Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!SUVM!GATLING
From: GATLING@SUVM (Keith E Gatling)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: More On Taxes - KEG
Message-ID: <CHRISTIA%90011617385162@FINHUTC>
Date: 16 Jan 90 13:49:10 GMT
Sender: Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@FINHUTC>
Reply-To: Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@FINHUTC>
Lines: 24
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway

Eric:

I told Cheryl what I told you about how our tax refund plummetted when we got
married, and she said, "Well you tell him that losing the money is worth it to
get you."
    She also pointed out that the system as I explained it tends to favor the
so called "traditional" set up...you know, the one where the woman stayed home
and lived off her parents until some guy came along.
    Anyway, let me say this once more, in a different way.  Let's take as an
example two people who make together $60,000/year.  Let's also assume that
X<Y<Z.  If they each make $30,000 as single people, they'll pay X in taxes.
If one makes $60,000 while the other makes $0, the one making the $60,000 will
pay Z in taxes.  If these two people get married, as long as the total is still
$60,000, they will pay Y in taxes.  It really is fair, it's just annoying.
    And remember, once the married couple has a kid, they pay even less in
taxes.  The funny thing is that there is a substantial tax advantage for people
who merely live together.  Since their income isn't being legally combined,
they only get taxed on their individual incomes.  But that's just a mathematic-
al fluke, not a preplanned assault on the family system as we've known it in
recent history.

And I'd rather have Cheryl than the money too!

keg