It's a shame they simply can't cut taxes... There's always some other hoop we'll need to jump through... In my opinion they (elitest losers) don't want the mother staying home to raise the children. Break up the family institution at any cost.
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: Tenorlove [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 8:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CTRL] The Hidden Meaning Of Marriage Tax Repeal
-Caveat Lector-
> The Hidden Meaning Of Marriage Tax Repeal
>
> March 7, 2001 by: Phyllis Schlafly
>
> Repeal of the marriage tax penalty was always good for a big round
> of applause in the campaign speeches of most political candidates
> last year. But it's scheduled for bumpy sledding in the drafting of
> this
> year's tax-cut bill.
>
> The marriage tax is not verbally expressed as policy in any statute
> but is buried in the numbers. It is a consequence of the fact that
> our
> income tax tables treat a married couple as only 1.67 persons
> instead of two whole persons.
>
> Few people understand how the marriage tax functions or how it
> should be remedied except the green-eyeshade number-crunchers.
> But dollars are not all that matters; ideology is at stake in the
> drafting
> of changes in the income tax law.
>
> Is the purpose of cutting the marriage tax to accord long overdue
> socio-economic respect for marriage as an institution fundamental to
> our society and to the raising of children? Or is the purpose to
> enable
> government to engage in national economic planning by using tax
> policy to influence human behavior?
>
> If the purpose is the former, then it follows that all married
> couples
> with the same income should be taxed equally. If the plan is to give
> a
> tax break to two-earner couples only, that will replace the marriage
> penalty with a new homemaker penalty.
>
> That's what's behind the controversy now going on behind closed
> doors in Washington. Even those politicians who don't particularly
> care about promoting marriage should be squeamish about
> discriminating against one type of married couples in favor of
> another.
>
> Last year's Congress dealt fairly with this issue by passing a bill
> that
> taxed one-earner and two-earner married couples equally. Bill Clinton
> showed which side he was on by vetoing the bill, and it did not
> become law.
>
> Unfortunately, the White House executive summary of the
> President's tax-cut proposal calls for "reducing the marriage penalty
> by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples." Not
> only does this proposal give less relief than the bill passed by
> Congress last year but, even worse, it would impose a new
> homemaker penalty on one-earner couples.
>
> Since the Bush tax cuts would be phased in over five to seven years,
> for simplicity, let's consider what they would accomplish after they
> become fully operative.
>
> Let's say a married couple is struggling financially and needs more
> income to support the family, perhaps because of the birth of a
> child.
> What choices are available?
>
> In one family, assume the wife takes a job and puts her children in
> daycare. This couple would get a marriage tax deduction of 10
> percent of her salary up to $30,000; that chops as much as $990 off
> the family's federal income tax bill (at the new 33 percent top Bush
> tax rate). In addition, this couple qualifies for the existing tax
> credit
> for child-care expenses, which is worth up to $960.
>
> Now consider another family where the husband moonlights at a
> second job so his wife can care for their children at home. This
> family
> will not qualify for either the new Bush marriage tax break or the
> child-care credit that exists in current tax law.
>
> The husband and wife surely work just as hard in this second family
> as in the first. Why should they pay up to $1,950 more in federal
> income taxes on the same family income?
>
> Moonlighting at a second job is just one of several ways a husband
> can provide his children with the benefits of a fulltime mother, and
> avoid commercial daycare. The husband can work longer hours at his
> first job; he can make the extra effort required to get a higher
> paying
> job; he can go to school at night to train for a higher paying
> career.
>
> Who are the bureaucrats who presume to use the tax power to force
> traditional husband-breadwinner, wife-homemaker couples to
> subsidize two-earner couples who hire paid child care?
>
> The marriage penalty in the tax code is an immoral policy regardless
> of one-earner or two-earner households. Giving a tax cut only to
> two-earner couples would send the radical feminist message that the
> government sees no value in a homemaker's work at home, that the
> role of a "non-working" wife and mother is less socially beneficial
> (or
> less worthy) than paid employment.
>
> Disturbing emanations from the tax-writing process indicate that this
> discrimination is not inadvertent. A leading economic adviser praised
> the goal of inducing married women toward greater participation in
> the
> labor force because that would increase our Gross Domestic Product
> and yield a greater federal budget surplus.
>
> Let's get this issue out on the table instead of concealing it in the
> arcane depths of the tax tables. Let the American people decide
> whether they want income tax policy to bolster the institution of
> marriage OR to bolster the GDP by inducing more women to join the
> labor force.
>
> Phyllis Schlafly column 3-07-01
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Read this column online:
> http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/mar01/01-03-07.shtml
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Eagle Forum supports important modifications
> to President Bush's tax cut plan.
> http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/01-03-06/tax-cut.shtml
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Eagle Forum * PO Box 618 * Alton, IL 62002
> Phone: 618-462-5415 * Fax: 618-462-8909
> http://www.eagleforum.org * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> EAGLE FORUM
> PO Box 618
> Alton, IL 62002
> Phone: 618-462-5415
> Fax: 618-462-8909
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds-is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
