[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H3373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WELLER-McINTOSH II MARRIAGE TAX COMPROMISE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). 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, questions are often asked in this body, and 
I think one of the most important questions asked is: Why is enactment 
of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act so important for working families 
in America? I think this series of questions best illustrates why.
  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 on average pay $1,400 more a year just 
because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical coupleS that 
lives together outside of marriage?
  Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually 
provides an incentive to get divorced because the only way today to 
avoid the marriage tax penalty is to get divorced and to live together 
outside of marriage?
  Clearly, Americans feel that the marriage tax penalty is not only 
unfair, it is wrong. It is immoral that our Tax Code punishes society's 
most basic institution. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that 
21 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more just 
because they are married.
  Let me give you an example of a couple in the south suburbs. I 
represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs of Chicago 
and Illinois. I have an example here of a south suburban couple, 
working man and working woman, who pay the marriage tax penalty.
  The gentleman is a machinist at Caterpillar where they make the big 
equipment, the heavy earth-moving equipment. This machinist makes 
$30,500 a year. Under the current Tax Code, if you add in the standard 
deduction and exemption, he is taxed at the 15 percent rate.
  Say this machinist meets a schoolteacher a tenured schoolteacher in 
the Joliet public schools. The schoolteacher has an identical income. 
She would be in the 15 percent tax rate if she stays single. But if 
they choose to get married, if they choose to live in holy matrimony, 
under our Tax Code, this married working couple, a machinist at 
Caterpillar and a schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools who choose 
to get married, will pay the average marriage tax penalty of almost 
$1,400.
  In Washington, D.C., $1,400 is just a drop in the bucket. But in 
Joliet, Illinois, in the south suburb of Chicago, $1,400 for this 
machinist and schoolteacher is real money, real money for real people: 
one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, 3 months of day care at 
the local day care center in Joliet; and it is also several months' 
worth of car payments. That is real money that Uncle Sam is taking away 
from this machinist and this schoolteacher just because they are 
married.
  We have a solution. We believe that elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty should be our number one priority as we address the tax 
provisions in this year's balanced budget which will be, hopefully, the 
second balanced budget in over a generation.
  The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which is now called the compromise 
as well as Weller-McIntosh II, it is pretty simple. What it does is it 
doubles the standard deduction for those who do not itemize from $4,150 
for a single person, $8,300 for a married couple, simply doubling it, 
helping eliminate the marriage penalty.
  Also, for the five tax brackets, we double the income threshold for 
couples. Currently, you are in the 15 percent tax bracket if you make 
$24,650. We double that to $49,300, eliminating the marriage penalty. 
Because, currently, even if you are making $24,650, our current Tax 
Code, you can only make $42,000. So there is about an $8,000 marriage 
tax penalty in the 15 percent tax bracket.
  We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The Marriage Tax 
Elimination Act of 1998 accomplishes that goal. We believe it should be 
the centerpiece of this year's balanced budget plan.
  There are always competing ideas, and President Clinton has a good 
idea. He says our priority should be expanding the current child care 
tax credit. Under the President's child care tax credit, the average 
family that will qualify would see about an extra $368 in total take-
home pay a year.
  If we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for that machinist and 
schoolteacher, they would see an extra $1,400 in take-home pay. So let 
us think about that which is better. If we eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, $1,400 will pay for almost 3 months of child care at a local 
day care center in Joliet. If we forget about eliminating the marriage 
tax penalty and just do the expanding the current child tax credit, the 
President's $358 will pay for 3 weeks worth of day care in Joliet, 
Illinois. So which is better, 3 weeks or 3 months?
  Clearly, elimination of the marriage tax penalty is a better deal for 
working couples and working married couples throughout America.
  What is the bottom line? We want to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty. It is wrong that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic 
institution. It is time that we stop punishing marriage.
  We think about it. This Congress in the last 3 years has made helping 
families by raising take-home pay a real priority. We strengthened 
families by providing the adoption tax credit in 1996 so that families 
who hope to provide a loving home for a child in need of adoption can 
better afford it.
  In 1997, we provided the $500 per child tax credit which will benefit 
3 million children in Illinois, an extra $1\1/2\ billion in higher 
take-home pay that will stay in Illinois rather than coming to 
Washington.
  Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. $1,400 is real money for 
real people. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty the 
centerpiece of this year's budget agreement.

                          ____________________