child care, which are available reguardless of maritial status.

[SharonAnn]

37. Even when you file separately, you still pay more than if you

were single. Just the way it's been.

To make it "marriage neutral" you could just have people pay the same rate whether they're single or married but that can be a hardship for one income families where the wage earner is taxed as if they were single but they have a household to support.

I really think the best way to do it is let each person either file as married on a joint income or single, whichever is better for them.

The way it is now, a person being paid $100,000 with a stay-at-home spouse will pay the same as two people with $50,000 each in income.

In one case the family "unit" works 2080 hours to get the $100,000 and has the "free" labor of the other to take care of all the child care, household and other family chores.

In the other case, the family "unit" works 4,160 hours to get the $100,000 and has no "free" labor. They have to hire people to perform child care, household and other family chores. They have much less available income due to this.

So, I don't think it's fair to treat them the same. And then, as a $100,000 wage earner, that person probably has much better medical and life insurance coverage provided by their employer so they also have less expense there.

All this "talk" about eliminating the marriage penalty was really just a way for the high-income, single wage-earner family to get a lower tax rate. They had to throw a small bone to the lower income workers but it's really not an elimination of the penalty. However, it REALLY helps the high-income, single wage-earner family. Guess these tend to vote Republican, eh?

BTW, Democrats tried to reduce the tax for years but at the time the "pay as you go" rule was in effect and they couldn't get agreement on how to make up the lost revenue. Bush's Congress didn't renew the "pay as you go rule" so they just cut taxes anyway.

[LeahMira]

5. Married couples...

... have two incomes to go towards paying mortgage, telephone, electric, and so on. I don't see any reason why they need a break.

[creativelcro]

6. Again, you don't get it.

It's not a break. The joint income of a married couple should not be taxed more than the sum of the incomes of the two people. The "joint" argument means nothing because that applies to roomates and people who simply lieve together then.

[creativelcro]

7. I could argue that single people

are not contributing enough to society, by not having a family, and so THEY should be taxed extra. How would they like that ?

[adriennel]

9. this makes no sense

I am a single person with no children. I pay the same amount of taxes to fund public education as my neighbor with three children. Effectively, my neighbor is getting more return on his taxes than I.
So, how is this fair to single people? We are already taxed extra!

[Superfly]

11. How is this fair to married people with no children?

The marriage penalty is baaaaaad.

[creativelcro]

15. It's gone for now...

And it should stay that way... I have decided that the dem nominee will get from me the amount I'd be saving by not having the marriage penalty, if they stand for removing it permanently... if they don;t sand for removing it then I'll give nothing.

[adriennel]

22. it's not fair

many seniors also oppose paying taxes to support public education.

I don't see the need for a marriage penalty tax, or whatever it really is (as you see I'm not married)

Mostly I was responding to the previous post that single people should be taxed more because they have no family to contribute to society. I don't understand that at all.

[LeahMira]

47. No, it's not fair...

many seniors also oppose paying taxes to support public education.


Taxes to support your public schools come mainly from state funds. The federal government contribution is minimal.

Mostly I was responding to the previous post that single people should be taxed more because they have no family to contribute to society. I don't understand that at all.

I suppose the idea is that theoretically single people don't have children to support so whatever they earn is theirs. Agreed that no one can support a child on the deduction given, even if you take the EIC. But I actually think people who don't choose to have children should be rewarded in some way. At least they shouldn't have to pay at a higher tax rate than couples.

[bowens43]

Do you think that you don't benefit from living in a country

with an educated citizenry? Does this mean you oppose public education? Did YOU attend public schools?


Have we suddenly become the selfish party? This is new to me, Democrats complaining about taxes being used to benefit society. Me, me, me, me...........

[GinaMaria]

74. refocus your view

your schools are directly linked to your property values. The better the school is in your area the higher your values. You pay taxes on your property not on how many people live in the home. Home owners without children in the school system have a huge interest in the local school system. You are directly impacted by those schools. Their worth effects the worth of your property. BTW, this is the same reason I am against vouchers. They rob property owners.

