[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H827-H829]
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 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very 
diverse district, probably the most diverse district in the State of 
Illinois representing part of the City of Chicago and the south 
suburbs, Cook and Will counties, and a lot of bedroom and rural and 
farm communities.
  When you represent a district as diverse as the one I have the 
privilege of

[[Page H828]]

representing, you really have to listen to learn the common concerns of 
such a diverse constituency. I find a pretty clear message as I listen 
and learn the concerns of the people of the south side of Chicago and 
the south suburbs and that is that the folks back home want us to work 
together, they want us to find solutions, they want us to meet the 
challenges, they want us to offer and work together to find solutions.
  I am pleased that, over the last 4 years, this Congress has responded 
to that request to get things done. We have got some real 
accomplishments that we all should be proud of:
  Balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, a balanced 
budget that is now projected to produce a $2.7 trillion overpayment of 
extra tax revenue that is now known as a surplus.
  The first middle-class tax cut in 16 years. It is going to benefit 3 
million Illinois children who qualify for the $500 per child tax 
credit.
  The first welfare reform in a generation. That has now seen the 
results of reducing Illinois welfare rolls by 28 percent.
  And IRS reform that tames the tax collector and shifts the burden of 
proof off the backs of the taxpayer and onto the IRS, so a taxpayer is 
innocent until proven guilty with the IRS.
  Folks back home say, ``That's pretty good. What are you going to do 
next?'' When I listen to the folks back home over the last few weeks, 
they tell me they want good schools, they want lower taxes, they want a 
secure retirement. And it is our obligation to respond. That is really 
what our Republican agenda is: to help our schools, to put more dollars 
into the classroom and ensure that our schools are run by 
local teachers and local parents and local administrators and locally 
elected school board members, to lower the tax burden on the middle 
class and to secure retirement by saving Social Security, providing 
greater incentives to save for your own retirement.

  But we also face what can be considered a great challenge but also an 
opportunity and that is, what do we do with this so-called surplus, 
this $2.7 trillion of extra money that is burning a hole in the pocket 
of Washington? Somebody wants to do something with it. We know that. 
But what are we going to do? That is a big debate, what to do with the 
overpayment of $2.7 trillion.
  The President says we should take 62 percent of that so-called 
surplus and use it to save Social Security, and then he wants to spend 
the rest on new government programs. Republicans say, we agree. We will 
take 62 percent of the surplus for saving Social Security, but we want 
to give the rest back in paying down the debt and lowering the tax 
burden on the middle class, because our philosophy is that you can 
spend your hard-earned dollars better back at home than we can for you 
here in Washington.
  Some say, ``Well, gee, why do we really need to lower taxes? You 
know, people don't mind paying taxes.'' Here is why. Today our tax 
burden is at its highest level ever in peacetime history for our 
country. Today, for the average family back home in Illinois, 40 
percent of their income goes to government at local, State and Federal 
levels. In fact, 21 percent of our gross domestic product goes to the 
Federal Government alone. And, since 1992, and I find this very 
disturbing, the amount of taxes collected from individuals has gone up 
63 percent. Clearly, the tax burden is too high, and the middle class 
is paying the price.
  I believe as we focus on ways to lower the tax burden on the middle 
class that we should start with simplifying our Tax Code, looking for 
the provisions in our Tax Code that discriminate against the middle 
class, that discriminate against families. I believe it is time that we 
eliminate discrimination in the Tax Code and work to simplify the Tax 
Code.
  As we set priorities, let us make the top priority eliminating the 
discrimination against 21 million married working couples who, on 
average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married 
under our Tax Code. Is it not wrong that, under our Tax Code, if you 
are married and work, you are going to pay higher taxes than an 
identical couple living together outside of marriage? That is wrong.
  $1,400 back home in Illinois is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior 
College. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It 
replaces a washer and a dryer in a home for a middle-class Illinois 
family.
  I am pleased to tell you that 230 Members of this House, Republicans 
and Democrats, have joined together to sponsor the Marriage Tax 
Elimination Act. This year, as we work to lower the tax burden on 
middle-class families, let us make elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty the number-one priority to help families.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do it if we work together. The same way that we 
balanced the budget, the same way that we cut taxes for the middle 
class, the same way that we reformed welfare, the same way that we 
tamed the IRS, we can eliminate the 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.
  Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the 
Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the 
budget surplus. Although we were prepared to dedicate 90 percent of the 
budget surplus to saving Social Security, we agree with the President 
that at least 62% of the Budget Surplus must be used to save Social 
Security.
  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 for new 
big government programs--we believe that a top priority after saving 
Social Security and paying down the national debt 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 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 $31,500 a year in salary. His wife is a 
tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $31,500 a year in 
salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, 
they would pay 15%.

