Daniel,
Because he is wealthier. His income goes all to himself, and is not shared by other people. This is part of the larger principle that wealthier people pay more. Do you propose changing this?
Absolutely it should be changed.
Getting married, raising children, etc. are choices. The cost of those choices should be borne by the individual(s) making the choice.
Why should the single guy pay more to pay for the couple, or the family that has chosen to spend their money on themselves instead of donating it to the common good as taxes?
SouthernStyle,
A person makes a choice to get married and have children. But the person’s spouse and children are real people, just as you are. They have a right to have the government look after their intrests just as you do. The spouse and children have a claim on the combined income of the family. Therefore, the family is, per person, poorer than the single with the same income.
My point was; do you wish to do away with the system of charging wealthier people more? If you don’t, there’s no reason to make these family member’s lives count any less than any other person’s.
You kind of make my point.
A person chooses to get married. This twosome then chooses to have children. Part of that decision making process is the knowledge that they now share amongst themselves, those things that they possess. Part of the responsibility that goes with the decision should be the understanding that each, as an individual, now has less than they had before.
The single individual has made the choice to NOT engage in a relationship where he must share half or more of his income.
Do you condone the confiscation of the single man’s assets to pay for the lifestyle of the family that has chosen their own lifestyle?
** I couldn’t agree more. But those cuts are going to come one at a time. You can’t shoot down every tax cut that doesn’t apply to 100% of the population.
Mr Z, there has been no sign of any tax cut for the single wage earner from the Republican Congress. Every such proposal has been roundly defeated by the GOP. The GOP wants to cut taxes for the rich and families only. The last bout of cuts helped the wealthy investors and folks with kids, only. C’mon, lets have some illusion of fairness, at least.
They have? Which ones?
I seem to recall over the years the Republicans constantly going introducing measures to reduce taxes (with the notable exception of George Bush), and facing constant Democratic opposition. I believe the reason why focus has recently been on the “marriage penalty” is because it has the stigma of unfairness to it, and thus has a better chance of withstanding Democratic opposition.
Well Dan, the poor pay a fraction of the taxes that the rich do so one could argue that they already have a break. But what about the earned income credit? Deductible tuition for lower income people?
Is it your contention that those with much lower tax rates are being treated unfairly? Seems to me the “wealthy” are the ones getting soaked right now.
It looks like I may be getting my wish.
Early indications are that Congress will deliver to the president a bill to reduce and ultimately eliminate the marriage penalty in the tax code with few, if any, “riders”.
And true to his liberal leaning ways, Clinton has promised a veto.
Mr.Zambezi, the only way I know to describe this kind of statement is that it’s silly. The rich pay taxes that far exceed the total income of the “poor”.
If we’re going to talk about fairness, we must address the issue of impact. You could double the taxes the rich pay, and still not have any real impact on their lifestyles. Except maybe their bragging rights. Our economic system is somehow out of balance, and the only way I can conceive of to eliminate these tax “breaks” to the working poor is to raise their incomes to a level where they no longer qualify.
But those of us who are already at or above that level go bonkers at the mere mention of attempts to do just that. Witness tha many debates on minimum wage.
Peace,
mangeorge
Depends entirely on what you call “rich”.
Do you consider someone making a million dollars a year “rich”? He’s in the 37% tax bracket. Not counting all of the things that make his effective tax less than the tax rate, this means he pays $370,000 in income tax, leaving him $630,000. Doubling 37% to 74% leaves him with $260,000 in disposable income.
Spending only half of what he makes now still gives him a better lifestyle that spending all of what he makes when you double his taxes.
To begin with, someone making 1 mil/yr would not pay 370 thou in taxes, just as you alluded to. I said double his taxes, not his tax rate. An important distinction.
But I should have been more specific. I’m referring to the really rich. Those making like 10 mil/yr and more.
Hell, I make only 50-60 thou/yr, and I’m considered rich by those referred to here as poor. Please don’t double my taxes. I wouldn’t be resourceful enough to live on what’s left. Been there. Don’t wanna go back. 
Peace,
mangeorge (Walk a mile in Kmart shoes)
Ok,
So what you’re really saying is that you want to double to the tax rate of someone making more than you ever expect to make.
To someone making minimum wage, 50K/yr may well be more then they ever expect to make in a year.
And following this to a logical conclusion… We are a democracy and a republic. Let’s vote on who gets the tax shaft.
Kind of ironic isn’t it. We can’t pass laws, establish hiring practices, or do anything to anyone based on nearly any factor that one can cling to as a minority.
But let that minority group be “successful” and WHAM! those not in that group insist on bending them over the furniture.
sad… readly sad…
No where did I say “want to…”, nor did I say “tax rate”.
I was simply trying to address the burden of taxes on those who aren’t so comfortably well-off as the rich vs those who have plenty.
I feel no empathy for Bill Gates and his peers. Their problems are well beyond the realm of my experience. I only see their material wealth and wonder what the hell they’re whining about.
I see (and remember) the lives of the working poor and wonder why they aren’t complaining more. For the rich to be as rich as they are, the poor must be as poor as they are. The wealthy can, and do, doom their workers to poverty only to increase their own wealth. Not to survive, but to become richer. That is the way of capitalism, right or wrong.
I’ll reserve my compassion for those who are struggling to survive. As for the problems of the rich? Well, let them eat dots.
Peace,
mangeorge
Izzy and Mr Z: the EITC is not a “new tax cut”, it is a very old tax credit. And it only applies to people with families. Every single “tax cut” proposed by the republicans gave benefits to the rich and families ONLY. The Demos suggested a 10% across the board cut- fair- true, for the very rich, 10% off their tax bill would be a LOT more than 10% off MY tax bill, but at least we all get 10%. The capital gains tax cut? For the rich. The Kid credit? For families. The “get rid of the marriage penalty” tac cut? For families. Show me one tax proposal, passed by the Republican Congress, and vetoed by the Prex, that would have cut even a $100 of my tax bill. You can’t- there has not been one.
good morning friends,
as a registered independant, i owe allegance to neither political party. (i find them about as different as moe and curley from the three stooges.)
just about election time, it sure seems that the emphasis shifts from passing needed legislation to political posturing. the republicans are sure hoping mr. clinton vetos this bill so mr. bush can slam him for it at the republican convention.
i have read this thread with interest, and i admit that i am not an expert on tax law. i took a small amout of time, and my turbotax software to explore what difference all this would make to me, a married middle class taxpayer.
the easy answer is: none! because we file a form with itemized deductions, the standard deduction makes no difference in the taxes i pay.
the complicated answer is: if we were unable to itemize deductions and we filed separate returns as single people the difference would be $172.00. that is the amount, on my tax return, that all this argument is about.
if it would actually make the difference, i would gladly pay the $172.00 to force both sides of this debate to shut the (expletive deleted)up, quit playing politics, and get busy on some real legislation!