This is one of the many benefits of the civic duty of providing public education.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

16. We are a married couple with no kids

Why should we pay for yours?

Why should we fund public education? We are not contributing more bodies to tax the earth's resources. We should be rewarded for NOT procreating.

[bowens43]

21. Did you or your spouse attend public schools?

How about your parents? Siblings? Cousins? How do you feel about living a country in which there is no public education? Would you prefer that?

What is all this whining about taxes? We pay some of the lowest taxes in the industrialized world. We are not over taxed.

[lotteandollie]

57. Speak for yourself....

I'm overtaxed.

[adriennel]

23. Hurray!

love your post. it's an unpopular position ; ) but I'm glad my partner and I are not the only ones feeling this way.

[bowens43]

26. How about you?

Did you attend public schools? Did your partner attend public schools? Do you deny that you benefit from living a country that has an educated citizenry? What has happened to the Democratic party? Democrats complaining because taxes are used to fund public education, Democrats wanting to put a republican general in the oval office, Democrats opposing amnesty for immigrants. Democrats in favor of the Bush doctrine. The world has gone insane.

[adriennel]

34. slow down.....

First of all, I am not a Democrat in favor of the Bush doctrine so please don't make assumptions about me. Thank you.

I attended a private elementary school outside the US. Of course I benefitted from living in a country with an educated citizenry; in fact, my education has benefitted from living in more than one country.

btw, American education doesn't fare so well when compared to some other parts of the world. That private school was the best part of my entire education.

I attended public middle and high school in the US (and a public college, but it's not the same thing.) My partner was a private school kid all the way. I have no problem with public schools, they did well by me. My partner can't stand the public school system and this is probably our No.1 disagreement.

And when we have kids, I have no problem paying taxes for public education. I prefer to send my kids to public school than private.

I know this is an unpopular position(especially among my hard-core Dem friends). It doesn't make me a Bushie. I am in support of public education. The original issue/post at hand was the fairness of the marriage tax i.e. why should married people be taxed more than single people? They shouldn't, anymore than single people should be taxed more than married couples.

[bowens43]

38. Communication break down?

This is the text of the post you replied to:

"Why should we fund public education? We are not contributing more bodies to tax the earth's resources. We should be rewarded for NOT procreating."

If you intended to reply to the original post, my apologies. It looked to me like another of those 'why should my taxes pay for public education 'posts.

P.S. I wasn't calling YOU a Democrat who supports the Bush Doctrine, but we have many in our party.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

40. Bowens, That was my post

and the response is below.

[bowens43]

45. Ok, I see it......

I'm a bit on edge these days and tend to jump when feeling threatened (ideologically or otherwise). I'm glad that you are not one of those who see no value in educating the children of others. I too would prefer more funding for education and much less for aggression (it can't be called defense anymore).

Peace

[adriennel]

53. oops, too hurried

I should have read the post closer...and I'm glad you didn't think I'm a Bushie, that's the worse thing to be called : )

I guess what I am trying to address is the equality of the tax system. I don't think people without children should be "rewarded". I don't think married people should be subject to a different tax schema than single people. I'm afraid to criticize the child tax credit, but....

I am a homeowner and currently fund public education. In terms of tax equality, I pay the same amount as the married couple with children. I have no children. The married couple has children who will receive 18 years of education. They are getting more return on their taxes than I am. I suppose I benefit from the neighborhood kids not being morons, but the fact remains I am paying more and receiving less and that's not equality. Some senior groups have been talking about this issue for years. Why should seniors pay for public school when it's unlikely they will be sending anyone?

I do support public education, but I guess not in the traditional sense. I'm sorry.

[outinforce]

61. Senior Groups/Taxes/Etc.

"Some senior groups have been talking about this issue for years. Why should seniors pay for public school when it's unlikely they will be sending anyone?"

