Change tax code to pro­mote mar­riage

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Re­gard­ing the re­cent ar­ti­cles about the state of mar­riage in Amer­ica (Jan. 1 and Jan. 8 edi­tions), I am at a to­tal loss as to how any­one could approach chang­ing fam­ily struc­tures with­out start­ing with the U.S. Congress’ de­struc­tive tax on fam­i­lies, not with­stand­ing the White House pro­nounce­ments about elim­i­nat­ing the mar­riage penalty.

If one of our fam­ily mem­bers and in-law had not been mar­ried on De­cem­ber 31, 2005, their joint 1040 tax re­turn li­a­bil­ity of $67,000 would have to­taled $56,200 for two in­di­vid­ual sin­gle re­turns. With the same in­come and the same de­duc­tions, they would have paid $10,000 less tax.

If two bi­o­log­i­cal par­ents of two chil­dren, each earn­ing $15,000 for the tax 2006 year, get mar­ried, they lose over $4,400 in earned in­come tax credit, well over 15 per­cent of fam­ily in­come af­ter pay­roll taxes.

For15yearsafter­re­tire­ment,Ihave­worked as a sea­sonal tax pre­parer and have seen end­lessstream­sofwel­fare­queens,three­fourchil­dren­in­towall­with­d­if­fer­entsur­names,i.e.,dif­fer­ent bi­o­log­i­cal fa­thers, who work just long enough for the max­i­mum tax credit with­out com­pro­mis­ing in­come lev­els for food stamps, HUD, school lunches, Med­i­caid, etc.

Put the blame where it be­longs — the vot­ers who vote the Con­gress­peo­ple and pres­i­dents into of­fice who cre­ate struc­tures that de­stroy the fam­ily.

A sim­ple con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment would help solve the prob­lem: “Congress shall en­act no law in which un­mar­ried bi­o­log­i­cal par­ents whomar­ry­will­pay­more­tax­e­sor­receive­less gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies or ser­vices; mar­ried cou­ples who di­vorce will pay less taxes or re­ceive­more­gov­ern­mentsub­si­diesorser­vice.” Robert E Eck­ert, Jack­sonville, Florida

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.