[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2987-H2994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARRIAGE PENALTY ELIMINATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is
recognized for 40 minutes.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, today the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller) and I would like to talk to our colleagues and those watching
at home about this issue of the marriage penalty that the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) mentioned in his earlier discussion.
This first came to my attention in a very serious way when two of my
constituents, Sharon Mallory and Dale Pierce, wrote me a letter last
February that moved me to investigate what exactly was happening in our
Tax Code. Sharon explained that they wanted to get married. They went
to H&R Block and found out that although they both worked at about $10-
an-hour jobs at a factory, they would be penalized $2,800 if they got
married. She would have to give up her $900 refund and pay those
additional taxes, simply because they got married. She went on to write
that they could not afford it, and it broke her heart that they could
not get married.
This marriage penalty is one of the most immoral provisions in our
Tax Code. It says to young people, older folks, anybody who is married
in this country, you are eligible to pay more taxes simply because you
are married. It is wrong; it is something that needs to be eliminated
in the Tax Code.
I have teamed up with my very good colleague, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), and we have introduced a bill, the Marriage
Penalty Elimination Act that is gaining more and more support every day
in Congress, here in the House and in the Senate, because Members
realize on the Democratic side and on the Republican side that this is
the wrong way to treat families in our country.
We have all suddenly begun to realize in this country that families
are indeed the centerpiece of our society. They are the ones that bring
up our children. The family unit is the one that helps our communities
to grow. Why should the government penalize people who are married,
simply because they are married, in the Tax Code?
Mr. Speaker, let me now yield to my colleague to explain the
legislation that we have cosponsored and describe the efforts that he
and I have undertaken to address this problem, and take it to the
American people so that they are aware of the problem in the Tax Code.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana;
I want to thank him for the partnership we have had to eliminate what
we all consider to be not only the most unfair, but really immoral
provision in our Tax Code, which is the marriage tax penalty.
I represent a pretty diverse district. I represent the south side of
Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, a lot of bedroom
and farm communities, and I find that some pretty simple questions come
forward which I really believe illustrate why elimination of the
marriage penalty should be the number one priority of this Congress
when it comes to the tax provisions in this year's budget agreement.
Some questions that I have been asked as a legislator, when I have
had town meetings, or at the local VFW or the local union hall or the
local plant, folks just say that Americans do not feel that it is fair
that our Tax Code punishes marriage with a higher tax. Do Americans
feel that it is fair that a working married couple with two incomes who
are married happen to pay higher taxes just because they are married,
in comparison to a couple that lives together outside of marriage in an
identical income bracket?
I say to my colleagues, if we think about it, our Tax Code actually
provides an incentive to get divorced, because for 21 million married,
working couples, they pay on the average $1,400 more just because they
are married. In the district that I represent, the south side of
Chicago, the south suburbs, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet
Junior College; it is 3 months of day care at a local child care center
in Joliet as well. That is real money for many people.
Let me give an example here. Of course we have all had so many
constituents who have shared with us and written us some pretty
heartfelt letters regarding the marriage tax penalty and how the
marriage tax penalty hurts them. But let me give an example right here
in the district that I represent, outside of Chicago; Joliet is the
largest community that I represent.
Take an example of a machinist who works at Caterpillar. Caterpillar
is a major manufacturer in the district that I represent; they make the
real heavy earth-moving equipment, the bulldozers and earth-scrapers
and other things, and folks work hard there. We have a case of a
machinist who works at Caterpillar, and this machinist makes $30,500 a
year. If this machinist is single with this $30,500 a year income, if
we take into consideration the standard deduction and exemption, he
falls in the 15 percent tax bracket, if he is single.
Now, say he meets a gal in Joliet and they decide to get married, and
the gal he wants to marry is a school teacher, a tenured school teacher
in the Joliet public schools. She makes an identical income of $30,500.
Well, under our current Tax Code, if they are married, they file
jointly and when they do, their combined income is $61,000. Even after
you take into consideration the standard deductions and exemptions,
[[Page H2988]]
they actually are pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket. And by being
pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket, just because they are married
under our Tax Code, that produces an almost $1,400 marriage tax
penalty.
Now, is it right that when this machinist who works hard every day at
caterpillar in Joliet, Illinois, marries a school teacher who works
hard every day at the Joliet public schools, just because they are
married, they are punished under our Tax Code and required to pay
almost $1,400 more just because they are married?
Now, if they chose to live together outside of marriage they would
save almost $1,400. I think that is just amazing that our Tax Code
actually does that, because for this machinist or school teacher, if
they would choose to go to Joliet Junior College and decide to go back
to school, that $1,400 would pay for 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior
College. That really illustrates why I think it is so important that
the marriage tax penalty be eliminated. Because when we think about it,
21 million married, working couples suffer the marriage tax penalty.
That is 42 million taxpayers.
April 15, of course, was the day that everyone had their taxes be
due, and 21 million couples, if they were not aware of it before,
discovered they were paying the marriage tax penalty. That is why I
believe that elimination of the marriage tax penalty should be our
number one priority this year.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank so many in the profamily groups that
have worked with us and a lot of our colleagues in both the House and
Senate who have come together, of course, with essentially a compromise
bill that we put together, legislation called the Marriage Tax Penalty
Elimination Act of 1998, legislation that will eliminate the marriage
tax penalty in a very simple way.
