Ethics & Religion
A Column by Michael J. McManus
 

Home
Page

For Current Column
See the Home Page

 

About the
Columnist

 

Search this
Site...

 

Column Archives
List of all columns 
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

2011

2010

2009
2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

For 2003 and earlier
only the title is listed.
Use the Search Function
to find the article.

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

 

About The
Columnist

 

Email
Comments
to Mike

July 29, 2000
Column #987

CONGRESS PASSES MARITAL TAX RELIEF

     Congress will send a popular bill to cut taxes for married couples this week to President Clinton, who has pledged to veto it. If he does, he will hurt Al Gore's odds of being elected President, and boost Bush's prospects, since he has pledged to sign the tax reform.

     The bill would cut taxes by $292 billion over 10 years. The Treasury Department reports that nearly half of the 51.4 million couples filing joint tax returns in 1999 paid a marriage penalty, averaging $1,141. They are couples with both parties working with roughly equal incomes.

     There are 66 marriage tax penalties built into the law. This bill would eliminate two large ones and trim another. Consider two teachers earning $26,000 each, who are cohabiting. If they marry, they suddenly have to pay higher taxes for two reasons. Filing separately, they can each claim a standard deduction of $4,400, or $8,800 in all. But if they marry, their standard deduction is only $7,350. The bill would instantly raise that to $8,800.

     Similarly, each of their salaries are in the 15 percent tax bracket if they remain single. But if they marry, the 15 percent bracket applies only to the first $43,850 of their joint income. The rest is taxed at 28 percent. The tax reform would gradually increase, over five years, the income covered by the 15 percent bracket, rising to $52,500, twice the level for single filers. 

     A poll by Wirthlin Worldwide found that 85 percent of Americans believe that the marriage tax penalty is unfair. 

     Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, summarized the moral issue this way: ''To tax people for being married is counter-productive and unfair. We should do anything we can do to help promote the formation and perpetuation of stable families. That is helpful, not hurtful to society in numerous ways.'' 

     Interestingly, however, neither the Catholic bishops nor the National Council of Churches have taken a stand on the trimming of the marriage penalty. 

     And some leaders of the marriage movement are opposed to it. ''I would veto it,'' says David Popenoe, Co-Director of The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. ''It is a huge tax break for the rich. I am in favor of ending the marriage penalty. But this goes way beyond by giving additional tax breaks to joint filers, when they have only one earner.''

     He's right that the law would increase the so-called ''marriage bonus'' now received by 21 million couples, or 41 percent of married couples. Such couples paid less in taxes than they would have if they remained single. The bonus averages $1,274 and is highest among couples with stay-at-home moms. 

     However, the Family Research Council disagrees: ''The contribution of a stay-at-home spouse should not be denigrated by suggesting that individual's contribution is of less value than the person who brings home the only, or largest paycheck.'' An increase of the standard deduction or tax brackets ''does not equal the added responsibility'' assumed by a parent at home. Indeed, a two-income family earns $58,381 while a single earner family must live on $33,748 on average.

     On the other hand, the biggest marriage penalty is paid by poor couples who marry. 

     Eugene Steurle of the Urban Institute notes that a single mother on welfare who marries a man earning $8 an hour, loses her $4,668 welfare allowance, and sees food stamps cut from $3,751 to $2,332, and her Medicaid benefit cut from $4,564 to $2,412. This is partly offset by getting a new Earned Income Tax Credit of $2,799, and avoiding $1,380 of income taxes. But the poor family still loses $4,058 or 15 percent of its income by marrying, rather than cohabiting. 

     However, the bill, which was passed in the House with 51 Democrats joining Republicans and with seven Democratic Senators joining Republicans would also increase the Earned Income Tax Credit of a family earning $30,000 from $493 to $1,199, a huge 143% hike.

     That is by far the largest gain in the bill, and it is targeted at the lowest income Americans. Couples earning $50,000 to $75,000 would see a tax cut of 7 to 13 percent.

     The bill is not perfect. It should reduce the marriage penalty even more than it does.  However, I predict that if Clinton signs the bill, we'd see three important changes: a reduction of cohabiting couples, an increase in the marriage rate and a decrease in the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Marriage penalties were introduced in 1969. Since that foolish step, cohabitation has soared 8-fold, the marriage rate has plummeted 35 percent and illegitimacy has tripled.

     It is time to reverse those trends by honoring marriage rather than taxing it.

Copyright 2000 Michael J. McManus.

  30+ Years / 1700+ Columns
  LATEST ARTICLE
  December 7, 2017: Column 1894: Religious Liberty at Supreme Court
  Recent Columns
  Crises America Has Overcome
  'Jesus In the Court Room' - Part I
  'Jesus In the Court Room' - Part II
  An Immoral Tax Cut
  Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation
  How to Cut - Not Add To - the Deficit
  Why Aren't Famous Sexual Offenders Prosecuted?
  How To Solve America's Opioid Addiction
  After Las Vegas: Gun Control?
  Barbara Blaine & Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
  How to Cut the Divorce Rate
  The Worst Valentine: Cohabitation
  Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
  Christianity Gives Women Equal Opportunity
  Sextortion Kills Teens
  Assisted Suicide Is Growing
  Shared Parenting - A Major Answer
  How To Reduce Drunk Driving Deaths
  Impact of Divorce on Kids
  Porn Harms Children & Marriage
  The Opioid Crisis: What To Do
  Sex Before First Date?
  A Marshall Plan For Marriage
  Don't Divorce - Part II
  Don't Divorce Part 1
  Can Euthanasia Be Justified?
  Cohabitation: A Growing Problem - Part I
  Cohabitation: A Growing Problem - Part II
  Texting While Driving - A Killer
  Recent Searches
  euthanasia, cohabitation, sexting, sextortion, alcoholism, prayer, guns, same sex marriage, abortion, depression, islam, divorce, polygamy, religious liberty, health care, pornography, teen sex, abortion and infanticide, Roe+v+Wade, supreme court, marriage, movies, violence, celibacy, living+together, cohabitation, ethics+and+religion, pornography, adultery, divorce, saving+marriages
©2017 Michael J. McManus syndicated columnist  / mike@marriagesavers.org
Ethics & Religion at http://www.ethicsandreligion.com
9311 Harrington Dr. / Potomac, MD 20854 / 301 978-7105
President & Co-Chair Marriage Savers / www.marriagesavers.org
Site Sponsored by enktesis.com