Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!browngr!jfh
From: jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <1865@browngr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 10:44:21 EST
Article-I.D.: browngr.1865
Posted: Fri Feb 15 10:44:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 04:48:27 EST
References: mit-herm.2297, <285@calmasd.UUCP>
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.taxes:675 net.singles:5887 net.flame:8401


   I think I recall reading an article in the New York Times about the
so-called "marriage tax", i.e. the higher taxation of married, both-working,
couples, than unmarried, both-working, couples. Some couple had taken the
matter to court, arguing that the law was an infringement of the right
to the pursuit of happiness.
   The judge's ruling was a masterpiece of 'tongue-in-cheek' justice (although
a travesty of justice itself, I think). He said something along the lines
of "Rather than being a penalty for marriage, this tax structure provides
an opportunity for young lovers to demonstrate, through marriage despite
\higher taxes, the depth and breadth of their mutual committment and devotion."
   Gag.

-jfh