Of course, we double the tax brackets. Right now, under, say, the 15
percent tax bracket, if one is making $24,650, one is in the 15 percent
tax bracket, but if one gets married, one can only make about $42,000
and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket. We double it from 24,650 to
49,300. It is very simple. We also double the standard deduction which
this machinist and school teacher would be able to enjoy. It is simple
legislation.
The other thing I want to point out, as well, there is no unintended
consequence from our legislation. The marriage tax penalty resulted
from unintended consequences as the Tax Code was changed over the last
30 years. No one sought to create it, but unfortunately, it was created
because our Tax Code, a progressive Tax Code, has become more
complicated over the years. But we can help this machinist at
Caterpillar and this school teacher in Joliet with passage of the
Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
I think it is important legislation. I want to commend the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt), and all of those who have been working so hard who have been
putting together this legislation.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) in a moment to further explain our legislation.
Let me mention, first, to emphasize the point the gentleman was
making, if two people are working and suddenly they become married,
they get hit with higher taxes simply because they are married, and
that is because the tax brackets do not recognize that two people
earning twice as much money should be paying the same amount of taxes.
Instead, what they do is they have what is called, I guess we would
call it ``bracketry,'' but essentially they lower that higher bracket
for the married couple, make them pay more taxes, and the reason that
that has happened over the last 30 years is that people here in
Washington want the extra money to grow government, for more spending
programs.
Even President Clinton said the marriage penalty is indefensible,
but, and when he starts to say ``but,'' we have to listen carefully; I
am not sure we can afford the give up the money. That has been the
mentality around this place for 30 years.
Well, I am happy to say that today, I talked with our Committee on
Budget chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), who is working
on a budget this week that will cut back on the growth of government,
reduce the ever-expanding spending, and set aside that money so that we
can eliminate the marriage penalty. I was delighted, because I think it
is important that we all get behind Chairman Kasich's effort and say,
yes, we will hold back just a little bit of extra money, we do not have
to keep expanding government ever faster and faster, we will hold it
back just a little bit, and then we will do what is right for the
families in this country and eliminate the marriage penalty.
Let me now recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to
describe in even more detail how our legislation would work.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's points are well made
there, particularly the point about the idea that we cannot afford to
give back this money. I think the real question is, can we afford to
keep this money? Can we afford to continue to make marriage financially
a penalty? It is just wrong to do that, and I think if this Congress
needs to set any standard, that standard needs to be that every time
one can leave money with American families, rather than take that money
from them and bring it to Washington, American families and America is
going to be better off.
Last year we passed the tax bill that created real tax relief for
families with children, and if somebody has three kids at home today
who are 17 or younger, that person should be paying $100 less in
Federal taxes every month this year than you paid last year; and if you
are not, you had better go down to the employment office at work and
ask what form you need to get filled out to get your taxes straightened
back out, because what this Congress decided was that families could
spend that $100 a month on their three kids, 17 or younger, better than
some bureaucrat in Washington could spend that $100 a month on those
same kids.
Here is another chance to not do what, hopefully, we can ultimately
do, which is get rid of this complex Tax Code that nobody understands
and start all over toward a fairer, simpler Tax Code, but in the
interim, we need to remove these inequities.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said a minute ago about that
couple he was talking about, that they are almost exactly the average
of the 21 million American couples that are penalized by this, almost
exactly at the $1,400 per year level. Is this fair? Of course it is not
fair. Could that family do better with that $120 or so a month, better
than the Federal Government would do with it? You bet they would do
better with it for their family than the Federal Government would do
with it for their family. And even if they would not, is it fair to
take it from that family simply because they have chosen to be married,
and suddenly have this penalty kick in?
In this new and improved version of eliminating the marriage tax
penalty, again I think the gentleman and Mr. Weller have worked hard,
and hopefully, I have been part of that discussion, to make sure that
we do not unintentionally do something that we did not mean to do.
So, simply, we have gone in and we have doubled the brackets if you
are a married couple. We have doubled the standard deduction from
$4,150 to double that, $8,300. We have doubled the threshold where one
goes from the 15 percent bracket to the 20 percent bracket, and in
every other case where there was a figure that should be doubled for a
couple that had not been in the past, that is what this does. It is
very simple. It is very easy to understand. It is not going to produce
any unintended consequences; it is just going to have people who are
married and both working paying the same taxes as people who are not
married and both working.
{time} 1645
What could be fairer than that? The pro-family groups, the Christian
Coalition, the Family Research Council, the Concerned Women of America,
the Eagle Forum, the Traditional Values Coalition have all endorsed
this bill. They have all said this is a giant step forward for American
families.
Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be our number one tax priority. This
should not be allowed to go through another April 15. That is good news
[[Page H2989]]
about the budget, that this Congress is going to create a budget where
we do not have to ask the question of whether we can afford not to have
this money, this $1,400 times 21 million. That is the amount of money
we are talking about. We do not have to have this money to balance the
budget.
We are going to balance the budget on principles of fairness and on
principles that are pro-family and principles that encourage marriage.
That is exactly what this bill does.
