Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    The mere existence of income tax is an issue for everyone, the
    philosophy being that what you earn belongs to the government, but
    they will let you keep 60%.
    
    However, it makes no difference whether you are 'a couple' who earn
    a total of $50K or a single person making $50K, you will pay more
    taxes than (the sum of) two individuals making $25k each. That is the 
    graduated tax for you.
    
    I don't know why you say that it is the woman taking the pay cut,
    both parties are being taxed at a higher rate because their total
    income is greater.
    
    Form W was a tax incentive to get married, but really, it was unfair.
    Consider the following couples:
    
    	A: 50,000 + 10,000
    	B: 40,000 + 20,000
    	C: 30,000 + 30,000
    
    Without form W, all three pay the same total amount of tax.
    With form W: couple A subtracts $1,000 from their combined income.
                 couple B    "      $2,000   "    "      "        "
    		 couple C    "      $3,000   "    "      "        "
    
    Is this fair?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

             <<< 2B::NOTES1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]THENEWSOAPBOX.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< TheNewSOAPBOX, Volume IV. >-
================================================================================
Note 12.42      The Constitution of the United States of America        42 of 51
BEING::POSTPISCHIL "Always mount a scratch monkey."   3 lines  18-FEB-1987 13:15
                          -< Amendments. Article XVI >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
    whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
    States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

    I don't see this as a women's issue particularly - the rules
    simply discourage marriage of equal-earning people.
    
    However, the question in .1 "is this fair?" misses the point
    entirely.  Take your third couple, each spouse earning $30K.
    Let's assume for the sake of discussion that this is their
    taxable income.
    
    Now, if they were single, their 1986 taxes would be
    $5841 each, for a total of $11,682 combined.  But just because
    they are married, their tax is $15,054.30!  Yes, folks, this
    couple has been penalized almost $3400 just because they had
    the audacity to get married!  (Note to those trying to reproduce
    these numbers - I added to the $60K combined income the $1290
    that one loses in the standard deduction by being married.)
    
    So you see the $3000 schedule W adjustment doesn't completely
    negate the marriage penalty.
    
    For comparison, the combined taxes of the first two couples assuming
    they were single would be $14364.60 and $12381.00 respectively.
    So you see that the formula in schedule W is not all that unreasonable.
    
    Now in 1987, schedule W is no more.  So let's see how our three
    couples make out this year:
    
    				If single	If married
    Couple A (50K + 10K)	$14782		$14552
    Couple B (40K + 20K)	$13198		$14552
    Couple C (30K + 30K)	$12708		$14552
    
    Note that the more equal the earning potential, as in earlier
    years, the more a couple gets screwed by Uncle Sam for making
    things legal.
    
    However, these figures also disprove another point, one brought
    up earlier.  Unless the lower-earning spouse truly makes peanuts,
    the notion that having that spouse quit to save money is just not
    true.  (This does not take into account other expenses, but I think
    the argument is valid anyway.)
    
    Now just what does this have to do with women anyway?  My experience
    wouldn't show much relevance, as while I was married, my wife
    out-earned me every year.  And it would not surprise (nor bother)
    me to find that any future spouse I may have also earns more than
    I do (especially if she doesn't work for DEC!)
    
    The progressive income tax penalizes married couples where both
    spouses have any significant income, and as a male I am just as
    angry about this as any woman has a right to be.  It's my money
    too!
    					Steve

    I'm pretty PO'd about the marriage penalty tax.  We're paying over
    $1,000 more than we would if we each filed singly this year, and
    that's WITH the marriage deduction.  I know that number will shoot
    up even further when the marriage deduction goes away next year.
    
    So, what do I do about it?  Who is the most appropriate person to
    write to?  
    
    			Barbara b.

    
    re: .4
    
    Your legislators have the power of the pursestrings.  The Feds cannot
    levy, collect, or spend your taxes without the approval of Congress.
    Write your Representative and your Senators, and let them have it.
    
    DFW

The easiest way to avoid having two-income couples pay more tax than the same 
people filing singly is to not have a progressive tax.

    re .6:
    
    Or at least drop the various "classes" of filers; i.e. single,
    married-filing-jointly, married-filing-seperately, and
    head-of-household.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

I don't think married working women are the only ones who might have an
issue with current tax laws. Someone once said, "Taxation without
representation is tyrrany," and in case you hadn't noticed women are vastly
under-represented in the legislative bodies that levy the taxes.

Maybe women should secede from the union.

don.

Maybe women should vote for female candidates.  Maybe more women should
BE candidates.  There is another topic for discussion:  if women outnumber 
men in the population (and they do), how come more women aren't elected to 
high office?

On the other hand, can only female senators represent the interests of 
women?  Can only black senators represent the interests of blacks?  Can
only male Jewish carpenters interpret the New Testament?  :)

Voting for someone because of their sex/race/occupation is not a good idea.
Better to vote for or against someone because of their philosophy.

    > how come more women aren't elected to high office?

    	Where do you think funding comes from anyway?  (That is:
    the people in the political party who are the "backers" and have
    the money are men, and they spend it where they WISH to.)
    
    						Ann B.

    	I missed something in this note.  Why is this a woman's issue?
    The tax laws applies to all married couples and is not limited
    to women.
    
    Douglas

    <--(.11)
    Because women are interested in this issue.
    
    						=maggie