[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2668-S2673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa.
This has been an interesting debate on this part of the Tax Code, and
I have been listening to this debate with a lot of interest. If there
ever was something that needed fixing, it is unfairness in the tax
code. I am not going to talk about a disincentive for folks to get
married. I look at it from a standpoint of fairness.
Young couples who are starting out and trying to save a little money
for the education of their children, or trying to pay for a home, these
couples are penalized. They have dreams of participating in American
opportunities, and they are kept from this by an unfair tax code. In
Montana, 90,000 couples are penalized to the tune of $51.5 million
every year in extra taxes simply because they are Mr. and Mrs.
We made it pretty clear on this side of the aisle that tax reform is
needed.
[[Page S2669]]
If we have to do it one step at a time or one inch at a time, then
that is the way we will do it. That makes it very slow and very
painful. Yet it has to be done.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, almost half of married
couples pay higher taxes due to their married status. The marriage tax
penalty increases taxes on affected couples $29 billion per year.
Currently, this marriage tax penalty imposes an average additional tax
of $1,400 a year on 21 million married couples nationwide.
I, along with my Republican colleagues, have made it clear that
continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, and I can think of no
other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people. To some
people, $1,400 may not sound like a lot of money, but to a lot of
Americans $1,400 does mean a lot of money. Especially when it can be
used for things like saving for education, or supporting young
families, or a long list of things that need to be fixed around the
house.
The marriage tax penalty can have significant negative economic
implications for the country as a whole since the tax code can
discourage some people from entering the workforce altogether.
Additionally, this is a good time for us to restore fairness for
married people. No. 1, I think what we have seen this week in the stock
market, what we have seen in the high-tech stocks, shows that we may
not be in the real booming economy now that everybody thinks we are.
No. 2, if you live in farm country, we know we are not in a booming
economy. Look at our small towns around my State of Montana and all
through farm country. We know what tough times are. And then to be
penalized in your taxes just because you are married seems a little
unfair.
I support this particular piece of legislation. I want the American
people to know that we will take this one step at a time. After all, we
did not get into this situation overnight. Maybe it will take one step
just to get us out of this kind of a situation.
Mr. President, as I said, I rise in support of legislation currently
on the floor that will put an end to the marriage tax penalty. We have
been fighting this tax inequity for several years now. The people of
Montana have spoken to me either through letters or conversation--they
think this tax is unfair.
Last year, I met with a couple in Billings, MT, to determine the
impact of this tax on them. Joshua and Jody Hayes paid $971 more in
taxes because they were married than they would have paid if they
remained single.
In Montana, it is estimated that nearly 90,000 couples are penalized
by this tax to the tune of $51.5 million--solely for being married.
I along with my Republican colleagues have made it clear that
continued tax reform and tax relief is necessary, but I can think of no
other tax that has such a dramatic impact on so many people.
If ever there was a disincentive to be married, this penalty would be
it. I believe this, along with the estate tax, is one of the most
unfair taxes on Americans. It is not right for people to be penalized
with higher taxes simply because they choose to get married.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), almost half of
all married couples pay higher taxes due to their marital status.
Cumulatively, the marriage penalty increases taxes on affected couples
by $29 billion per year. Currently, this tax penalty imposes an average
additional tax of $1400 on 21 million married couples nationwide.
The marriage penalty can have significantly negative economic
implications for the country as a whole as well. Not only does this
penalty within the tax system stand as a likely obstacle to marriage,
it can actually discourage a spouse from entering the workforce.
By adding together husband and wife under the rate schedule, tax laws
both encourage families to identify a primary and secondary worker and
then place an extra burden on the secondary worker because his or her
wages come on top of the primary earner's wages.
As the American family realizes lower income levels, the Nation
realizes lower economic output. From a strictly economic perspective,
the fact that potential workers would avoid the labor force as a result
of a tax penalty is a clear sign of a failure to maximize true economic
output. As a result, the nation as a whole fails to reach its economic
potential, which is demonstrated by decreased earnings and
international competitiveness.
I am very disappointed the President has indicated he will veto this
bill as he has in the past. That is not just the veto of a bill--that
is another signal the administration does not support the union of two
people and their impending family.
