Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxw.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxw!kalm
From: kalm@ihuxw.UUCP (James )
Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.flame
Subject: Re: Marriage penalty
Message-ID: <1062@ihuxw.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 00:33:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxw.1062
Posted: Fri Feb 22 00:33:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 02:37:01 EST
References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <2297@mit-hermes.ARPA> <897@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Xref: linus net.taxes:577 net.singles:4923 net.flame:7491

> I'm curious as to why people think [. . .] two wage earning families are penalized
> with respect to one wage earning families?
> Later,
> Peter Barbee


One reason is that they BOTH pay into a FICA account 
(up to about $2660 apiece), although only ONE of those accounts
will pay off, if any!
(The insurance companies would be a lot richer than they are
if they could pull that one off).

The fact of the matter is that many families now NEED two
pay-checks in order to provide BASIC care for all members.
Some people work a full and a part-time job, or in other cases
both husband and wife must bring in an income.
Often even these do not provide the necessary insurance for
their and their children's health needs.

-- 
Jim Kalmadge -  AT&T Bell Labs IH 4b409
8-367-4325
(312) 979-4325
ihuxw!kalm