[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H697-H698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ELIMINATE THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY NOW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). 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, today I rise to explain why enactment of the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so important with a series of 
questions: 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 suffer a tax penalty of $1,400 
more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it 
is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get 
divorced?
  The answer is pretty clear. Not only is the marriage tax penalty 
unfair, but it is wrong that our Tax Code punishes a married working 
couple with two incomes with higher taxes than an identical couple that 
chooses to live together outside of marriage. Twenty-one million 
married working couples suffer an average marriage tax penalty of 
$1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married.
  Some would say, why does that happen? Under our current Tax Code, a 
married working couple with two incomes usually files jointly. When 
they do, their combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket.
  Let me give an example here of a south suburban couple. I represent 
the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Illinois, as well as a 
lot of bedroom communities and rural areas. Let me give an example of a 
couple that lives in Joliet. Say you have a machinist who is working at 
the Joliet Caterpillar Manufacturing Plant, where they make heavy 
industrial equipment like bulldozers and cranes and earth movers. This 
machinist is making $30,500 a year in average income. If he is single, 
after standard deductions and exemptions, he is in the 15 percent tax 
bracket, being taxed at the 15 percent rate.
  Say he meets a gal and she is a public school teacher in the Joliet 
public schools. She has an identical income. This machinist who works 
the caterpillar and this Joliet public school teacher decide to get 
married. She has an income of $30,500 as well. When you combine their 
income when they file jointly, it produces a $1,400 average marriage 
tax penalty. Is that fair, just because this machinist at Caterpillar 
and this Joliet public school teacher decide to get married, that they 
should pay higher taxes just because they are married?
  I think it is wrong that our Tax Code punishes this machinist and 
this school teacher. I believe we should make it a priority to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty. If we think about it, in Joliet 
Illinois, in the district I am proud to represent, for this machinist 
and public schoolteacher, $1,400 is a lot of money. That is one year's 
tuition at Joliet Junior College, it is 3 months of day care at a local 
day care center, it is several months' worth of car payments and a 
significant portion of a down payment on a new home.
  The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which now has 235 cosponsors, would 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty and eliminate it now, because we 
would give married working couples with two incomes the power of choice 
to choose to file as two singles or jointly, whichever is to their 
financial advantage.
  The bottom line is, each individual, this machinist and this 
schoolteacher, under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, would be able to 
enjoy the lower tax rate and would be at the 15 percent rate, allowing 
them to keep that $1,400.

[[Page H698]]

  There are a number of ideas out there for tax relief this year. 
President Clinton talks about the need for child care. In fact, he 
talks about expanding the current child care tax credit. Let us compare 
what that means. Under the President's child care tax credit, which 
only families with children with incomes less than $50,000 would 
qualify for, the President's plan would provide $358 in extra take-home 
pay at the end of the year for the average couple that would qualify.
  The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, as an alternative to the 
President's plan, would actually provide $1,400. If we think about 
that, at a Joliet day care center for this machinist and schoolteacher 
living in Joliet, that is 3 weeks worth of day care under the 
President's proposal or 3 months' worth of day care under the Marriage 
Tax Elimination Act. The question is, which is better, 3 weeks under 
the President's plan, or 3 months under elimination of the Marriage Tax 
Penalty Act?
  The bottom line is we should be working to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. It is wrong that our Tax Code punishes marriage with higher 
taxes. We should make it the centerpiece of our budget discussions. I 
am pretty proud that this Congress, our new majority, which has been in 
place for 3 years, has provided more tax relief for middle-class 
families than any Congress in recent history.
  In 1996 we, of course, provided for the adoption tax credit to help 
families provide a loving home for children. In 1997 we provided a 
$500-per-child tax credit, which for Illinois families, for 3 million 
Illinois kids, would allow $1.5 billion in higher take-home pay for 
Illinois families.
  This year let us stop punishing marriage. Let us make elimination of 
the marriage tax penalty the number one must-do. Let us make it the 
centerpiece. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and do it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most 
unfair provision in the U.S. Tax Code: the marriage tax penalty. I want 
to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax 
burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living 
together outside of marriage.
  In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address 
outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus.
  A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut 
waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet 
to the fire to balance the budget.
  While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling 
at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top 
priority should be returning the budget surplus to America's families 
as additional middle-class tax relief.
  This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and 
working poor than any Congress of the last half century.
  I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by 
asking these questions: Do Americans feel it's fair that our tax code 
imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it's fair 
that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in 
taxes than a couple with the almost identical income living together 
outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an 
incentive to get divorced?
  In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax 
penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong.
  Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both 
spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in 
holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They 
pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the 
marriage  penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes 
society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a 
disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with 
children. In many cases it is a working women's issue.

  Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly 
affects middle class married working couples.
  For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my 
home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a 
tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in 
salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, 
they would pay 15%.

                                  MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE IN THE SOUTH SUBURBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Machinist    School teacher      Couple
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income...........................................      $30,500.00      $30,500.00      $61,000.00
Less personal exemption and standard deduction..................        6,550.00        6,550.00       11,800.00
Taxable income..................................................       23,950.00       23,950.00       49,200.00
Tax liability...................................................        3,592.50        3,592.50        8,563.00
Marriage penalty................................................  ..............  ..............        1,378.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  But if they chose to live their lives in holy matrimony, and now file 
jointly, their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into a higher tax 
bracket of 28 percent, producing a tax penalty of $1,400 in higher 
taxes.
  On average, America's married working couples pay $1,400 more a year 
in taxes than individuals with the same incomes. That's serious money. 
Everyday we get closer to April 15th more married couples will be 
realizing that they are suffering the marriage tax penalty.
  Particularly if you think of it in terms of: a down payment on a 
house or a car, one years tuition at a local community college, or 
several months worth of quality child care at a local day care center.
  To that end, Congressman David McIntosh and I have authored the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
  It would allow married couples a choice in filing their income taxes, 
either jointly or as individuals--which ever way lets them keep more of 
their own money.
  Our bill already has the bipartisan cosponsorship of 232 Members of 
the House and a similar bill in the Senate also enjoys widespread 
support.
  It isn't enough for President Clinton to suggest tax breaks for child 
care. The President's child care proposal would help a working couple 
afford, on average, three weeks of day care. Elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty would give the same couple the choice of paying 
for three months of child care--or addressing other family priorities. 
After all, parents know better than Washington what their family needs.
  We fondly remember the 1996 State of the Union address when the 
President declared emphatically that, quote ``the era of big government 
is over.''
  We must stick to our guns, and stay the course.
  There never was an American appetite for big government.
  But there certainly is for reforming the existing way government does 
business.
  And what better way to show the American people that our government 
will continue along the path to reform and prosperity than by 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  Ladies and Gentleman, we are on the verge of running a surplus. It's 
basic math.
  It means Americans are already paying more than is needed for 
government to do the job we expect of it.
  What better way to give back than to begin with mom and dad and the 
American family--the backbone of our society.
  We ask that President Clinton join with Congress and make elimination 
of the marriage tax penalty * * * bipartisan priority.
  Of all the challenges married couples face in providing home and 
hearth to America's children, the U.S. Tax Code should not be one of 
them.
  Lets eliminate The Marriage Tax Penalty and do it now.

       Which is better?

       Note: The President's Proposal to expand the child care tax 
     credit will pay for only 2 or 3 weeks of child care. The 
     Weller-McIntosh Marriage Tax Elimination Act, HR 2456, will 
     allow married couples to pay for 3 months of child care.

       Which Is Better, 3 Weeks or 3 Months?

        CHILD CARE OPTIONS UNDER THE MARRIAGE TAX ELIMINATION ACT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Average
                                          Average     weekly   Weeks day
                                            tax      day care     care
                                           relief      cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage Tax Elimination Act...........     $1,400       $127       11.0
President's Child Care Tax Credit......        358        127        2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                               

                          ____________________