Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!tekig!david
From: david@tekig.UUCP (David Hayes)
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <2490@tekig.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 16:11:18 EST
Article-I.D.: tekig.2490
Posted: Wed Feb 20 16:11:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 01:15:13 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <429@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 35
Xref: utcs net.taxes:635 net.singles:5689 net.flame:8098

> 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



First of all, a progressive tax does more than increase taxes for
those who make more money.  If the tax rate was flat, a percentage,
then this would also make for a progressive tax, however, I think
50 percent is a little much for high wage earners. (oppressive?)

You say there is no marriage penalty, however, if I were just living
with a friend, the total tax paid by the two would be less than if
the two were married.  So what is the variable here? MARRIAGE!!

Now maybe you want to tax folks by a different method, like a 
tax per household income, then that would be different, however, 
here in this country we tax individuals, the rate is determined
by whether or not they are married.


I think I'll adopt my wife, that ought to take care of the problem.


Dave Hayes

Tektronix