I hear more and more talk in the halls of the Capitol that more and
more people think this should be the first thing we do in tax reform
this year. And hopefully we can do even more tax reform than this, but
this should be job one when it comes to tax reform this year.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that one group that is
particularly punished by this marriage penalty are women. One of our
colleagues said to us, we could actually call this the Working Women's
Tax Relief Act of 1998, because what happens is that the marriage
penalty discriminates against women who throughout their career
sometimes are working, sometimes they are staying at home to raise
their children, sometimes when the children are old enough, going back
and continuing that career.
What happens is that when they enter back into the workforce, they
are immediately taxed at the higher rate because of their spouse. If we
consider the Federal income taxes, the FICA taxes, the State and local
taxes, women pay an astounding 50 percent marginal tax on their income
simply because they are married and entering into the workforce.
Now, working women are wholeheartedly against this marriage penalty
tax. Teri Ness, the CEO and founder of the National Association of
Women Business Owners testified before the Committee on Small Business,
and she said 95 percent of her members said Congress should eliminate
the marriage penalty. It is simply a matter of fairness.
Now, the marriage penalty also discriminates against those women who
decide to stay home and take care of their families because without
doubling the brackets, they are penalized because they are married. And
they are penalized as a stay-at-home mom because of this marriage
penalty tax.
H.R. 3734 is a bill that helps all married couples by doubling the
brackets, doubling the personal exemption, and allowing us to say once
and for all we are going to go on record being in favor of families.
Mr. Speaker, let me turn now to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What is
really interesting, the gentleman from Indiana and I were elected in
1994 and of course we were part of the class of freshmen in 1994 and we
made a commitment to the people and the people who elected us that we
were going to change the way Washington works. One of the most
fundamental changes that we made was not only to balance the budget for
the first time in 28 years, and my colleagues know darned well that if
it had not been for the freshmen in 1994 that we would not have a
balanced budget today, but we gave the middle-class working families
the first tax cut in 16 years.
Our philosophy when we came in in 1994 was that we want families to
keep more of what they earn because they work so hard. And of course
they can better spend their dollars back home in Illinois and Indiana
and North Carolina than we can here in Washington.
It was interesting, when the President was asked by Washington
reporters what he thought about eliminating the marriage penalty, as
was pointed out earlier, he said well, gee, it is a problem but
basically indicated we need the money to spend. That is unfortunate
because think about it. Those who object to eliminating the marriage
penalty always say, gee, it is going to cost Uncle Sam. Think about it:
$1,400, that is real money for real people. And think how much $1,400
costs middle-class working couples.
One thing the President has said earlier this year, he had an idea
which frankly it is a pretty good one. He talks about expanding the
already existing child care tax credit. He thinks maybe that is a
better idea than eliminating the marriage penalty. My staff and I did
the numbers. We figured how much tax relief this machinist and school
teacher that I referred to in Joliet, Illinois, would enjoy if they
have a child who goes to the day care center.
Under the President's proposal the average married couple that would
qualify for the child care tax credit would see an extra $358 a year.
That pays in Joliet, Illinois, less than three weeks of day care. If we
eliminate the marriage penalty for this working married couple in
Joliet, this machinist at Caterpillar and a school teacher, we save
them $1,400. In Joliet, that is almost 11 weeks of child care at this
child care center.
Mr. Speaker, which is better? Three months of day care with
eliminating the marriage tax penalty or three weeks of day care under
the President's proposal? Clearly, by eliminating the marriage penalty
we can help married couples with children in a much bigger way.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Schumer), who I understand has to catch a plane.
First Lady's Remarks on Palestinian State Were a Mistake
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) for being gracious.
Mr. Speaker, I take the White House at its word that the First Lady's
comments on a Palestinian State were a mistake and not the White House
position.
But this is what the White House should have said loud and clear: For
there to be peace, Yassir Arafat should renounce violence and stop
turning a blind eye to those under his authority who terrorize Israel.
Israelis want peace, but they are skeptical about the Palestinian
will and ability to thwart terrorism. Israelis will not and should not
accept a state that is a base for terror or for war, and the First
Lady, I hope, will realize that she was mistaken in believing that such
a State would be in furtherance of peace. It will not.
When voices in the White House say there ought to be a Palestinian
State before there are guarantees of security, they do not set the
peace process forward. They set it back.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his courtesy.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I agree with the remarks
of the gentleman wholeheartedly.
Mr. Speaker, let me turn now to another one of our colleagues in the
class of 1994. She has represented our class at the leadership table
and been a true leader in our class in trying to bring about the
revolution that the gentleman from Illinois talked about in changing
the way Washington does business, the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues for bringing
this bill forward. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) was talking
earlier about the child care credits and what a difference it would
make for families who are struggling to make ends meet. That is just
one good example of what we are talking about.
When I go home, people say to me, ``Y'all do some dumb things up
there.'' All the time I hear that. And they say, ``There is no common
sense, where is the common sense that we have back here at home? You do
not do it.'' And one of the most frequent complaints I get that on is
the Tax Code. People say it makes no sense to them. I think we probably
would have to be completely out of touch with the world today to in any
way defend our Tax Code as reasonable or common sense.
Mr. Speaker, any one of us could send our tax forms to eight
different accountants and we would get eight different examples of how
we could do our taxes because nobody really knows. We have complicated
the dickens out of the code. It does not make sense to any of us and
even the experts have a heck of a hard time trying to figure it out.