I'm personally not aware of any senior groups talking about anything unfair about using taxes from people of all ages and all family situations to support public education.

But I do know of a few senior groups that have advocated public financing of paying for prescription drugs for all seniors.

I might be inclined to ask those seniors who feel it is unfair for them to pay for public schools when it's unlikely thaey will be sending anyone why they would consider it fair to use the taxes of young people to pay for their prescription medicines.

[outinforce]

25. This Post Calls Out for a Response

"We are a married couple with no kids Why should we pay for yours? Why should we fund public education? We are not contributing more bodies to tax the earth's resources. We should be rewarded for NOT procreating."

First, let me say that I am a single gay man who has never had (and never will) have children.

But I have little patience with my non-procreating friends, colleagues, and others who suggest that because we have no children, we should not be obliged to support (through our taxes) the public education system. We -- every single one of us -- derive some benefit from having a good public education system in this country.

I speak only for myself, I suppose, when I say that when my automobile breaks down, I want someone who has had some education to work on it. When I call a company to get some sort of service, I expect the person on the other end of the phone to have some education. And, perhaps most importantly, I hope that the people who I stand in line with when I wait at the polling place have had some education to make them able to think and reason.

THAT is why we all benefit from an educated citizenry.

"We are not contributing more bodies to tax the earth's resources. We should be rewarded for NOT procreating"

That is, I suppose, one way of looking at things -- looking at people as mere consumers of the earth's resources. I tend to look at people a bit differently, though. I look at people as being the single most creative parts of all creation. I look at people as being necessary in order to create better living conditions throughout the world. It is the creative capabilities of each human being -- and of human beings collectively -- that has produced many of the things we all enjoy and benefit from.

[bowens43]

27. Excellent post,

Thank you. Some people are shortsighted, they don't see the big picture.

[adriennel]

60. what's the big picture, realistically?

Idealogically, public education is great. All Americans pay and all American children are educated. This is not happening, otherwise the voucher idea would not be so popular (I definately support the public school system before I'd vote for vouchers). I can't believe I'm saying this...but there is a huge chasm between the ideology of public education and what is really going on.

[outinforce]

64. The "Problem"

Thanks for your post, and for raising an issue that deserves some attention.

The "problem" wiht public education isn't so much the funding of it, as it is the use to which those funds are put.

The Public School system of the District of Columbia has (I think) the highest per-pupil allocation of money of any of the 50 states. And yet, kids who attend the DC schools lag (as a group) far behind the kids of most of the 50 states.

This tells me that the problem has less to do with the amount of money invested into public education, and more to do with decisions made by those in charge of the public education system.

And, if you don't think that DC schools are a mess, ask yourself why almost all of the highly-paid politicians who come to DC with school-aged children decide to send their own children to expensive private schools.

[adriennel]

66. such disparity

Thanks! I went to public school in metro Detroit (translation: rich suburbs) and both my middle and high schools had indoor pools, gyms, "media centers", etc.
The public schools in Detroit don't even have an in-school library. Kids have to use branches of the public library and sometimes share books.
These are all public schools, located within 15 miles of one another. A most serious distribution problem!! This disparity, between the city and suburbs, disgusts me.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

I agree about funding public education

I was just playing devil's advocate. I agree it's important to have an educated populace. I would rather fund programs that benefit women and children than defense. And an educated populace with critical thinking skills is crucial at election time.

As for procreating, there are plenty of kids waiting to be adopted. I think that to be rewarded for having children when the earth is already overcrowded is silly. I will say you have an idealistic view of childbearing.

On edit: this was a response to bowens and outinforce. I am not so shortsighted as to not want to fund education. But you can see the argument that those who choose not to have kids may resent paying for those that abuse the privilege.

[SharonAnn]

44. You're right, and I hate paying for jails and prisons because I

don't use them. Oh wait, I do benefit from having violent people locked up.

