Wow. What a screwed up tax system.
I'm sure a 200,000 page new tax reform package that needs to be passed so we can know what's in it can fix it
That is indeed screwed up, thanks Eagle for the education.
Wow. What a screwed up tax system.
Wow. What a screwed up tax system.
Yeah, people should be forced to get married if they want to live together. :thumbsup:I'm sure a 200,000 page new tax reform package that needs to be passed so we can know what's in it can fix it
That is indeed screwed up, thanks Eagle for the education.
Yeah, people should be forced to get married if they want to live together. :thumbsup:
Yeah, people should be forced to get married if they want to live together. :thumbsup:
Right because two people living together but not married don't deserve the same tax credits that married people get.Right because if you don't have a special tax filing status you can't live together
Reread the entire table. Furthermore, look up at example #3 of qualifying person under Head of Household.
Example 3girlfriend. Your girlfriend lived with you all year. Even though she may be your qualifying relative if the gross income and support tests (explained later) are met, she is not your qualifying person for head of household purposes because she is not related to you in the one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. See Table 4.
Anyone can be a dependent, and yes you may be able to claim your gf and her gaggle of bastard children as dependents, if they meet the tests for dependents, but they have to be related to you for qualify you to qualify for HoH.
Right because two people living together but not married don't deserve the same tax credits that married people get.
Table 4 has a "disclaimer" in terms of the definition which points to Table 5.
Table 4 has a "disclaimer" in terms of the definition which points to Table 5.
This - although arguably government has a vested interest in promoting marriage as an institution that stabilizes society. But I think two married individuals should have exactly the same deductions and tax liability as two single people of the same income. Government's function should not be deciding how much money one needs.There should be no advantage for either group. You want to be married and raise a family, it's your choice, you should plan & pay for it. You shouldn't get "help" from the government.
Shouldn't that be the conservative opinion?
This - although arguably government has a vested interest in promoting marriage as an institution that stabilizes society. But I think two married individuals should have exactly the same deductions and tax liability as two single people of the same income. Government's function should not be deciding how much money one needs.
-snip-
Here are my discussion questions:
1. Do you believe the marriage tax penalty is really about balancing the interests of singles who are penalized by not being married with the couples who do benefit from being married?
2. Do you believe the system is fair overall, or would it be more equal if the married limits were simply set to 2x the limits of single filers?
3. For those of you who are married, did the tax implications of being legally married factor into your decision to get legally married? Do you think the way the system is setup now either encourages or discourages marriage?
Thanks to Obama, all of the marriage penalties are back. Not just on income rates, but on deductions and phase out as well.
May great fuck be upon him for destroying the family.
So why are all Obama polices and tax law structured at 200 for single and 250 for married? That's a huge marriage penalty that the fucker signed into law.
Obamas goal is destruction of family.
Anytime we have a marriage penalty, or 2.0 bracket someone is going to be motivated to take advantage of it or to avoid it if a penalty. Living together while remaining unmarried no longer carries any social stigma so I think some will consider the various economic and other benefits and downsides before actually getting married.
By "marriage tax penalty", I mean the following:
Look at the current 2012 tax brackets:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/
For the 10 and 15% tax brackets, the limit for married filing jointly is exactly twice that of the single rate. For the 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% brackets the limits for married filing jointly are 1.7x, 1.2x, 1x, and 1x the limits for the single rate, respectively.
Additionally, the standard deduction for a married couple is currently double that of the single rate. According to this link, it used to be only 1.7x the single amount (prior to the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts):
http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/
The above link also outlines several other ways in which married couples could be penalized vs. singles with respect to taxes.
Why was the tax policy setup like this in the first place? I did some searching and came across this link:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba445
It claims that prior to 1948, married couples filed separate tax returns. In 1948, Congress passed a law that originally set the married filing jointly tax bracket limits at 2x the limits for singles. This was later amended in 1969 to make the married filiing jointly limits and standard deductions 1.6x the limits for singles.
In effect, they were apparently trying to strike a balance between couples who saw a tax benefit by getting married and singles who saw a tax penalty by not being married. The article above outlines two hypothetical situations that illustrate this point.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 partially relaxed these limits, as the smartmoney link above explains.
Here are my discussion questions:
1. Do you believe the marriage tax penalty is really about balancing the interests of singles who are penalized by not being married with the couples who do benefit from being married?
2. Do you believe the system is fair overall, or would it be more equal if the married limits were simply set to 2x the limits of single filers?
3. For those of you who are married, did the tax implications of being legally married factor into your decision to get legally married? Do you think the way the system is setup now either encourages or discourages marriage?
I am single so I would be curious to know what the married ATPN members think about this.