One of the things I think that is especially stupid is the marriage
tax penalty; I mean, penalizing people for getting married. And many
young couples do not have a clue that this is going to hit them until
after they have been married and file their first joint tax return.
Then they find out that all the sudden, good grief, we owe a bunch of
money we did not think we owed.
So in looking at it from common sense like we do back home in North
[[Page H2990]]
Carolina, we say why in the world are we encouraging as a Federal
Government young people to live together instead of getting married
because we tax them more if they get married? I mean, that does not
make sense to anybody back in North Carolina. It certainly does not
make sense to us.
That is why I am so glad my colleagues brought it forward. There is
no rationale to this when we think about why they are doing this. Why?
Other than to put more money in the government coffers. Taxes put more
money in the government, and the government just spends it instead of
letting the hard working Americans keep their own money in their own
pocket, which is what this is about.
So I am just real encouraged that my colleagues brought the bill
forward and I hope that everybody is going to support this so that we
can get rid of this dumb idea that taxes people because they married.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for her
comments. And she mentioned young people who suddenly discover they are
hit with a penalty. That reminded me of an episode two weeks ago when
we were back home over the Easter recess. A young man came up to me
after one of my talks and he said let me tell you what happened to me
and my wife. We were just married last fall. We had to postpone our
honeymoon and we were getting ready to take it this year and all of a
sudden on April 15 we realized that we had to pay about $2,200 more in
taxes. That was the money they had been saving up to go on their
honeymoon. He said it just broke their hearts. They had to pay the
taxes they owed because of this marriage tax in the Tax Code. Now they
are going to have to postpone their honeymoon once again.
Time and time again I hear from young people who do not expect it.
One of my staffers said it is almost as if when they say ``I do,''
Uncle Sam says ``fork it over,'' and that is unfortunate in this
marriage penalty tax and what it is doing to our families today.
Let me turn to one of our colleagues who has served with us actually
before our class, a forerunner of the class of 1994, but is with us in
spirit. And he is someone I turn to often to seek wisdom and guidance
about how we can pursue these legislative objectives. I yield to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) for yielding to me. As a former tax manager, there are so
many things wrong with the current Tax Code that I could stand here all
day and night talking about them. But there is one aspect of that Tax
Code that in my view is the most unfair of all, and that is the
marriage penalty.
Under the current Tax Code, married couples usually pay more Federal
taxes than single taxpayers, everyone knows this. We can ask any
recently married couple about the shock that they received when they
got their first tax bill. And it is wrong. It is wrong that the IRS
charges a family more based on their marital status than they would
when two single people are individually paying those taxes.
The marriage penalty is essentially a tax on working wives, because
the joint filing system compels married couples to identify a primary
earner and a secondary earner and usually the wife falls into this
latter category. This works out to be a tax on working women who become
married. And therefore from an accountant's point of view, the wife's
first dollar of income is taxed at the point where her husband's income
has left her. And if the husband is making more money than the wife,
then the couple may even conclude that it is not worth it for the wife
to earn income. In fact, a woman working part-time may be working just
to pay the tax man after the marriage.
We need to instruct the IRS to be fair and not penalize married
couples just for making the decision to get married, and the way to do
this is to make married people equal to single people in the eyes of
the Tax Code. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. McIntosh).
This bill would benefit married couples regardless of whether they
have children. Its ideas are simple. It allows families to decide how
they file their income tax, either individually or jointly, whichever
gives them the greatest benefit. And according to a recent
Congressional Budget Office study, 21 million married couples paid an
average of $1,400 in additional taxes last year because they had to
file jointly, $1,400 in additional taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I know all families have a better use for $1,400 than
giving it to the IRS as a marriage penalty. Whether it is to be spent
for a mortgage or extra groceries or kids, married couples should be
allowed to keep that extra money they earn. They should not be
penalized just because they made the decision to get married.
The Republican Party stands for tax cuts, tax relief, and the
marriage penalty should be one of the first things to go. Actually,
this unfair excessive tax should have been removed years ago, but the
Democrats who controlled Congress for 40 years raised taxes instead of
cutting them.
The marriage penalty slams middle-class workers. Economist Bruce
Bartlett says that most of the people affected by the marriage penalty
have incomes under $30,000 a year.
So why does this marriage penalty exist? That is an easy one, because
for years it has brought in a lot of money that the IRS would not
normally have collected. And because big government is fueled by money,
extra money provides even more government, more bureaucratic jobs, and
therefore government does not have an incentive to eliminate the
marriage penalty.
{time} 1700
They actually have an incentive to keep it in place. Make no mistake
about it. Anyone who supports the marriage tax penalty and votes
against this bill is simply saying they do not care if married people
pay more taxes than necessary or than is fair.
They are saying they do not care that an average married couple pays
an additional $1,400 in taxes to the government when they make that
decision to get married. They are saying they want a bigger government
at the extra expense of working couples.
We need to do everything we can to keep families together and to
encourage marriage. Furthermore, we need to do everything we can to
reduce the size and scope of government in our lives and reduce taxes
on working Americans.
The time has come to divorce ourselves from the marriage tax penalty.
