Finally the Senate has passed a bill eliminating the “marriage penalty” from federal income tax.
What I find most ironic, and disturbing, is that after fighting so hard against the elimination of the marriage penalty and promising to veto it because of the amount of money that the IRS would cease to collect, our president has said that he will sign the bill if congress gives him another bill promising to spend hundreds of billions more on elderly care.
Oh yeah, he did promise us 200+ million dollar deficits into eternity, didn’t he. I guess he’s trying to build his legacy living up to another promise.
The worst part of it is that if Clinton ultimately signs the bill, he will undoubtedly claim credit for it, ala welfare reform, balanced budget, and other proposals that he fought against.
As much as I favor the “elimination of the marriage penalty”, there was more to it than that, as per the usual DC shenanigans.
The way I heard it, Republicans tied in a whole lotta other stuff to the afore mentioned tax cut, and Clinton was in a position of having to veto, or face too much complaining from Demos. So the Repubs also time this perfectly with the Convention, and if said Veto comes down, they get to bash the Demos for it, and “show the ‘Mericun People who’s really lookin’ out for 'em”.
I hate to say it, but this is politics as usual, as much as I will like to have the break.
In other news, Al Gore is still Al Gore. No Change expected.
[hijack]
Vacation was much needed. I’m fully rested and ready to take on some of the wackier SDMB posters. It looks like you and most everyone else was able to defend themself in my absence.
[/hijack]
As much as I dislike the slime of politics, I generally get a kick out of a politician having his exact words thrown back in his face. (It reminds him that if he had been straight-up from the beginning that he wouldn’t be eating crow now.)
I’d love to see the GOP strip the bill down to the basic “kill the marriage penalty” roots and give it to the prez with the disclaimer, “Here’s a clean bill. Sign it as-is and on it’s own merits.”
I’d love to see any legislation boiled down to its essentials like this, minus all the riders. Bugs me to no end when some no-brainer bill, like disaster relief, acquires the barnacles of pet projects, like outlawing flag burning or some damn thing.
Here in Washington state, an initiative that passed in the last election was just struck down by the state Supreme Court because it modified two separate sections of law and was therefore declared unconstitutional. (What the initiative did is a separate subject; I’m trying to avoid making this a bigger hijack than it is.) Personally, I don’t see why all legislation shouldn’t be subject to this restriction. Yes, yes, I understand logrolling, and gluing things together so compromises pass at the same time, but it seems like it causes more problems than it solves.
Ok, folks, speaking solely as a professional, an EA, the bill did NOT “kill the marriage penalty”. What it did was increase deductions for married couples. See, the problem with the tax code is that it makes it very advantageous to be a “traditional” family, ie Husband who works, wife who does not, and kids. By making that “Republican fantasy” (opinion added) advantageous, it makes it expensive to be a “DINK” family. The Republicans were unwiling to give up the
idea of big tax breaks for the “traditional” family, so instead, gave a tax break to ALL married couples, making it even MORE advantageous to be a “traditional” family. And, of course, helping out the very RICH families, also, as they are very concerned about the rich paying too much taxes.
There are ways to eliminate just the marriage “penalty” (which is not a penalty, and actually does not exist, per se), but they require complex stuff like the “two-earner” deduction/calculation, from the pre '86 tax code.
I am afaid I would have vetoed this bad tax admendment also.
There were others that would have just eliminated the “marriage penalty”, but the Republicans did not consider them.
This is not what I’ve seen, from following the issue in the news. What I understood is that the tax law does require a married couple who earn $40,000 each to pay more taxes than would two singles who each earned $40,000. The Republicans evened it out. Where they went one step further, was in making a “traditional” couple with the principle wage earner making $80,000 also be equal to two couples who each earn $40,000 (and better off than two singles who earn $80,000 and $0).
Seeing as you are a professional (I thought an EA is a pension actuary - do you do tax law as well?), I guess you would be right, but I wonder if you could confirm this, and/or provide some documentation.
