Comments on: Better ways to fix what’s left of the income tax marriage penalty http://unmarried.org/blog/2009/09/29/better-ways-to-fix-whats-left-of-the-income-tax-marriage-penalty/ Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:28:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jim Larson http://unmarried.org/blog/2009/09/29/better-ways-to-fix-whats-left-of-the-income-tax-marriage-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-6919 Jim Larson Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:36:03 +0000 http://unmarried.org/blog/?p=353#comment-6919 [QUOTE] Given the many forms of modern families, two policy alternatives are clearly preferable…. First, policymakers should expand the definition of family for tax purposes to include unmarried opposite- and same-sex couples, single parents, cohabiting unmarried family members, and perhaps even platonic roommates demonstrating economic interdependence. These families share the same kind of expenses, responsibilities, and liabilities as married families. There is no reason for the tax system to treat them differently. Under an expanded definition of the family unit, “marriage” penalties would become “family” penalties, and doubling tax brackets for families would benefit all multi-person households. [END QUOTE] I'm not thrilled that people living alone or not in relationships that are approved by federal bureaucrats (or ATMP for that matter) should be massively subsidizing (on average in the thousands of dollars) federally-approved relationships. Expanding marriage tax benefits to certain federally-approved non-married relationships increases the share of the tax burden on those who have to pay for these expanded tax breaks -- those living alone and those not in federally-approved relationships and living arrangements. In particular, many elderly women will suffer under this proposal. Half of women over 65 are widows, and once they pass age 65, only 2% of widows remarry. No wonder - there are 145 over-65 women per 100 over-65 men. Thus laws and business practices that discriminate against the uncoupled and others not living together in federally-approved relationships discriminate more heavily against women than men, especially elderly women. Especially galling in the above was the wording "and perhaps even platonic roommates demonstrating economic interdependence". Wow, why perhaps? Why should platonic relationships demonstrating economic interdependence be a "maybe" for subsidies, while subsidies for sexually intimate couples are beyond question? (And are sexually intimate couples always more economically interdependent than platonic roommates?) Anyway, why should economically independent people subsidize economically interdependent people? And how to demonstrate economic interdependence anyway -- when crunch time comes in a big way, e.g. major illness and medical expenses, are we sure our lover (or platonic roommate) will come through or walk out? I live alone in a 60-unit townhouse complex, as do many of my neighbors. But nonetheless, we take care of each other. [QUOTE] Given the many forms of modern families, two policy alternatives are clearly preferable…. First, policymakers should expand the definition of family for tax purposes to include unmarried opposite- and same-sex couples, single parents, cohabiting unmarried family members, and perhaps even platonic roommates demonstrating economic interdependence. These families share the same kind of expenses, responsibilities, and liabilities as married families. There is no reason for the tax system to treat them differently. Under an expanded definition of the family unit, “marriage” penalties would become “family” penalties, and doubling tax brackets for families would benefit all multi-person households. [END QUOTE]

I’m not thrilled that people living alone or not in relationships that are approved by federal bureaucrats (or ATMP for that matter) should be massively subsidizing (on average in the thousands of dollars) federally-approved relationships.

Expanding marriage tax benefits to certain federally-approved non-married relationships increases the share of the tax burden on those who have to pay for these expanded tax breaks — those living alone and those not in federally-approved relationships and living arrangements.

In particular, many elderly women will suffer under this proposal. Half of women over 65 are widows, and once they pass age 65, only 2% of widows remarry. No wonder – there are 145 over-65 women per 100 over-65 men. Thus laws and business practices that discriminate against the uncoupled and others not living together in federally-approved relationships discriminate more heavily against women than men, especially elderly women.

Especially galling in the above was the wording “and perhaps even platonic roommates demonstrating economic interdependence”. Wow, why perhaps? Why should platonic relationships demonstrating economic interdependence be a “maybe” for subsidies, while subsidies for sexually intimate couples are beyond question? (And are sexually intimate couples always more economically interdependent than platonic roommates?)

Anyway, why should economically independent people subsidize economically interdependent people? And how to demonstrate economic interdependence anyway — when crunch time comes in a big way, e.g. major illness and medical expenses, are we sure our lover (or platonic roommate) will come through or walk out?

I live alone in a 60-unit townhouse complex, as do many of my neighbors. But nonetheless, we take care of each other.

]]> By: Jim Larson http://unmarried.org/blog/2009/09/29/better-ways-to-fix-whats-left-of-the-income-tax-marriage-penalty/comment-page-1/#comment-6918 Jim Larson Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:34:08 +0000 http://unmarried.org/blog/?p=353#comment-6918 The reader should be aware that for every 3 married couples that pay a marriage penalty, 5 married couples get a marriage bonus. And on average, marriage bonuses exceed penalties by $30 billion (in 2004). This $30 billion subsidy is paid for by unmarried / single people. See http://www.unmarried.org/federal-income-taxes.html for more information. This unfair subsidy was tripled by 2001 and 2003 tax legislation. This legislation is set to expire at the end of 2010. But it is likely to be renewed and made "permanent" before then, unless we unmarrieds stand up and protest paying $30 billion higher taxes to finance this net marriage bonus subsidy. The reader should be aware that for every 3 married couples that pay a marriage penalty, 5 married couples get a marriage bonus. And on average, marriage bonuses exceed penalties by $30 billion (in 2004). This $30 billion subsidy is paid for by unmarried / single people. See http://www.unmarried.org/federal-income-taxes.html for more information.

This unfair subsidy was tripled by 2001 and 2003 tax legislation. This legislation is set to expire at the end of 2010. But it is likely to be renewed and made “permanent” before then, unless we unmarrieds stand up and protest paying $30 billion higher taxes to finance this net marriage bonus subsidy.

]]>