We need to pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act. I encourage
all of my colleagues to vote for this outstanding and much-needed
legislation. I want to thank my fellow coauthors for their presentation
here today.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me share with the gentleman from
California some good news that I mentioned earlier before he arrived on
the floor.
In talking to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, he has indicated to me that it is his desire
in the budget that we stop the growth of government that the gentleman
from California talked about, and say we, by just holding back that
growth to a reasonable level, we can make sure to have the funds
available to pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act and do that this
year so that never again in this country will couples be suffering
under the marriage penalty.
I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) for putting that in
his budget. We now have to work with him and show that there is public
support for that budget, to convince all of our colleagues that just a
little bit of restraint on that spending side of the equation will let
us eliminate this marriage penalty tax.
Let me mention, also, I have been opening up my web site and inviting
people all over the country to write to me about how the marriage
penalty has affected them. I have received hundreds of letters. The web
site, by the way, is www.house.gov/mcintosh.
I wanted to share with you a couple of those E-mails that I received.
One of them is from a fellow named Tom Smith from Columbus, Ohio. He
writes, ``Thank you for addressing this issue. I am engaged to be
married, and my fiance and I have discussed the fact that we will be
penalized financially. We have postponed the date of our marriage in
order to save up and have a ``running start,'' in part because of this
nasty, unfair tax structure.''
Then T.D. who is from Alberton, Montana, she writes to me, ``My
husband and I both work. We are 50 and 55
[[Page H2991]]
years old. This is a second marriage for both of us. We delayed our
marriage for a number of years because of the tax consequences.'' Let
me repeat that. ``We delayed our marriage for a number of years because
of the tax consequences. It caused a great deal of stress, lots of
anguish among our families. We finally took the tax hit and married to
make my family happy. This marriage penalty is awful.'' That is T.D.
from Montana. Those are the type of responses we have been getting from
hundreds of Americans who suffer from this marriage penalty tax.
Sometimes the policy analysts here in Washington come up to me and
say, oh, Mr. Congressman, you cannot tell me that it really makes a
difference for anybody because they have to pay $1,400 more in taxes. I
share with them these E-mails, and I say we may be able to afford it.
My colleagues and I may not be affected by that, or we may tighten our
belts, but there are a lot of people in this country who are living on
the margin. Every dollar matters.
They are trying to save for their children to give them a chance to
have a good education, to put food on the table, to have a better
future. For us to tell them we are going to penalize you because you
are married is outrageous and must be eliminated.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have also been receiving letters and
E-mails as well of those who have been suffering from the marriage
penalty. Like our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), I
have been written by a number of tax preparers who have shared
examples.
One gentleman, a Robert Eckert of Jacksonville, Florida, in a letter
that he shared with us, he says, ``As a seasonal tax preparer and
enrolled agent, I find the marriage penalty can be very significant; 12
percent of after-tax income or 33 percent increase in tax liability for
many couples. This marriage penalty hits all ages and all incomes.''
He has several examples here; I will mention a couple of them. One is
a retired couple and the other is a low income couple. The retired on
Social Security couple, he says this couple got married midyear, each
with about $20,000 in company pension income and $12,000 in Social
Security payments. As singles, they would pay no tax on the Social
Security income; but as married, $16,000 of combined Social Security
payments become taxable for a penalty of $2,400. Think about that. A
married, retired couple paying $2,400 just because they are married.
Another example that he shares is of a low income couple, and he
says, this is really the saddest event of his 7 years of preparing tax
returns. Mr. Eckert says, a cemetery grounds keepers and his county
clerk spouse, one making $16,000, the other making $11,000, are
married, and they have twin 6-year-old boys.
They also have neighbors, an unmarried couple with twin 5-year-old
girls working at the same cemetery and county office building and have
similar incomes who not only pay $460 less in taxes, but receive a
$2,563 in earned income tax credit check.
The married couple, the cemetery grounds keeper and his county clerk,
pay over $3,000, 12 percent of their after-tax income just because they
are married. There are several other examples.
Mr. Speaker, I include these letters for the record.
The text of the letters are as follows:
October 1, 1997.
Representative Jerry Weller,
U.S. House of Representatives, House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Weller: As a seasonal tax preparer and
Enrolled Agent, I find the marriage penalty can be very
significant, 12% of after tax income or 33% increase in tax
liability. The marriage penalty hits all ages and all
incomes. Some examples:
Retired on Social Security: This couple got married mid
year, each with $20,000 company pension income and $12,000
social security payments. As single, they pay no tax on the
social security income, as married $16,000 of combined social
security payments become taxable for a penalty of $2,400.
High Income Executives: Two spouses with $80,000 and
$50,000 incomes pay $1,584 more in taxes than if, as an
unmarried couple they filed single returns.
High School Teachers: Two $40,000 a year public school
teachers, each a single parent of a teenage son, got married
New Year's Eve. They felt very strongly their sons would have
a better chance of staying away from drugs with the emotional
support and economic stability of a married two parent
family. More important, they believed boys in single parent
environment are six times more likely to become involved with
the juvenile justice system. They became ``very emotional''
when I determined their tax liability increased from $4500
each, $9000, to $12,434--a 35% increase for getting married
and trying to help their sons to a better life.