And, federal taxes is a VERY SMALL part of education funding. Nearly all of it is at the State and Local level.

Even with "No Child Left Behind, federal funding is a very small part of the education cost.

[Pithlet]

80. It's not rewarding

for procreation. People have to continue to have children, or society stagnates. Overcrowding is not the biggest issue this world faces, but that's another debate.

In short, I don't understand the resentment. I was single and childless for many years and didn't feel resentment then. I've always understood that we live in a society, and that society happens to include children, and always will.

I don't think that people who choose not to have children are selfish. I don't think there is any reason to have children if you don't want to. On the other hand, I don't think it's an abuse of any system merely to have children.

I totally agree with you about the kids waiting for adoption. I think a lot of that has to do with the messed up foster care system we have. I do wish that more people who are considering adopting and have the resources would take older children instead of holding out for babies.

[Pithlet]

79. If only people who had kids

paid for public education, then there wouldn't be enough to ensure that every child gets an education. Do you really want to live in a society where only those who can afford it get an education at all?

Whether or not we have kids, we all benefit from having an educated population.

On edit, I saw your answer to this question already in another post, after I posted this. So, nevermind :)

[welshTerrier2]

82. compromise anyone ??

i live with someone and also have no kids ...

and i've read the responses to your post ... here's how i see it:

public education, like medicare, police, roads, public health agencies, the armed forces and other necessary services are part of a "public good" ... you can see from some of the other posts that many believe you have an obligation to support these institutions whether you take advantage of them or not ...

and yet, your feelings about being exploited (my words) and having to contribute when you don't use the services is also understandable ... my property taxes, most of which go to fund local education, have climbed over the $7000. per year mark ... it has nothing to do with my income or my ability to pay the taxes ... my house has escalated in value tremendously ... there was a time i was out of work, worried about how i was going to pay the mortgage, and my neighbor and his 3 kids (all in the public school system) living in his teeny weeny little house was paying less than a third of what i was paying ... he and his wife were working; i was not ... he had 3 kids in school; i had none ... something certainly doesn't seem right under this system ...

the town recently held a referendum on whether to build a new high school ... there were cheap ways to expand capacity and there were expensive alternatives ... the school board rallied all the parents of school kids and the most expensive alternative passed ... this gave the majority a chance to force the minority to "chip in" at the same rate ... here's where i begin to agree with the direction of your argument ...

the alternative also commonly occurs ... too often, communities with mostly older citizens vote down increases in school budgets ...

my solution? a hybrid system ... i would like to see a system that taxes parents (only if they have the ability to pay) of school kids at a higher rate than it taxes people without kids in the school system ... i believe they should pay a higher burden but that all have a responsibility to contribute to this important public service ... this would also make it less likely that those without kids in school would oppose spending increases because the impact on them would be lessened ...

i guess i see my approach as a compromise on the issue ...

Comments ??

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Can You Give A Concrete Example?

I looked at the 2003 1040. My wife and i would have paid MORE in taxes if we were able to declare it either separate incomes or a combined household income equal to one person at that level.

There is no marriage penalty for us. I don't understand where this notion comes from.
The Professor

[slackmaster]

13. Married Filing Separately is the highest rate

Let me tell you a good way to get screwed, because this happened to me:

You are separated from your spouse but not divorced. One or more children live with one. Both spouses work. The one with the kid(s) has the option to file as Head of Household and get a very sweet break, while the one living alone has to file as Married Filing Separately.

The lesson is if you are going to split with your spouse, it's in the best interests of the one who does not get the kid(s) to make the divorce happen ASAP.

I looked at the 2003 1040. My wife and i would have paid MORE in taxes if we were able to declare it either separate incomes or a combined household income equal to one person at that level.

Were you comparing Married Filing Jointly with Married Filing Separately or to both of you filing as Single?

