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: Bill who wrote (927)	7/12/1999 12:13:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769670

"Totally idiotic." You surprised? JLA

To: Bill who wrote (927)	7/12/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Because Bill, I think the "marriage tax penalty" terminology has been redefined. You are correct I agree in your last example those 2 couples should pay the same tax. They should fix that. Unfortunately, in an attempt to correct this mishap, they are also addressing the issue of a $125K breadwinner vs. two singles earning 80K and 45K. (It might be that this is a result of correcting problem #1) The singles will pay a lot more now. I believe the major thrust behind this legislation was to provide a tax break for their constituency which includes a lot of one-income high $$ families. Also as a side issue in defense of removing marriage from the tax code... this is the entire reason for all this gay rights and marriage stuff. Gays may or may not want to be married but what they really want is the same benefits as everybody else gets irrespective of the fact that they are gay (social security, IRAs for spouses etc.). The mere fact that we have a tax code and other programs that hang on someone's marital status causes all this friction among groups. The answer to all of this is to remove the social agenda of the right from politics.