Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site inuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!claus
From: claus@inuxd.UUCP (David Claus)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <710@inuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 11:21:08 EST
Article-I.D.: inuxd.710
Posted: Mon Feb 18 11:21:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 03:14:35 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP>, <429@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products Div., Indianapolis
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.taxes:683 net.singles:5896 net.flame:8424

>The US income tax is supposed to be a progressive tax. The idea is that
>those who afford it should pay more than those who can't. A married couple
>with two incomes of ~$30K pay more than twice as much as a single person
>earning $30K--- but they pay much less than a single person earning $60K.
>The couple pays more because they can afford to pay more.
>
>There is no such thing as a marriage penalty. The penalty is against single
>people, and has been for as long as I've been paying taxes.
>
>						Michael Esco
>						Boeing Aerospace

I disagree with the statement that a married couple with two incomes of
~$30K pay much less tax than a single person earning $60K.  They have
to pay social security tax (7.05%) on all $60K of their earnings, whereas
the single only has to pay tax on the first $38K on his/her earnings.
Once this is taken into account, the differnce in taxation becomes small.

I wish people would realize that SS taxes are almost as large Fed taxes
for a majority of the population, and they have to be consider as a general
tax since they are used for other purposes besides providing retirement
income.

Social Security-the ultimate flat tax.

Dave Claus
AT&T-CP Indy