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Actually, We're Agreeing

Married filing separately, and a single person at our total adjusted household income would pay MORE in taxes than we paid. So, i don't get the marriage penalty thing. Maybe my wife and i are in a weird part of the bracket or something, but i doubt it.
The Professor

[mojo2004]

32. Your analysis is flawed.

You compare a single person filing at the married couples income. What you need to do is to split up the income into two single people and figure at the tax for each. There absolutely is a marriage penalty.

[ProfessorGAC]

35. Reading For Comprehension Is A Skill

Look at my first post. I did it both ways. Pay more attention.
The Professor

[SharonAnn]

42. You said single person at "total adjusted household income"

So I don't think you're comparing apples and apples.

Trust me, it's cost us a pretty penny to be married. We've paid far more in Federal taxes than we would have if we'd stayed single and just lived together. About $5,000 a year more.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Apparently You Don't Read Carefully Either

In my first post, i said i did it both ways, and we still end up paying less in taxes.
The Professor

[slackmaster]

62. But you didn't compute it a third way

What if you were NOT MARRIED and filed as two separate individuals?

[Brian_Expat]

68. You also get a lot of breaks as a married couple that cancel it out

Like the ability to transfer funds between each other and inherit each other's assets tax-free should one of you die.

[creativelcro]

14. It depends on the relative incomes of the 2 people

which is another arbitray aspect of this. If the two people make approx the same they pay more by being married. If one of them makes most of the income then they may be paying less by being married. The point is that it should be based on total income and that's it.
Just look at something basic like the following link, Professor

http://www.quicken.com/cms/viewers/qanda/taxes/56043

As of last year I had a marriage penalty of over 1K.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. We Had The Exact Opposite

Being married reduced the tax load by $850 vs. if one person made what both of us made. So, now we've got a 50:50 split.

What's the proportion of people who get stung, and those who get and advantage. If it's nearly equal, than there's no institutional marriage penalty, right?
The Professor

[mojo2004]

20. Example...

Two people each earn $35,000 gross. As singles their taxable income would be:

$35,000 gross - 4,7000 standard deduction - 3,000 personal exemption = $27,300 taxable income. At the single rate they each would pay $3749 in taxes or a total for both of $7498.

Let's say they get married:

$70,000 gross - $7850 standard deduction - 6,000 personal exemptions = $56,150 taxable income. At the married tax rate they would now pay $10,954 in taxes, for a more than $3000 tax penalty. That seems a little high, as I though the penalty was closer to $1500, but that is roughly how it works.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Just Did The Math From 2003 1040

I get different numbers than you. Sorry.
The Professor

[mojo2004]

33. Show me then...

You say things and back it up with nothing.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. You're Dismissed

I asked a simple question. My basis was that for my wife and i, we would pay more in taxes if we weren't married. I'm not about to reveal our gross income on an internet forum. Yet that's what you would have me do.

Are you insane or something? In order to validate the basis for a simple question, i'm supposed to let everyone know what i make and what my wife makes. Don't be ridiculous.
The Professor

[mojo2004]

41. Oh puh_leeez....

I gave you a hypothetical situation and you somehow construe it that I was asking you for personal info. Geez, what is your deal...

[ProfessorGAC]

49. No You Didn't

The reason i asked the question was that my wife and i obtain a marriage benefit of sorts. It isn't hypothetical. The only way for me to support the reason i asked the question would be to use our household income.

I could pretend it was hypothetical, i suppose, but it would still be our actual household income. I am not going to do that.
The Professor

[mojo2004]

46. You wife obviously doesn't have much income...

that is the only case where there isn't a tax penalty. The marriage tax penalty kicks in when both people make decent incomes.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. My Wife Is A Grade School Teacher

You can decide whether that's not much income or not.
The Professor

[mojo2004]

54. If your wife is full-time

....teacher, there is a marriage penalty. I don't see anyway around it. This is a verifiable fact that every tax accountant will tell you. Until you show me some case or how my example was wrong (which it might be since the number was high), I must assume you are making some error.