Low Income: This is the saddest event of my seven years
preparing tax returns. A cemetery grounds keeper and his
county clerk spouse, $16,000 and $11,000 incomes, are married
with twin six year old boys. They have a neighbor, an
unmarried couple with twin five year old girls, working at
the same cemetery and county office and similar incomes who
not only pay $460 less taxes but receive $2563 in earned
income tax credit. My married couple pay over $3000, 12% of
their after tax income for being married!!!
Sincerely,
Robert Eckert, E.A.
____
January 18, 1998.
Congressman Weller: I recently heard that you were
sponsoring a bill to not have tax penalty on married couples
as it now exists. Our beloved Congressman is no longer with
us but he was a personal friend and I also worked on all his
campaigns. I remember discussing things with him. We talked
about how the government having things backwards sometimes
and rewarding people that are not working and penalizing the
working and somehow sending the wrong message. I totally
support your bill and will be praying for you also as you
undertake this.
Best wishes,
Pam Mann and family.
____
September 15, 1997.
Hon. Jerry Weller,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Weller: Last week our local newspaper ran an
article about the marriage tax penalty bill that you and
Representative McIntosh are co-sponsoring. I wholeheartedly
support you in your efforts to have this unfair tax code
eliminated. Since I have a dog in this fight, I want to see
this inequity straightened out.
Why should we punish the people who enter into marriage
over the people who choose to just live together? I think all
married couples should be allowed to file their taxes either
as single individuals or jointly as a couple. If filing
jointly is a benefit to the married couple, that's just a
plus to being married; the single couples could marry and
receive the same tax benefit. As the tax code is now, in most
instances, it is advantageous to be able to file taxes as a
single individual. I am a 61 year old grandmother, still
holding down a full time job, and I remarried three years
ago. I had to think long and hard about marriage over staying
single as I knew it would cost us several thousand dollars a
year just to sign that marriage license. Marriage has become
a contract between two individuals and the federal
government. Why should the IRS be able to dictate my filing
status when filing jointly is not in my best interest?
I want to write my own congressmen to ask them to support
you and Mr. McIntosh. Please send me the number of the
marriage tax penalty bill. Also I would like to receive more
information about the specifics of the bill if you have that
available.
I would be interested in helping get this bill established
at the grass roots level. Do you have any suggestions on how
I could help in bringing this bill to a favorable conclusion?
Sincerely,
Mary A. Hottel.
____
Congressman Jerry Weller,
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Weller: We support your change to the
``so-called marriage tax penalty''.
We are prime examples of this. My husband and I work for
Motorola-CSS in Libertyville, Illinois. We both work the same
schedule. We generally work 40 hours a week. But, when there
is overtime it is mandatory! We cannot say no! We then work a
54 hour week, 6 days, with 1 day a week off. The money is
nice but all that overtime drives up our incomes into a
higher tax bracket, when we file jointly.
When we filed our taxes for 1996 we owed (paid) the IRS
$1391.00. At that time we decided to have extra money
withheld from my husbands check to be paid to the IRS. We
thought this would balance out what we would owe for 1997. We
had an extra $120.00 a month withheld. Of course it didn't
cover what we owe for 1997. With all that overtime it pushed
us into an even higher tax bracket. If we hadn't had that
extra $120.00 a month taken out we would owe the IRS almost
$2200.00.
We have figured our taxes for 1997 married filing jointly,
married filing separately, and single. As you can see we
would benefit filing single.
We have no deductions. We are DINKS, Dual Income No Kids.
We cannot write off anything. I would be happy to pay the
difference that is owed to the IRS filing singly. That would
be $127.12, versus $1003.17, married filing jointly or
$996.17 filing married/separately. Which would you choose?
We have told family and friends our dilemma. Everyone has
said maybe we should get a divorce. I do not want that!
[[Page H2992]]
This is not fair to couples with no children or other
deductions. Please do something to change that rule! Thank
you for your concern.
Sincerely,
Steven and Kathleen Hines.
____
Unfairness in Tax Code: Marriage Tax Penalty
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 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 couple
pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machinst School Teacher Couple Weller/McIntosh II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Gross Income........... $30,500 $30,500 $61,000 $61,000
Less Personal Exemption and $6,550 $6,550 $11,800 $13,100 (Singles x2)
Standard Deduction.
Taxable Income.................. $23,950 $23,950 $49,200 $47,900
(x .15) (x .15) (Partial x .28) (x .15)
Tax Liability................... $3592.5 $3592.5 $8563 $7,185
Marriage Penalty $1,378 Relief $1378
Weller-McIntosh II Eliminates the Marriage Tax Penalty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if they choose 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 $1400 in higher taxes.
On average, America's married working couples pay $1400
more a year in taxes than individuals with the same incomes.
That's serious money. Millions of married couples are still
stinging from April 15th's tax bite and more married couples
are 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
authorized the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act.
The Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act will increase the
tax brackets (currently at 15% for the fist $24,650 for
singles, whereas married couples filing jointly pay 15% on
the first $41,200 of their taxable income) to twice that
enjoyed by singles; the Weller-McIntosh proposal would extend
a married couple's 15% tax bracket to 49,300. Thus, married
couples would enjoy an additional $8,100 in taxable income
subject to the low 15% tax rate as opposed to the current 28%
tax rate and would result in up to $1,053 in tax relief.