IZZY: EA stands for “Enrolled Agent”, also. ie, a tax professional. Yes, you are right, but in doing that they also increased the deduction for a married couple where just ONE of the 2 works. That was unessesary. It’s like burning down the house to get rid of the termites- sure, it works, BUT… So, in a way, they did not “get rid of the marriage penalty”- they just made it more advantageous to be married, ie a DINK couple now would pay like 2 Singles (not so bad), but a “traditional” family ALSO gets an additional 2K tax cut. That second part is unfair and unsessesary. The “marriage penalty” is completely a construct of a desire to give “traditional” families a tax break. Otherwise we could all just file as a 'person", forget the filing status.
As a professional, I wonder if you can comment on the following:
The truly rich do not have to pay very much in taxes, since thay can afford all the right deductions. It’s the working people who depend strictly on salary for their income (vs. passive investments like income property) who are hit the hardest. Regardless of the Actual Salary, 40k or 140k, the tax burden truly rests on their shoulders.
So when we hear all this noise about the republicans looking out for the rich, I wonder how many Democrats (emphisys on Rats) are really looking out for the working man?
Sili (Not a professional, or a Republican. Just tired of the bull on both sides)
Well, actually, TS, the Rich do pay more, just not as MUCH more as they have. Note, in order to figure this, you have to consider all federal “income” taxes, including fica, futa, medicare, etc.
I am afraid us wage slaves are screwed by both parties. The Republicans want to cut taxes for the Rich, and families. The Demos want to use the $$ for programs, instead of cutting taxes. In the LONG run, the Demo agenda, if it actually reduces the debt, as it seems to be doing, will be a boon to us, but it is slight consolation, now. So, the Repubs are your 'enemy", and the Demos are a friend who means well, but doesn’t come thru.
Dang. Every time I start thinking that these guys are doing something right, I wind up learning that “I was confused”. I wonder if the problem is with me thinking or with them fixing?
What about changing the code so that the only decuction(s) are for those with income? It would be a political nightmare to suggest and/or implement, but the deduction should be removed from the dependents.
I don’t buy this. The Democrats have no interest in reducing the debt. They only say this to stave off the possibility of tax cuts, and then, when the danger is passed start looking around for new benefits to offer their constituencies. the reason the defecit is being reduced now is because the Republican/Democrat stalemate has not given either one the opportunity to do enact any changes.
Are you kidding. HTere have been at least 10 Gores already. He is expected to change quite a few times more.
Bottom line: taxes are being lowered. So what if it doesnn’t affect everybody in the US? It is a good start.
I can’t stand this idea that the rich and corporations aren’t contributing their “fair share”. The richest people in America pay most of the income taxes into the system. I checked with the Treasurer yesterday and our corporate tax rate is 37%. Teh rich and corporations are paying quite a bit.
Must take issue with this one. The Democrats have not controlled the congress, and have had little control over Ecomomic policy, even with Billy in office. The deficit (if it is in fact reduced) sure as heck did not get that way based on any actions/legislation/budget proposals put forth by Democracts either. I will be happy to admin I am wrong if so proven, but I just don’t remember anything of the sort. Sorry Daniel, I don’t mean to question your Professionalism, or anything like that.
Mr.Zambezi,
He tried changing, but he’s the same piece of sh, er, wood he’s always been.
Yes, the rates that we set for the “rich” and corporations may be high, but I would argue that it is also much easier for them to get deductions and all kinds of tax shelters. If you compare a person working and depending only on their 50K a year salary, (who has not been able to buy a home) to a financially independant person who earns 150K, but get’s much more income from other investments, they may end up with the same tax bill. Given that both pay what they are “supposed to pay”, it is much harder for the person earning 60K to get any tax deductions and still meet all other obligations most folks have. OTOH, the 150K plus other person, would be able to buy homes, businesses, land, tax deffered mutual funds, etc. and still maitain a nice life style without paying close to the % of the other guy.
I know it is much more complex than we can really dig into here, but it is not news that the very rich do not have to pay taxes (if they are extremely clever) in nearly the same % of income as the average joe.
BTW, I also think it is extremely bad policy to punish people (tax wise) who simply put money into savings accounts. After all, that is very fiscally responsible, still allows for economic growth since the Banks can invest the money, and we seem to punish this. Go figure.
So have we traded a marriage penalty for a single penalty? Single, high middle-income wage earners do pay a lot of tax, what with the lack of deductions and such.
I’m asking this because I don’t begin to understand the tax code, but for every give there’s usually a take.
Peace,
mangeorge