[ProfessorGAC]

72. Whatever

I have looked at this again. At our income level, total, we would pay more if we were both single, or if we were married, filing separately. And those values are taken right off the tax tables, so there's no calculating involved.

Look i asked a simple question to show me how this happens, because we experience, and always have, either a marriage benefit or a completely tax neutral situation.

My wife is indeed a full-time teacher. I do, however, make quite a lot more. Maybe there are cusps on the tax table where this type of thing occurs, but i can assure you that with NO mistakes in my tax forms, we pay less than if both of us were single and filing as single taxpayers. And, again, from the tax tables, if we were filing married, separate, we'd pay more in taxes.

I never said you were wrong. I asked what this meant, because our experience is the opposite. I don't care if you believe me. You can tell me i'm wrong, although i did nothing of the kind toward you.

Your lack of civility bores me.
The Professor

[apsuman]

78. Here's the answer and an example

I found the answer, it is post number 69 (I think). The marriage panalty was gotten rid of for tax year 2003, that is why you can not find it on your 2003 return.

However here is an example of the marriage penalty from years past. Assume the following:

Tax year 2002.
The Professor make $60000
His wife makes $35000
No Children
Standard Deduction

Married Filing Joint
Total income: $95000
less Std Deduction (7850)
less 2 Personal exemptions (6000)
Taxable income is $81150
Tax is: $15700

Single
His income is 60000
less std deduction (4700)
less 1 exemption (3000)
Taxable income: 52300
Tax : 10474

Her income is 35000
less std deduction (4700)
less 1 exemption (3000)
Taxable income: 27300
Tax : 3791

Total tax : 14265

A difference of : 1435

[outinforce]

48. I (kind of) hate to do this

ProfessorGAC, I note that elsewhere on this thread, you have said that "reading for comprehension is a skill", and I most certainly agree with you.

But, kind professor, would you not also agree that proper use of the English language (especially by a professor) is not only a skill, but a trait to be desired?

If so, kindly permit me to gently direct your attention to this portion of a sentence which was part of one of your posts:

"My basis was that for my wife and i,"

Since we all make mistakes when it comes to things like capitalization and spelling, I do not wish to call your attention to what was, no doubt, the result of quick typing on your part.

Rather, I would simply point out that the preposition "for" calls for the use of the objective (and not the subjective) case for its objects.

I'm sure you understand.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. I Stand For Corrected

It should have been "for my wife and me". However, i NEVER capitalize the first person pronoun. I see that as an unnecessary conceit, that applies to no other pronoun. We do not capitalize the "W" in we, except at the start of a sentence.

Capitalizing the first person pronoun is unique to English. (It's not done in Italian, and the pronoun is only rarely even used.) So, that's not an accident. It's intentional and meant to diminish the importance of the first person pronoun.
The Professor

[outinforce]

63. Conceit

Thank you, dear professor, for your thoghtful and polite reply.

Your notion concerning capitalization of the first person singular pronoun is certainly a thought-provoking one.

Tell me, though, does your notion of "unnecessary conceit" also apply to other things? For instance, why "The Professor" and not "The professor"?

[ProfessorGAC]

73. I Guess I'm Considering It Like My Signature

I still capitalize my name when i sign it. So, since it's a nom de plume of sorts, i capitalize it as if it were my actual name.

It's also a stylistic thing, because you'll notice that i almost always capitalize each word in the title of my posts. Not sure why, other than it looks better to my eye.
The Professor

[outinforce]

81. Thanks....

I also tend to capitalize each word in the title of my posts.

Like you, I tend to think it looks better to my "eye" (or even my "I")!

[apsuman]

69. The Answer

If you are using your 2003 1040 then I must point out that the marriage penalty was done away with in the most recent changes to the tax laws.