                        MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           School
                               Machinist   teacher    Couple     H.R. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income........    $31,500   $31,500    $63,000    $63,000
Less personal exemption and        6,950     6,950     12,500     13,900
 standard deduction..........                                   (singles
                                                                      2)
Taxable income...............     24,550    24,550     50,500     49,100
                                  ( .15)    ( .15)   (partial     ( .15)
                                                         .28)
Tax liability................    3,682.5   3,682.5      8,635      7,365
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage penalty: $1,270.
Relief: $1,270.

  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. 
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 downpayment on a house 
or a car, one year's tuition at a local community college, or several 
months worth of quality child care at a local day care center.

  To that end, U.S. Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) and U.S. 
Representative

[[Page H829]]

 Pat Danner (D-MO) and I have authored H.R. 6, The Marriage Tax 
Elimination Act.
  H.R. 6, The Marriage Tax 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; H.R. 6 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 $1,215 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 H.R. 6 the standard deduction for married couples 
filing jointly would be increased to $8,300.
  H.R. 6 enjoys the bipartisan support of 230 co-sponsors along with 
family groups, including: American Association of Christian Schools, 
American Family Association, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for 
America, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern 
Baptist Convention, Family Research Council, Home School Legal Defense 
Association, the National Association of Evangelicals and the 
Traditional Values Coalition.
  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 gentlemen, 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.
  Let's eliminate the marriage tax penalty and do it now!

              [From the Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1999]

                    How To Handle the Budget Surplus

       Washington.--Four years ago when I was first elected to 
     Congress, I ran on the need for fiscal restraint in 
     Washington, D.C., and a return of power to people back home. 
     We fought for our belief that we could balance the budget and 
     provide tax relief for America's working families. For months 
     we were told by Washington insiders and the media that it 
     couldn't be done. Well, we proved them wrong, and we did it 
     ahead of schedule.
       Today Congress has a great opportunity as well as a 
     significant challenge before it. A massive surplus of extra 
     tax revenue is projected as a result of a balanced budget. 
     The challenge lies in what Congress chooses to do with the 
     budget surplus.
       Saving Social Security is the first priority for the 
     surplus. It's a bipartisan consensus. Last fall, House 
     Republicans showed tremendous responsibility and leadership 
     by passing a plan that earmarked 90 percent of the surplus 
     for Social Security. President Clinton used this month's 
     State of the Union message to call for setting aside a 
     minimum of 62 percent of the surplus ($2.7 trillion over 15 
     years) for Social Security.
       Although we were prepared to set aside much more to save 
     Social Security, Republicans agree to the president's request 
     to set aside 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security. 
     But the question remains of what to do with the rest. 
     President Clinton proposes to spend it on big, new, expensive 
     programs; Republicans want to give this back as tax relief.
       Those who oppose tax cuts will fight tooth and nail against 
     lowering today's tax burden. According to the U.S. Treasury, 
     the total income tax take from individuals and families has 
     increased 63 percent since 1992. In fact, according to the 
     Tax Foundation, if you add up the local, state and federal 
     tax burden, taxes are almost 40 percent of the average 
     family's income. Wouldn't most people agree that today's tax 
     burden is too high?
       We can save Social Security and cut taxes at the same time. 
     Some say we can't--they were the same ones who opposed 
     balancing the budget and cutting taxes. We proved them wrong. 
     For example, using only 25 percent of the surplus (allowing 
     for an additional 13 percent of the surplus to be dedicated 
     to shoring up Social Security or paying down the national 
     debt) we could enact a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut 
     for all American taxpayers while still eliminating the unfair 
     marriage tax penalty and relieving family farms and family 
     businesses of the inheritance or ``death'' tax.
       The president's step gives us a window of opportunity to 
     save Social Security. We commend the president for his new-
     found willingness to work with us to save Social Security, 
     secure retirement savings, provide sorely needed tax relief 
     and equip the next generation to compete in a global economy. 
     But now that we have agreed on the first step in saving 
     Social Security, we need to focus on the details. It is 
     irresponsible to spend the people's surplus on new, big 
     government programs. We must give this money back to the 
     American people. Saving Social Security, paying down our 
     national debt and offering real and substantial tax relief to 
     all working Americans are three strong ways to spur our 
     economy and lead the way into the next century.
     U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.)

                          ____________________