js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/13/85)
> Let's put the question another way: > > Why should two people living together without the > formality of marriage pay less taxes than a formally > married couple? > > Whether the question is put this way, or the way it > was phrased in previous questions, it is not always true. > If two people are living together, not married, > but one earns all the income, then they would pay > more taxes than if they were married! > > Can anyone suggest a solution which would not have any > inequities. > Sure! Make income taxes independant of marital status. Simple. > The underlying philosophy of the present systems is > that families are taxed, not individuals, and you > are not a family if you are not married. (or just a > family of one.) > I think you may be reading too much into the 'underlying philosophy' of the present system. The fact is that the government doesn't like families with two wage earners (maybe because of unemployment?), and provides higher taxes to those people as an economic disincentive for this type of lifestyle. This is similar to what they do with cigarette and liquor taxes. This is just the government's way of showing it's support of working married women: tax the *^$% out of them. Just a quick rummage through my tax tables here for a numerical example: Suppose origionally, spouse #1 made $35K and paid $6,225 in federal income taxes. Suppose spouse #2 takes a job for $25K. Now their total taxes are $15,168 if filing jointly or $15,398 if filing seperately. *Or* $10,798 if they get divorced quick enough. Since most people don't want to get divorced for tax reasons, spouse #2 effectively only makes the equivalent of $19K before taxes and $16K after taxes. Since the primary wage earner in most families is still the man, it is women attempting to enter the job market who find themselves in the position of spouse #2. I guess the government just wants to keep them barefoot and pregnant. > You might define a family as two individuals of oppsite > sex (given that like sex individuals cannot get married > under present rules in any case) who are sharing the > same dwelling. > This would have the advantage that they could also get > benefits under each others benefit plans. > What would happen then if they had to be separated for > some reason, by a change in job locations for example. > > I would like to see some creative response to all the above. > > Herman Silbiger *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Is everybody happy?" -- M. de Sade
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/16/85)
Canadian income tax pays no attention to one's marital status,
except that if one spouse is dependent on the other, the richer
can claim a deduction from taxable income. The amount of deduction
depends on the spouse's income. That seems fair to me. There are
anomalies between common-law and certified marriage, but I don't
know what they are.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtdave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/17/85)
In article <1405@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: || ||Canadian income tax pays no attention to one's marital status, ||except that if one spouse is dependent on the other, the richer ||can claim a deduction from taxable income. The amount of deduction ||depends on the spouse's income. Correct. The deduction is $3,470 for 1984, and you start losing it dollar for dollar once the spouse's taxable income exceeds $490 (which makes income-splitting planning useless between $490 and $3,960 of the spouse's income). || ... That seems fair to me. Well, it's hard to say. As has been noted, there are conflicting goals which are mathematically impossible to resolve. Ther difference in the systems arises because Canada does not have joint returns - each taxpayer must file his/her own return. || ... There are ||anomalies between common-law and certified marriage, but I don't ||know what they are. "Common-law" marriage (there's no such thing, it's just a media term used for living together) does not entitle either half of the couple to claim the other. You have to be married to claim the unused portion of the spouse's basic deduction. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (02/20/85)
> "Common-law" marriage (there's no such thing, it's just a media > term used for living together) does not entitle either half > of the couple to claim the other. You have to be married to > claim the unused portion of the spouse's basic deduction. > It may be true that if you have no marriage certificate then you cannot claim a deduction for your spouse, however "common-law" marriages have existed long before our income tax amendment. This is evident in case of abandonment. A person can claim a common-law marriage and get benefits (if she can find him). Also, I have heard it is simpler (in some states) to file for a license stating that you are already married after some time living together than it is to ask for a marriage license to get married if you are not. I am not advocating this, by the way. It seems fraught with legal tangles. All I am saying is that the legal definition does exist, and has existed for a long time. Media has little to do with it. Tom Slack By the way, in some states the bigamy laws also acknowledge common law marriages.
ajf@pyuxa.UUCP (A Figura) (02/26/85)
Re: <403@wxlvax.UUCP> by Tom Slack: > "common-law" marriages have existed long before our income tax > amendment. This is evident in case of abandonment. > A person can claim a common-law marriage and get benefits > (if she can find him). ^^^ ^^^ What if *she* is the abandoner and *he* has to try to find *her*?