[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1201-S1203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELIMINATE THE MARRIAGE PENALTY
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address a couple of
items that are going to be coming before this body and the importance
of our addressing them. One is the marriage tax that is so embedded in
our Tax Code, and the other is lifting the Social Security earnings
limit. Both of these issues need to be taken care of this Congress. It
is in the power of this Congress, particularly this body, the Senate,
to deal with both of these items, and it is time we do it. I am going
to be speaking out often about this until we get these measures passed.
They make sense. It is time we do it. The American people want us to do
it. The House has passed both of these bills, and it is time we do so
as well.
Our Tax Code is riddled with provisions that penalize America's
families. If that is not clear to date, it should be, and it will
become increasingly clear as we discuss both of these issues, the
marriage penalty and the Social Security earnings limit. In fact, our
Tax Code regarding marriage penalizes marriage in over 60 different
ways, according to the American Association of Certified Public
Accountants. That is a body of which the Presiding Officer has been a
part in the past.
This is unacceptable. As my colleagues already know, one of the most
egregious marriage penalties occurs in the marginal tax rate bracket
and in the standard deduction. I want to go through this because
everybody hears about the marriage penalty tax, and it occurs in over
60 places. The bill that passed the House and is currently being
considered in the Finance Committee addresses it in several places, but
not all 60, but they are in several of the most important places.
I want to particularly talk about the marginal tax rate bracket and
the
[[Page S1202]]
standard deduction. In fact, last year 43 percent of married taxpayers,
roughly 22 million couples, paid an average of $1,489 more in Federal
income taxes than they would have paid had they remained single. The
Government should not use the coercive power of the Tax Code to erode
the foundation of our society--the family. We must quit subsidizing and
encouraging people not to get married and penalizing marriage.
The House passed a bill to provide marriage tax penalty relief for
America's families in the 15-percent marginal rate bracket and to
eliminate the marriage penalty in the standard deduction. The House-
passed bill provides a good starting point for our discussions on
marriage penalty deduction and elimination. It does not do everything,
but it is a good starting point and key area with which to go.
Doubling the standard deduction, increasing the width of the 15-
percent bracket, and fixing the earned-income tax credit will eliminate
or reduce the marriage penalty for all filers.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the highest
proportion of marriage penalties occurred when the higher-earning
spouse made between $20,000 and $75,000 per year. Clearly, we need to
make the marriage penalty elimination a priority for all families, not
just a few. We must continually work to make our Tax Code better, to
make it fairer for America's families. I am hopeful we will be able to
correct this gross inequity in our Tax Code this year.
I want to go through some examples of people in Kansas who have
written to my office about the impact of the marriage penalty. People
know it is there, and they do not like it.
First, we can pass this bill in this body this year and get it to the
President. We have to have an agreement between the Republicans and the
Democrats as to whether or not we are going to agree to pass this bill.
I am calling on my Democratic colleagues to agree with us and pass
sensible marriage penalty relief. They have it in their power to block
us from doing this as well, but I hope they will come forward and say:
We do not want this pernicious tax to be on our married families. We
are all for family values, and the central unit of that family is the
married couple. We do not want to see placed on America's families this
average of $1,480 per family, on 22 million working couples who are
making between the $20,000 and $75,000 limit. We do not want to see
that tax placed on them. We do not want people saying: I cannot afford
to get married because of the Federal Tax Code. People are saying just
that now.
I want my colleagues to listen as I share some letters I have
received from Kansas constituents about this very issue.
When I go home every weekend and talk with people, the marriage
penalty tax comes up regularly.
Listen to this letter:
Dear Senator Brownback: My husband, a mechanic, and I are
working hard to raise our two daughters as well as we can on
his income. It is tight sometimes, but we get by.
After our littlest one, Emma, starts school I will be
returning to work at least part-time or \3/4\ time. Mitch and
I were looking forward to the extra income so we could pay
off our car, start saving for our girls' college education
and most of all, quit living month to month if something goes
wrong.
After doing our taxes this year we fiddled with the numbers
to see where a supplementary income would put us. We
discovered that my working much more than part time would put
us in a higher tax bracket and almost negate my income. In
short, my husband is punished for working nights and extra
overtime and I am punished for wanting to send my daughters
to college.
The best tax strategy that we could find would be to
divorce, let Mitch deduct the mortgage interest and I file as
the head of household with the girls. In short, the present
tax code has a significant incentive for shacking up instead
of marrying.
These are my constituent's words--rather blunt, but they do make the
point. She goes on to write:
Some people say that this tax cut is bad because it would
benefit the wealthy and the richest Americans. If they think
a mechanic and a secretary are the richest Americans, and are
opposed to the Richest Americans, then who are they for?