Additionally the bill will increase the standard deduction
for married couples (currently $6,900) to twice that of
singles (currently at $4,150). Under the Weller-McIntosh
legislation the standard deduction for married couples filing
jointly would be increased to $8,300.
Our new legislation builds on the momentum of their popular
H.R. 2456 which enjoyed the support of 238 cosponsors and
numerous family, women and tax advocacy organizations.
Current law punishes many married couples who file jointly by
pushing them into higher tax brackets. It taxes the income of
families' second wage earner--often the woman's salary--at a
much higher rate than if that salary was taxed only as an
individual. Our bill already has broad bipartisan
cosponsorship by 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 given 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 . . . a 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!
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
____
Which is Better?
Note: The President's Proposal to expand the child care tax
credit will pay for only 2 to 3 weeks of child care. The
Weller-McIntosh Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 2546, 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
President's Child Care Tax Credit...... 358 127 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do Americans feel that it's right to tax a working couple
more just because they live in holy matrimony?
Is it fair that the American tax code punishes marriage,
our society's most basic institution?
WELLER-Mc INTOSH II MARRIAGE TAX COMPROMISE
Weller-McIntosh II, H.R. 3734, the Marriage Tax Penalty
Elimination Act presents a new, innovative marriage penalty
elimination package which pulls together all the principle
sponsors of various legislative proposals with legislation.
Weller-McIntosh II will provide equal and significant relief
to both single and dual earning married couples and can be
implemented immediately.
The Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act will increase the
tax brackets (currently at 15% for the first $24,650 for
singles, whereas married couples filing jointly pay 15% on
the first $41,200 of their taxable income) to twice that
enjoyed by singles; the Weller-McIntosh proposal would extend
a married couple's 15% tax bracket to $49,300. Thus, married
couples would enjoy an additional $8,100 in taxable income
subject to the low 15% tax rate as opposed to the current 28%
tax rate and would result in up to $1,053 in tax relief.
Additionally the bill will increase the standard deduction
for married couples (currently $6,900) to twice that of
singles (currently at $4,150). Under the Weller-McIntosh
legislation the standard deduction for married couples filing
jointly would be increased to $8,300.
Weller and McIntosh's new legislation builds on the
momentum of their popular H.R. 2456 which enjoyed the support
of 238 cosponsors and numerous family, women and tax advocacy
organizations. Current law
[[Page H2993]]
punishes many married couples who file jointly by pushing
them into higher tax brackets. It taxes the income of the
families' second wage earner--often the woman's salary--at a
much higher rate than if that salary was taxed only as an
individual.
MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE IN THE SOUTH SUBURBS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machinist School Teacher Couple Weller-McIntosh II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Gross Income........... $30,500 $30,500 $61,000 $61,000
Less Personal Exemption and 6,550 6,550 11,800 13,100 (Singles2)
Standard Deduction.
Taxable Income.................. 23,950 23,950 49,200 47,900
(.15) (.15) (Partial.28) (.15)
Tax Liability................... 3592.5 3592.5 8563 7,185
Marriage Penalty 1378 Relief 1378
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weller-McIntosh II Eliminates the Marriage Tax Penalty.
The repeal of the Marriage tax was part of the Republican's
1994 ``Contract with America,'' but the legislation was
vetoed by President Clinton.
Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman from Indiana will yield further, I will
share one other letter.
Mr. McINTOSH. Please do.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there is a letter from Palm Springs,
California. Sonny Bono was such a dear friend to all of us, and of
course he was a co-sponsor of our original legislation. We are now
joined by his wife, who is going to do a terrific job in representing
the area that was represented by her late husband.
But Pam Mann of Palm Springs, California says, ``I recently heard
that you are sponsoring a bill to not have tax penalty on married
couples as it now exists. Our beloved Congressman is no longer with us
but he was a personal friend, and I also worked on all of his
campaigns. I remember discussing things with him. We talked about the
government having things backwards sometimes and rewarding people that
are not working and penalizing the working people and somehow sending
the wrong message.''
She supports our legislation. She says she is praying for this
legislation. She thinks it is important that we do something and do the
right thing; that is, eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
If you think about it, 21 million married working couples pay an
average $1,400 more just because they are married. Frankly, not only is
it not right, but it is wrong that our tax code actually punishes
marriage. $1,400. That is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College.
That is three months' daycare at a local child care center. That is why
I am pleased this legislation is gaining such strong support. It
deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, let me just close very briefly by saying
thank you and thank you to all of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for supporting this bill. We have a long way to go. We have to
pass a budget that allows us to eliminate the marriage penalty and stay
on track for a balanced budget, and we have to pass a tax bill this
fall.
With the help of the American people, I am convinced that 1998 can be
an historic year where we eliminate the marriage penalty tax.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representatives McIntosh, Weller,
Herger and Riley for reintroducing the Marriage Penalty Elimination
Act. One of the most indefensible aspects of our current tax code is
that over 40 percent of married couples pay more in taxes filing
jointly than they would if husband and wife each filed individually.
This long-overdue legislation will end this discriminatory practice.
While I cosponsored the previous version of this legislation, I did
not believe it was the best way to eliminate the marriage penalty.
