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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (4851)	9/22/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Respond to of 67261

Peter, you don't get to pick and choose; there is no what about #5; if you are for family values, you are for the entire list.

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (4851)	9/22/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Respond to of 67261

The tax code; the two income families, the so called marriage penalty is used to pay for a tax break that is given for stay at home mom's. This was all decided as the supportive thing to do for stay at home mom's. If they are going to stop funding the tax cut to stay out home mom's from the working couples, they should give the tax break to two income families below say $100,000 in combined income. I don't want to see the rich got out of paying for the stay at home mom's. All of this is really very silly; it is a twisting of the way the code is constructed. The problem with the marriage penalty is that it effects middle and lower class people to much. It needs to be adjusted, not eliminated.