That is why you can not find a marriage panalty, because for 2003 there is none.

[LeahMira]

55. Thank You!!!

I looked at the 2003 1040. My wife and i would have paid MORE in taxes if we were able to declare it either separate incomes or a combined household income equal to one person at that level.

There is no marriage penalty for us. I don't understand where this notion comes from.


I don't understand it either. It's just the government encouraging people to get married and stay married in order to save on their taxes... the silliest possible reason to get or to stay married.

OTOH, I've read that seniors lose some of their Social Security if they do get married. If that's the case, shouldn't we be a bit more consistent about this thing?

[stopthegop]

19. not all have two incomes...n/t

.

[SharonAnn]

39. You don't get it, married people still pay MORE than singles.

Marrying my husband, instead of living together, has cost us about $5,000 a year in taxes because we've had to pay more than if we were single.

There has been a MARRIAGE PENALTY for a long, long time. Even the current tax changes don't eliminate it completely, especially for two-earner families.

However, the new tax rules have BIG BENEFITS for upper-income, single-earner families. Guess those are the Republican base, aren't they?

[LeahMira]

56. Still...

Marrying my husband, instead of living together, has cost us about $5,000 a year in taxes because we've had to pay more than if we were single.

Meanwhile, if you did decide to remain single AND maintain two separate households, you would be spending that extra $5000. on your separate mortgage or rent as well as your separate electric bill and etc. By joining your households, you are saving money, even with the extra taxes.

[pnb]

77. Nope

If two people merely live together, they are not paying extra to maintain separate households.

My wife and I lived together before getting married. As soon as we got married, we got taxed more. Its that simple.

[Democrats unite]

17. I think the marriage tax should be tripled!

Since not all of us are allowed to get married in this Country, it should be a luxury tax!

[Buffler]

24. That is not true

Since not all of us are allowed to get married in this Country

Absolutely false. You are allowed to get married. Maybe not to the person of your choice though. You should adjust your statement slightly to make it true.

[outinforce]

30. Really?

"I think the marriage tax should be tripled! Since not all of us are allowed to get married in this Country, it should be a luxury tax!"

I'm not sure whether you are joking here or not, but if you are serious, it strikes me as though you are suggesting that some people ought to be punished because they have something that you cannot have.

I'm gay, and therefore I suppose I fit into the category of people you descirbe as "not being allowed to get married in this country". But my positions regarding taxes is that they should be fair -- and at the lowest level necessary to fund necessary governmental functions -- including social functions, such as health and support for the poor.

It frankly surprizes me to see that someone might seriously suggest that taxes should be used to punish people.

[Democrats unite]

71. All in life is not fair, just ask my partner.

To me it is a luxury tax, and should be taxed accordingly.

[outinforce]

83. Are You Really Saying that Marriage is a "Luxury"

"All in life is not fair, just ask my partner. To me it is a luxury tax, and should be taxed accordingly."

I don't know your partner, or how to get in touch with him/her, so I'm afraid I can't ask him/her his/her opinion on the unfairness of certain aspects of life. Sorry.

But I think I can ask you if you truly believe that marriage is a luxury.

I know several people who think marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I also know many people who see marriage as a sort of prison -- a prison they feel trapped in. And I know several other people who view marriage as little more than one lifestyle choice amonmg many -- who are quite content to live their lives with one person, perhaps have children with that one person, but never see the need to have the state or the church somehow "legitimitize" or "sancitfy" their relationship.

Let me ask you this: Suppose somehow gay people were to be allowed to get married and be just like the nice straight couple down the street. Would you then think that marriage was a luxury? As a gay man myself, my own view of relationships is that part of being gay means rejecting the notion that suggests that the ideal form of relationship is the "marriage" of one person to another (regardless of the genders involved).

But to suggest that folks who are in straight marriages should be punished via the tax system simply because straight people cannot have the "luxury" of getting married strikes me as being mean-spirited.