Although it eliminated the marriage penalty for the 40 percent of
couples who pay more filing jointly than they would separately, it
upset the important principle, embedded in current law, that different
families with the same total income should be treated equally for tax
purposes. Moreover, it did not treat families in which one parent
either stays at home or works part-time the same as families in which
both parents work full time. At a time when the President is proposing
billions of dollars for commercial day care we should be offering
credible alternatives that make it easier for working families to keep
one parent at home.
That's why Representative Riley and I introduced H.R. 3104, the
Marriage Protection and Fairness Act. This legislation would permit
married couples to use ``income splitting'' on their returns, and would
increase the standard deduction for married couples. These changes
would: offer almost all married couples a tax cut; eliminate the tax
penalty on marriage that exists under current law; and continue the
current policy that different families with the same total income
should be treated equally for tax purposes. Not surprisingly, this
legislation quickly garnered 85 cosponsors.
I am pleased to see that the concerns addressed in our legislation
have been addressed in H.R. 3734. By doubling the standard deduction
for married couples and doubling the income thresholds for married
couples in all tax brackets, this legislation ensures that one-earner
families will not be treated unfairly as a result of efforts to
eliminate the marriage penalty. In addition, this legislation respects
the principle that all married couples with the same income should be
treated equally by the IRS.
One income families often have the toughest time making ends meet,
particularly if they are raising children. This latest version of the
Marriage Penalty Elimination Act will allow us to eliminate the
marriage penalty without penalizing stay-at-home parents. I encourage
all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), who has a tribute to pay.
Tribute to the Late John Saxon
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that our high school
student's math and science skills rank near the bottom of the world. As
we discuss how to reverse this alarming trend, we should take a moment
to reflect on the legacy of a math-education pioneer who foresaw our
present crisis, the late John Saxon of Oklahoma.
Saxon gained national notoriety for his revolutionary Saxon method of
teaching and for waging a war against the mathematics education
establishment over their failed theories. Saxon was praised by
President Reagan and featured by most major news outlets.
Stanley Hartzler, a leading authority on algebra textbooks, credits
him with a truly major advance. Commentator William F. Buckley predicts
that Saxon will figure as prominently in the history of math education
as Hyman Rickover did in the development of nuclear submarines.
In 1995, Saxon said, ``America is on the road to becoming a follower
in technology and science rather than a leader. Our captains of
industry tell us that they are at a disadvantage in worldwide
competition because our labor pool is mathematically incompetent. The
time has come to question the math experts.''
The type of math experts Saxon criticized were the proponents of
touchy-feely new math theories. One such theorist has said it is
downright dangerous to teach students basic computational math skills
such as 6 times 7 equals 42 because students who have difficulty with
these concepts will be cast aside and experience a terrible psychic
toll measured by loss of self-esteem.
Saxon first became aware of the pending crisis in math education in
the 1970s during his first teaching job at Rose State College in
Oklahoma City, after retiring from an exemplary and distinguished
career of 27 years in the Air Force. Saxon discovered that his students
were neither comprehending nor retaining the material they were
learning from their textbook.
At a student's suggestion, Saxon wrote out some problems for his
class. When the students were successful from learning from his
writings, Saxon decided to write a college level algebra textbook.
Saxon was then a man on a mission. Publishers told Saxon he lacked
the credentials to write a textbook. However, Saxon believed so
strongly in his method that he mortgaged his house, spent his savings,
and borrowed money from his four children to launch his own publishing
company.
Early results showed that students who learned using the Saxon method
outscored those who did not by a margin of two to one. Across the
Nation, C
[[Page H2994]]
and D students were now getting A's and B's. Classes who used his K
through 12 math series routinely doubled enrollment and raised college
board scores by greater than 50 percent.
Despite the mounting evidence supporting the Saxon method, the math
establishment considered him to be a pariah. One journal of the
profession dismissed his method as meaningless, while others accused
him of turning back the clock on math education.
The cornerstone of Saxon's method is to train students in the
fundamentals. Saxon was the Vince Lombardy of math education. He
understood the importance of constantly drilling his pupils in the
fundamentals like blocking and tackling.
Saxon said that algebra is the basic language of all mathematics
beyond arithmetic. He believed higher math skills could not be taught
or comprehended by students who were not thoroughly drilled in the
basics. To Saxon, the math establishment was like a coach. He was
trying to teach his players trick plays before they knew how to run a
sweep.
As we consider how to improve math education in this country, we
should reconsider what the so-called math education experts have been
telling us. The education experts in society ought to be determined by
the results that they produce, the impact that they have in the lives
of the children, not by the titles or by their degrees that adorn their
offices. Saxon's success was due to the power of his ideas, not by the
prestige of any position.
Today, Saxon Publishing is growing like crazy, according to the
company president Frank Wang. All 50 States and 20,000 schools
nationwide use Saxon books, and company sales have quadrupled since
1991. The Washington Post ran a column this week by Wang. He said that,
Saxon was in Washington picketing the annual meeting of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics for their recommendation that
calculators be integrated into classrooms. Wang said Saxon would have
been surprised that at last month's council meeting Wang was invited to
participate in a panel discussion on the role of the basics.
John Saxon is no longer a voice in the wilderness. Today, his legacy
is on the bridge of revolutionizing math education in America. As we
continue to discuss how to improve math and science education, I
encourage my colleagues to let the Saxon legacy lead the way.
____________________