kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (03/01/85)
[ This is cross-posted from net.flame... ] From: hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) >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. No taxation at all. Charge user fees instead. >Herman Silbiger -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower) (03/05/85)
>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. > >Herman Silbiger The marriage tax (or its alternative, the singles tax) is a feature of any progressive tax structure. A flat tax solves the problem : if a couple earns $40,000 a year, they pay the same tax as any other couple or individual earning $40,000 a year. Note that it is mathematically impossible to have a progressive tax which: 1) Taxes all couples with the same income at the same rate; and 2) Taxes all individuals with the same income at the same rate, regardless of whether they are part of a couple or not. Paul Hightower University of Kentucky