 |
||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
In response to the article by Allan Carlson and David Blankenhorn (``The Wages of Wedlock," Nov. 17), let me state for the record the facts about our bill, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. Simply put, the bill Rep. Jerry Weller and I introduced gives families a choice: A husband and wife can file their income taxes individually or jointly, whichever gives them the greatest tax break. Under current law, all families must file jointly. Most families with one wage-earner pay less in taxes when they file jointly. Our bill allows them to keep this benefit. However, most two-earner families are penalized by filing jointly. For example, when a husband, Roger, earns $30,500, and his wife, Linda, also earns $30,500 they are taxed at the 28 percent marginal rate, for a total tax bill of $8,563. If Roger and Linda were divorced or just living together, they would each be taxed at the lower 15 percent marginal tax rate for a tax bill of $3,592 each. In other words, Roger and Linda's penalty for getting and staying married is $l,378 per year. For the average working family, this is money that could be used for a year's worth of car payments, six months of mortgage payments, food on the table, or clothing for the kids. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act allows husbands and wives who both work to stay married, file as individuals, and remove their penalty. Liberals have criticized our bill because it does not eliminate the marriage "bonus" whereby one spouse stays at home and the spouse who works gets a tax break for being married. In the example above, let's say Roger works but Linda does not. Their total family income would be $30,500. Under current law, Roger would pay $3,592 in taxes as a single man and $2,805 as a married man. Roger and Linda's marriage bonus would be $787. Our bill lets them keep this bonus. Contrary to the point of view shared by Carlson and Blankenhorn, our bill does not "increase regressivity" in the tax code by easing the tax burden on "affluent" two-earner couples. Families with two earners are paying more in taxes than families with one earner. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 76 percent of families with two earners pay a marriage penalty, and only 21 percent receive a marriage bonus. On the other hand, there are no one-earner families paying a penalty while 90 percent are receiving a bonus. Under our bill, all families are either better off because their marriage penalty would be eliminated or treated exactly the same because they would keep their marriage bonus. Ultimately, the only solution that will treat all taxpayers equally is the one that ends the IRS as we know it and replaces it with a new, single-rate system. Until then, conservatives must band together, not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I support the Senate's increased marriage bonus for homemakers and hope that senators support our bill to eliminate the marriage penalty on working morns. Congress needs to put a priority on correcting the worst perversions of our tax code as we work toward fundamental reform. REP. DAVID McINTOSH ALLAN C. CARLSON AND DAVID BLANKENHORN REPLY: Rep. Mclntosh's use of the terms ``bonus" and ``penalty" misses the point. He is assuming that individual filing represents fairness and that anything different must either be a penalty or a bonus. This is wrongheaded. A tax reform that encouraged married couples to file separate returns would not reflect the economic reality of marriage. Our point about regressivity is valid. A tax cut aimed at comparatively affluent persons—and no one denies that two-earner couples are more affluent than one- earner couples—does indeed increase regressivity in the tax code. Any proposal that would increase the share of the tax burden borne by one-earner couples is a bad idea. McIntosh-Weller would clearly say to at-home parents: You are not valued. Of course, let's eliminate the marriage penalty. But why do it the wrong way? Back to Top | Previous
|
||||
|
Institute for American Values |
||||
