History and Taxes
Joepistole said:
Did you read the articles? Single people pay more in taxes than their married counterparts. That is one arguement for same sex marriage. Why should marital status matter to the taxman?
Come on, Joe. I already know you're more aware of history than that.
Let's try it colloquially.
When I think of Lorelei, my head turns all around. As gentle as a butterfly, she moves without a sound. I call her on the telephone, she says be there by eight. Tonight's the night she's moving in, and I can hardly wait.
The way she moves, ooh ooh ooh-ooh. I gotta say, "Lorelei let's live together. Brighter than the stars forever."
"Lorelei let's live together. Brighter than the stars forever. Oh baby, forever."
In 1976, that sort of lyric was scandalous.
Now, watching you argue economy and finances with people, I'm quite certain you could do a better job of describing the historical evolution of our tax code than I could.
But the underlying idea is that a married couple functions together, while single people function independently. MFJ status reflects that functional union; singles do not, by nature, have another to function in union with.
The idea of supporting family growth by giving married couples a tax break via MFJ makes a certain amount of sense when viewed in such an historical context. Perhaps in the twenty-first century, with more fractured families, single parents, and two-income families, it's time to get rid of MFJ and simply levy the income tax on each person. I don't have an objection to that.
But if there is discrimination against single people in the tax code, it has emerged in recent decades and independently of the intent to bolster families.
Strangely, though, it was only a few years ago that we were still hearing people complain about the "marriage penalty" by which married couples were oppressed by taxes compared to single people.
And, yes, it seems odd to me that you should be proposing these notions without any apparent regard to history. Why should marital status matter to the taxman? That answer is in the historical record, and it has to do with the idea of having one mouth to feed versus four. But the idea that this has always been willful penalization of single people doesn't fly. That's a very recent idea, and contradicts the anti-tax argument pertaining to marriage that preceded it.
And I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.
It will take a while to dig up the legislation or policy directive that created MFS in 1952, MFJ in 1955, or four tax schedules (MFJ, MFS, Single, Head of Household) in 1971.
Meanwhile, plenty will still assert that the so-called "marriage penalty" still exists.