Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!koomen
From: koomen@rochester.UUCP (Hans Koomen)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <6527@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 11:16:48 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.6527
Posted: Fri Feb 15 11:16:48 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 06:50:49 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP>, <399@wxlvax.UUCP> <501@homxb.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 17
Xref: utcs net.taxes:609 net.singles:5653 net.flame:8005

Why not just tax individuals irrespective of their marital status, and allow
any individuals to file jointly?  In other words, person A files taxes, and
he can include any other individuals B who agree to file jointly, where
including means adding B's income, and taking B's deductions.  Any B's
included except offspring under 18 must provide SS# and sign A's 1040.
Surely it would be fairly easy for the tax folks to check that any B's
included on a 1040 do not file a 1040 themselves.  This has the benefit of
simplifying things, and make it more equitable for everyone.  I can include
my dear old great-grandmother whom I give $x/month if she agrees.  But it is
NOT up to the government to make sure I'm actually supporting her!  Two
consenting adults ...

Any comments?  Would this get out of hand?  Would we get tax brokers looking
for human tax shelters?  If we do, so what?  Or should there be a ceiling on
the number of allowable inclusions other than offspring?

-- Hans  (Koomen@Rochester.ARPA  or  ...!rochester!koomen.UUCP)