|
Marriage
Tax Penalty
Replacing one
tax with another tax ...
In an effort to make raising
taxes on low to middle income Americans more palatable to those opposed to
tobacco legislation, Congress passed an amendment crafted by Sen. Phil Gramm,
R-Texas, to cut taxes and eliminate the Marriage Tax Penalty in exchange for
higher taxes on smokers.
Imagine that! In yet another example of
Beltway tax and spend logic, the Senate wants to approve a tax increase to fund
a tax decrease.
These greedy folks in Washington are willing to return
a tax that has been unfairly levied on taxpayers who choose to get married. In
1996, 21 million couples were taxed at a higher rate than couples living
together outside of the marriage covenant. Married couples pay on average
$1,400 more in taxes each year. The Marriage Tax is outrageous, it is unfair,
it is anti-family, and should be eliminated, but this is not the way to do it.
What likely was an attempt by
Sen. Gramm to kill the Tobacco Bill with this amendment, turned out to backfire
and actually pass.
Gramm's proposal would grant a
$3,300 tax deduction, phased in over several years, for married couples with
incomes of under $50,000. Only 25% of the value of the deduction would be given
for 1999, and the break would rise slowly, reaching 50% in 2006 and 100% in
2008.
Gramm said the cost of his measure would be $16 billion over the
next four years and $30 billion over the following five years. In all, he said,
it would send one-third of the money raised in the tobacco bill back to
taxpayers.
Now, let me get this straight. Are these Senators
graciously reducing taxes on married Americans? I don't think so. Sounds to me
like another Clintonized stealth tactic of disguising taxes by another name.
Get this! Of the $1,000 per person tax increase this bill would levy, they are
suggesting to return $333 of an unfair tax in exchange.
Well, I'm no
math expert but even subtracting $333 from $1,000 still leaves a tax increase
of $667 per individual per year. And, on top of that ... they are reducing this
tax increase with money they shouldn't be taking in the first place. Sounds
pretty deceptive to me. Do you buy that?
|
|
