[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H504-H505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              UNFAIRNESS IN TAX CODE: MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997 the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be here before the 
House to discuss an issue that is so important to the people of the 
district that I represent. I have the privilege of representing one of 
America's most diverse districts, representing the south side of 
Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will counties, bedroom 
communities like Morris, or the small town I live in, as well as a lot 
of cornfields and farm towns. Whether I am at the union hall, or the 
local VFW or the business and professional women's club or the local 
grain elevator, there is a common series of questions that my 
constituents ask time and time again:
  Do Americans feel that it is fair that our tax code imposes a higher 
tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 
million married working couples with two incomes pay on average $1,400 
more in higher taxes just because they are married than an identical 
couple with two incomes that lives together outside of marriage?

                              {time}  1300

  Do Americans feel that it is right, that it is fair, that our Tax 
Code actually punishes marriage and provides an incentive for divorce? 
In fact, really, for many married couples, the only way they can avoid 
paying the marriage tax penalty is to file the paperwork for divorce.
  My colleagues, the marriage tax penalty not only is unfair; it is 
wrong that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic institution: the 
institution of marriage. It punishes 21 million married working 
couples, on average, of $1,400.
  Let me give Members an example of a south suburban couple, a couple I 
have the privilege of representing in the south suburbs of Chicago. 
This particular couple, we have a machinist. He works at the local 
Caterpillar manufacturing plant where they make heavy equipment like 
bulldozers and cranes and earth movers. This particular machinist makes 
$30,500 a year.
  Now if he is single, after the standard deduction and personal 
exemptions, this particular machinist is in the 15 percent tax bracket. 
Now say he and his girlfriend decide to get married, and his girlfriend 
is a tenured schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools. Say she is 
making an identical income of $30,500. Now, if she stays single, she 
would also be in the 15 percent tax bracket.
  But because this machinist at the local Joliet Caterpillar plant and 
this tenured schoolteacher at the local Joliet public schools decide to 
get married, just because they get married, they, of course, file 
jointly on their income taxes; and in that case, with this couple, this 
machinist from Joliet and the schoolteacher from Joliet, since they are 
married and file jointly, their combined income of $61,000 produces the 
average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400.
  Is that right that this south suburb couple, this working couple with 
two incomes, should pay higher taxes just because they are married?
  When we think about it, $1,400 may be a drop in the bucket here in 
Washington, D.C. We do have a 1.7 trillion dollar budget. But for this 
working couple in Joliet, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior 
College, it is 3 months' worth of day care at a local child care center 
and several months' worth of car payments, and it is also a significant 
portion of a downpayment on a home.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing to the 
attention of the Members this very vital issue.
  At home, I have been saying that the surplus that we seem to be 
generating, part of that in tax cuts should go to alleviate this 
problem. So it fits well with the need to bring about some tax justice.
  I thank the gentleman very much for bringing it to the attention of 
the House.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, who I believe is a cosponsor of our legislation.
  It is so important we look for ways to allow middle-class working 
families to keep more of what they earn. As we

[[Page H505]]

look at the Tax Code we want to make the Tax Code fairer; and, clearly, 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty should be a number-one, must-do 
priority.
  I am proud that 235 Members of this House are cosponsoring the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which many have also said should be 
called the Working Women's Tax Relief Act, because in so many cases it 
is the woman's income which is taxed away with the marriage tax 
penalty.
  The Marriage Tax Elimination Act is fairly simple legislation. It 
allows a married working couple with two incomes to have the choice, 
the power of choice to choose whether to file as two singles or to file 
jointly, as many married couples do today; and, of course, we give them 
that choice. The benefit of having that choice is not only as a married 
couple they get the benefit from the lower rates but, in this case, 
this machinist from Joliet and this tenured schoolteacher from Joliet 
would have the opportunity to avoid the marriage tax penalty.
  My colleagues, this should be a bipartisan priority. Let us all work 
together.

                          ____________________