Obviously not mechanics and secretaries.
Please vote to remove the marriage penalty so our hard work
will mean something more than higher taxes.
Here is another letter. This one is from David:
Dear Senator Brownback: I am a college student at Washburn
University. My girlfriend and I have been thinking about
getting married for several months.
As part of the planning we went through our finances.
It sounds like a good idea to me.
I checked our taxes and found that if we were married this
year, we would have paid $200 extra in Federal taxes.
Granted that may not sound like much, but at $9 and change
an hour, $200 is a lot of money.
I calculated how much we could be making in a few years and
found that we will pay $600 more for being married than just
shacking up.
Again, a rather blunt statement, but put forward clearly.
He goes on to say:
Basically, we have to pay $600 for the privilege of being
married.
I always thought the government tried to reward
constructive, positive behavior through the tax code, but it
is punishing one of the most socially stabilizing behaviors,
marriage.
We don't think we or anybody else should be punished for
being married and hope you can do something about it.
Here is another one:
Dear Senator Brownback: I am writing to express my support
for The Marriage Tax Elimination Act recently passed in the
House of Representatives and to urge you to vote in support
of this measure when it comes to the Senate.
This legislation would address a serious inequity in
current tax law by eliminating the disparity that exists with
respect to the total ``standard deduction'' allowed two
married taxpayers versus the total ``standard deduction''
allowed two single taxpayers. Tax policy should not
discriminate either in favor of or against two individuals
with respect to their decision to be married (or not be
married). Rather, the same total itemized deduction amount
should be allowed married taxpayers who choose to file
jointly as two individuals who file separately.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Is that just basic common sense, that if you are going to be married
or if it is two singles, you should be taxed at the same level instead
of having an increased tax for being married? It is pretty hard to
explain that policy to that constituent.
Here is another letter from a constituent:
Senator Brownback: We were notified that a Marriage Tax
Relief Act was pending in the Congress. We want to go on
record as supporting any measure that will roll back the
``Marriage Penalty'' on America's families, including ours!
We trust that you are willing to vote YES on this bill.
Thank you, and God bless.
Here is another letter:
Dear Senator Brownback: I would like to thank you for
expressing your ideas and opinions on the marriage penalty
tax to the senate on behalf of the Kansas taxpayers.
Doubling the standard deduction for married couples, and
doing so as quickly as possible, lessens the blow with which
nearly 21 million couples are hit every year. I have seen
many people struggle with their taxes each year and I am
writing on behalf these people to recognize you for your
tremendous effort to make their lives easier. Thank you
again.
Here is another letter. This is from Salina, KS:
Dear Senator Brownback: I am writing to you about the
reduction of the ``marriage penalty''. I want to urge your
support to correct it. It is a misconception to regard it as
a tax cut. It is in fact a tax penalty that must be
corrected.
Two single people that choose to get married must not pay
more tax than two people that choose not to do so. That is a
penalty for getting married. Correcting this problem is not
``cutting taxes''. It is merely restoring them back to the
way they were before the couple joined in marriage. Thus it
is not a tax cut. It is the correction of the penalty for
getting married. Please do the right thing.
Ask yourself what would a couple do with the extra money?
It will get spent. All those millions of dollars flow right
back into the economy and get taxed again. It really won't
hurt, it will help!
I like his positive attitude on that.
We get a lot of letters and comments from people about this being a
tax, a penalty: Why do you say you are all for family values, yet you
are willing to tax marriage, the central unit of the family? It just
does not make sense to folks.
We are talking about a pretty substantial amount of money per married
couple--around $1,445 a year--for an average family. With that money:
They could pay the electric bill, which, if it averages $153 per
month, they can do that over a period of 9 months.
They could pay for a week-long vacation at Disneyland. That would be
good for a family.
[[Page S1203]]
They could make four payments on the minivan. Car payments for an
American minivan average between $300 and $350. They could make four
payments.
They could have a nice $40 dinner 36 times. I do not know which
people would do that. Most working families go to McDonald's, and it
does not cost $40. But if you want to spend $40, you can go out to
dinner 36 times.
Working families could buy 1,094 gallons of gas at $1.32 per gallon.
That example is a little old. We could talk about energy policy if you
would like.
They could buy 1,268 loaves of bread at the rate of $1.13 per loaf.
I think you get the picture. But many families could do a lot with
that money.
I want to reiterate, we have the bill now to do that. It has passed
the House. It is in the Finance Committee. It is going to be here. It
will be up to this body to determine, are we going to let it on through
or not?
The opposition has the right to stall this, to stop this bill from
clearing on through. But this is not right for us to do as a matter of
tax policy.
I am going to continue, and a number of us are going to continue, to
push aggressively to get this tax relief through, get this penalty off.
