Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (54768)	6/29/1999 4:27:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

It's really a working spouse tax, and a work hard and get a raise tax, and a study hard and get a better job tax. The problem is the so-called progressive income tax. The solution is not to tinker with the current monstrosity making it even more complicated. The solution is a flat tax or a national retail sales tax.

To: miraje who wrote (54768)	6/29/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Can you point me to a document that outlines this in the manner you speak? Because that is not what I have here. What my document (which is not online unfortunately) implies is that "replealing the marriage penalty" will mean that if one spouse works with a non-working spouse, then they will receive favorable tax treatment vs. two singles. Example single person makes 100K and spouse makes 40K. Roughly for 2 single people, 100K taxed at 36% (is it?) and 40K 33% Otoh, a married couple with a combined 130K income don't bump to that 36% threshold. The lower income pulls the total down. Is this not the case? I am in favor of the same treatment for married couples vs. singles, as well as just simplifying the whole thing.