[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.

                          ____________________