Unless, of course, you would also suggest that when gay people win the right to be married, they should also be compelled to pay a tax on the "luxury" or marriage.

[Rainbowreflect]

18. No one should be rewarded or penalized for family choices.

One deduction for each person in the household and that is it.

[reachout]

43. Call it what you want...

I am absolutely in favor of it remaining in effect.

Why?

1. It is much cheaper for two people in one household to live than it is for two people making the exact same amounts to live in two seperate households. They should pay more because they can afford to pay more. That is the essence of progressive taxation. Married couples who complain about the increase should go get seperate places for a year, pay their individual rent/mortgage, utility bills, etc. and see if it doesn't add up to a lot more than their increase in taxes.

Well, why not make roommates pay more? Because roomies are inherently transitory. Married couples have entered into a legal contractual bond together.

2. It is just another tax break for the wealthy. 60% of American families get back $0 to $150 from the repeal. Families in the top income bracket will get back more than $12,000. If you believe in regressive or flat taxation, fine, I will argue that position. However, don't complain about Bush's tax breaks for the rich on one hand and support this tax break for the rich on the other.

3. Married couples pay about three-quarters of all income taxes. The repeal has a $31 billion price tag on it. Do you suppose the need for that revenue will go away? Or maybe the burden will be shifted around (as it has already been under the Bush tax cuts) to more regressive forms of taxation that penalize the poor? That $31 billion is going to further hurt those least able to afford it.


In a civil society, everyone needs to pay their fair share.

[HootieMcBoob]

58. There's one way to solve this

Just don't get married. This is the major reason my partner and I haven't gotten married. We've lived together for 8 years and are even registered as domestic partners. It's hard enough to get by on the amount of money we make let alone having more taken away by deciding to get married. We've decided that if we eve have children we will probably, at that point, get married. In the meantime, it's not worth it.

[Zenaholic]

70. I second that!

There are two different ways of looking at marrige.

1. It is a legal binding of two individuals.

2. It is a religious binding of two individuals.

I think #2 IS #2 if you know what I mean. Because there is no way I am married to that girl from 8th grade!

I have been living with my "girlfriend" for 12 years. We bought a house together and are very happy. The reason we haven't gotten married is because of the marrige tax. I itemize (because I make more $s) and she takes the standard ded.

The one thing that troubles me about not being married is what happens if I die (or she dies). She has always told me that if she dies she wants to be creamated but her parents are very religious and believe that if you are creamated then you burn forever. So... we are hoping she hangs on until we get a will in place!

I am curious, though, how you declare a "domestic partner"?

[ProfessorGAC]

75. There's A Second Way, Hootie

That other way would be to pay the damn taxes and quit complaining about them like Republicans do.
The Professor

[Buffler]

59. Can afford more

It is much cheaper for two people in one household to live than it is for two people making the exact same amounts to live in two seperate households. They should pay more because they can afford to pay more.

Should married people also pay more for cars, groceries, electricity, gas, movie tickets, clothes, etc...?

Why not? They can afford to pay more.

[reachout]

67. Apples and Orages

The price of commodities don't change with increases in income, the amount of taxes do. Do you want to have a debate about progessive taxation? If so, I'm willing to take up the discussion point-by-point. The bottom line is, progressive taxation (and American taxation is only barely progressive) is the best available system to create a balanced and equitable society. Those who can afford to pay more should absolutely pay more.

[Hammie]

76. I feel like you don't understand the marriage penalty

Married couples never paid more tax than a single person earning the same income as the combined incomes of the married couple. The penalty actually refers to the situation in which a married couple with both partners earning comparable amounts would pay more income tax when married than the total that they would have paid had they remained single.

The marriage penalty is outrageous. When both my wife and I were working before we had our child, we were paying 50% of our combined income in taxes. If we had remained single it would have been more like 30-35%. Frankly, we were robbed. I'm still pissed about it.