Marriage in America has enough difficulties without being penalized
by the Federal Government, as one of my constituents wrote. According
to a recent Rutgers University study, marriage is already in a state of
decline in America. From 1960 to 1996, the annual number of marriages
per 1,000 adult women declined by almost 43 percent. Someone might say:
Let's tax it some more; maybe it will go down some more.
At the same time that fewer adults are getting married, far more
young adults are cohabiting. In fact, between 1960 and 1998, the number
of unwed couples cohabiting increased by 1,000 percent.
When marriage, as an institution, breaks down, children do suffer.
The past few decades have seen a huge increase in the out-of-wedlock-
birth and divorce rates, the combination of which has substantially
undermined the well-being of children in virtually all areas of life.
That is according to many studies we have. It has adversely affected
children physically and psychologically, their socialization and
academic achievement, and even increased the likelihood of suffering
physical abuse.
That is not to say all children in those circumstances are going to
be having those difficulties. They are not. Many single people struggle
heroically to do a good job raising their children. Still, the total
aggregate result is that, over all, if you have this type of situation
increasing, you are going to negatively impact the physical and
psychological health, socialization, and academic achievement of that
child, and even increase the likelihood of physical abuse. Do we want
to encourage that more by continuing this pernicious tax? This is a tax
on children, a penalty on children. Study after study has shown that
children do best when they grow up in a stable home, raised by two
parents who are committed to each other through marriage. I guess we
shouldn't need a study to tell us that, but we have them. Newlyweds
face enough challenges without paying punitive damages in the form of
the marriage tax. The last thing the Federal Government should do is
penalize the institution that is the foundation of a civil society. I
believe we can and must start now to rid the American people of this
marriage penalty. I look forward to working with the chairman of the
Finance Committee as well as my other colleagues to make sure we get
this job done.
I will continue to come to the floor day in and day out to push that.
We now have a bill to eliminate this major portion of the marriage
penalty tax. It is going to be the choice of the Democrat Party whether
or not we will pass it through this body. I hope they will come forward
and say, yes, it is time to end the marriage penalty in America. Yes,
it is time to end this tax on our Nation's children. Yes, it is time to
end this penalty on 43 percent of the married couples in America. This
isn't a tax cut for the wealthy. This is a tax cut for the family. It
is not even a tax cut, it is just leveling the playing field and
removing the tax penalty. Clearly, we should do this.
One other issue of importance that will also be coming before the
body is the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act. That, too,
has passed the House of Representatives. Thank God for the work the
House is doing in getting these bills through and over to the Senate.
This bill passed the House 422-0.
This is a bad law that has been on the books since the Depression
era. You would have thought somebody would have stood up and said: I
thought that was a good law all this time. Nobody did.
We should not use the coercive power of the Federal Government to
prevent seniors who want to work from working. They have spent a
lifetime paying into the Social Security trust fund. It is simply not
fair to deprive them of their Social Security benefits simply because
they choose to stay in the workforce longer or choose to begin working
again after retirement.
I was talking with a constituent in Kingman, KS, who works at a small
factory in Kingman. He lost his farm during the decade of the 1980s,
during the farm depression. He is approaching retirement age and will
be there shortly.
He said: You really need to remove this thing for me and for a number
of people. I lost my farm in the 1980s. That was my savings account. I
have to continue to work to earn enough money to support the family. I
can't afford to be penalized for working.
The very thing we need to be encouraging people to do, we are
penalizing. Here is a man who has worked hard all his life. He is
approaching retirement age, will continue to work, and needs to
continue to work.
He said: Don't penalize me. Don't pull this away. I wish I hadn't
loss the farm in the 1980s, but I did. That was my savings account. I
don't have one now. I need to work. Let me work and don't penalize me.
Without a growing on-budget surplus, it is possible to remove this
penalty for America's working seniors. It is imperative that the Senate
pass this important bill so we can rid the Social Security system of
its disincentive to work. Americans should be free to work if they
choose. Passage of this bill will help elderly Americans stay in the
workforce longer. It should be their choice and not ours. This bill
allows people older than 65 and younger than 70 to earn income without
losing the Social Security benefits they have paid in their entire
life. It is an important bipartisan measure that passed overwhelmingly
in the House. I expect it will pass in the Senate as well.
Chairman Greenspan even noted its important positive impact on the
economy to increase the potential in the labor force that would be
available.
This is another important measure that has passed the House. I call
on my colleagues: We must pass this legislation. Let's pass the
Marriage Penalty Elimination Act. Let's pass this elimination of the
Social Security earnings test so we can allow people to work, so we can
allow married families to be able to save up some money and not be
penalized for the simple act of being married. It is in our power to
determine whether or not we will do this. I call on my colleagues to do
that.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________