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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (795)	7/10/1999 12:40:00 PM
From: C Kahn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Point by illustration... Very interesting. The message I get from this illustration is that marital status should not be a consideration in the calculation of income tax. And let's face it, If #3 single mom is smart enough to make $60K day-trading, she's probably smart enough to shelter most of it, and doesn't need any financial sympathy. Another point I get from this illustration, is that marital status is not and should not necessarily be an indicator of party affiliation.

To: jttmab who wrote (795)	7/10/1999 1:37:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

James, I believe you are the only other person here that has agreed with me that the repeal of the marriage tax "penalty" is yet more conservative social engineering. The odd part is that the old republican party wanted less of this. Heres about the best news I have read on politics in a long time (republican extreme faction leaving for 3rd party): go2net.com ``He's favored by something like 1 percent of voters, and that's in his own state. His candidacy would make no difference to Bush at this point,' one RNC member said. But concerns were evident when the subject turned to possible third-party runs by conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan or former Family Research Council head Gary Bauer. Party sources said Friday that Smith had decided to leave the Republican Party but continue his uphill campaign for the White House. They said Smith, who has complained that the party has become too moderate, intends to announce his decision on the Senate floor Tuesday.

To: jttmab who wrote (795)	7/12/1999 9:08:00 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 769670

A conservative would favor a flat tax for all income levels with a fixed standard deduction of about 25K (for example). No tax on "investment", which means LT capital gains. So, assuming a single 20% tax rate, the married couple each earning $30K would pay $1,000 each. The married woman earning $60K would pay $7,000. And the single woman earning $60K on day trades (assuming all are ST gains) would pay $7,000. That is the conservative position.

To: jttmab who wrote (795)	7/12/1999 11:33:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Of course, I don't know why some people, liberals especially, have so much trouble understanding the marriage tax penalty. Let's take your married couple, each earning $30,000, for a total of $60,000 household income. According to IRS Publication 15, Circular E, January 1999, their tax would be $9,657.50. Now, let's say the two of them decided to live in sin, without officially tying the knot. Each earns $30,000 for a total household income of $60,000. Filing as singles, the total tax would be $8,907.00. The marriage tax penalty, using your own example, is $750.50. Now, tell me why you don't think this married couple should be taxed the same as if they were living in sin.