Base Taxes On Income, Not On Marital Status

[Larkspur]

The title of my LTTE to The Day
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=EAC0C6E1-745F-4B5C-BB5F-F4FA72ED1209

Columnist Froma Harrop stated, “Giving tax breaks to Larry King and his seventh wife — and in the name of helping children — is outrageous. (“But how about the rights of all the couples who aren't married?” July 17)

I couldn't agree more. I'm a happily single and cheerfully child-free 42-year-old woman who knew at age 10 that I never wanted to marry or have children. When I was a child, I was fortunate to have two single paternal aunts who showed me that women can be single, child-free, and live fulfilled lives. My mother also supported my lifestyle choice. She always got angry when single women were denigrated by being called “old maids,” while single men received respect by being called “bachelors.”

Last year, based on the tax tables alone and for no other reason than I was single and child-free, I paid about $500 more in taxes than a married-filing-jointly taxpayer and about $150 more than a single-head-of-household.

Income tax should be based upon income, not marital status, but taxes are not the only area where singles are discriminated against.

For singles with and without children, there is an organization called the American Association for Single People and its membership division is called Unmarried America (www.unmarriedamerica.org. )

On its Web site, there is a section about how the tax code penalizes singles (www.unmarriedamerica.org/taxes/john-fox-chat.html); another section called “The High Cost of Being Single in America or the financial consequences of marital status discrimination” (www.unmarriedamerica.org/costdiscrimination.htm) and one on “Singles-friendly Workplace Campaign (www.unmarriedamerica.org/workplace/workcampaign.htm).

[forgethell]

1. The US tax code attempts

to do 3 things: Tax all individuals of equal income equally(approximately, anyway), tax all families of equal income equally, and be progressive. It can accomplish any two of those objectives, but not all three.

Which one should get the shaft? I have my opinion, but I would like to hear yours.

[tkulesa]

2. Straw Man arguement

Why can't a tax code do all three?

[forgethell]

5. Mathematicaly impossible!

Think it through. If a wife makes enough to pay a higher rate than the husband, then if the tax is progressive and families pay the same rate at equal incomes, then the husband pays the higher rate, too. Just like today. But if individuals are taxed at the same rate for equal incomes, then the husband should have a lowwer rate.

Geez!!

[Demobrat]

3. Larkspur, forget it.

You're not shouldering your share of the misery burden, so it's only right that the tax burden should fall disproportionately on you (and me). Just ask anybody with kids.

[AP]

4. Allow people to pair up without having to get married.

The tax code should give some incentive to people forming units which allow them to work and live better lives.

It should also give breaks to people with kids who need the breaks. Society must reproduce itself for society to survive. We have to give breaks for people with kids.

However, I agree with the general sentiment that married people shouldn't get huge tax breaks on top of all the other tremendous financial benefits they receive from being married. And the tax code should also help people who have the hardest time making it -- ie, single people without huge incomes.

[bleedingheart]

6. I do want to add that married people with kids have

a lot of expenses that well exceed the deductions in some cases.

There is the expense of feeding, clothing and caring for children. I pay a lot more for my healthcare coverage because I am covering two small kids...if it were just me and the Mr. B...it would be cheaper. My daycare costs to work are in excess of $1000 a month....for two munchkins and I will have to continue to pay for daycare until they are old enough to stay home alone after school I pay it willingly but hell I don't get a really big tax break for that either.

I also am putting money away for the day that they go to college because Mr. B and I make just enough to exclude us from any grants..etc.. so unless the little b-b's are brilliant or physically talented and get scholarships...I am going to have to foot at least half their bill for college...

Did I mention the braces, the special glasses, the copays on the asthma drugs for these little sweetie pies? My son's new really good optometrist is not covered by my insurance so there goes $600 out my pocket...and oh it is back to school right now and I have to buy the school supplies that the school doesn't provide along with new shoes, haircuts, etc...

Now I don't regret the taxes I pay but I can honestly say I am not getting some lucrative "bonus" from our tax system just cuz I am married and I have kids.

And last but not least I love my children and am very happy to have them as is my sister and in her case she is scared out of her mind that * is going to draft her boys off after she and her hubby spent 18 + years raising them.