Congress has the momentum to correct this inequity and I encourage my
colleagues to support this legislation to repeal the marriage penalty.
I ask unanimous consent to have an example of the marriage tax
penalty printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Example of the Marriage Penalty Tax
Take a couple in which the husband is a new Billings Police
Officer and his wife is a teacher for the Billings School
District.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husband Wife Couple
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Gross Income............... $33,500 $28,200 $61,700
-----------------------------------
Less Personal Exemption............. 4,150 4,150 6,900
Standard Deduction.................. +2,650 +2,650 +5,300
-----------------------------------
6,800 6,800 12,200
===================================
Taxable Income...................... 26,700 21,400 49,500
Tax Liability....................... 4,271.50 3,210.00 8,504.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total tax liability when filing jointly is 8,504.
Total tax liability for both filing as singles 7,481.50.
Marriage Penalty 1,022.50.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Iowa, who has done a wonderful job in managing this bill, and more
importantly for his role in the Finance Committee to make sure that we
have a great marriage tax penalty relief bill.
I thank the Senator from Montana for talking in straight terms, as he
always does, about what our priorities are: Does this money belong to
the people who earned it or does it belong to the Federal Government in
Washington, DC?
I think it is very interesting; when people talk about tax cuts, you
can tell immediately how Members are going to vote by how they refer to
the tax cuts.
As the Senator from Missouri said earlier, if you are going to be
against tax cuts, you are going to say: How much will it cost the
Federal Government to give this tax relief? But if you believe that
people who earn the money deserve to keep it, then you are going to
say: How much is it going to cost the American family if we do not give
them back part of the excess that they have sent to Washington in
income tax withholding?
I want to make the point again, we are not talking about the Social
Security surplus providing money for tax cuts. We are talking about the
income tax surplus. That means that people have sent too much to
Washington and we are trying to return some of it.
I think it was an interesting argument earlier, on the Democratic
side, where it was shown that Federal taxes have gone down in our
country. We are trying to lower Federal taxes, but, in fact, what has
happened is local taxes have gone up. So all of the neutral sources in
our country today tell us that there is, in fact, a higher tax burden
on the average American family today than ever before in peacetime.
That is a big burden on an average family.
About 40 percent of the average family's income is taken in taxes.
That is a fact. And we are in peacetime. We do have a balanced budget.
We do not need that much. We should send it right back to the people
who earned it, to put in their pockets for them to make the decisions
as to how to spend it. That is what we are trying to do today.
I think it is interesting when you listen to the debate. The
distinguished Democratic leader yesterday said, in the debate: ``I
think the Republican bill is a marriage penalty relief bill in name
only. It is a Trojan horse for the
[[Page S2670]]
other risky tax schemes that have been proposed so far this year.''
I want to go over what we have taken up this year, what we have
proposed this year, and just say to the American people: I wonder what
the risky tax schemes are.
Is it a risky tax scheme to let people on Social Security between the
ages of 65 and 70 work without paying a penalty? Is that a risky tax
scheme? Is the education tax credit that Senator Coverdell passed
earlier this year to give parents a tax credit to buy education
enhancements for their children--the computers, the extra books, the
tutors--a risky tax scheme? Or is it the small business tax relief that
we passed to try to give our small businesses an opportunity to grow
and create new jobs in our country?
I am not sure to which ``risky tax scheme'' the Democratic leader
refers. But if that is a ``risky tax scheme,'' I am guilty because I do
believe the hard-working people of this country deserve to keep more of
the money they earn.
This marriage tax penalty relief was provided for in the budget we
passed last week. We would take only 50 percent of the allocation over
a 5-year period. We think that is quite responsible as stewards of our
tax dollars.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Republican led Senate is considering
legislation that I have long advocated for working families--relief
from the marriage tax penalty.
This is not a limited problem. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, almost half of all married couples--21 million--are affected by
the marriage penalty. One study showed that over 640,000 couples in
Virginia are affected.
The marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married
working couples. For example, a manufacturing plant worker 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 both file
their taxes as singles they would pay 15 percent in income tax. But if
they choose to live their lives in holy matrimony and file jointly,
their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into a higher tax bracket
of 28%. The result is a tax penalty of approximately $1,400.
The Republican marriage penalty relief bill would fix this unfairness
without shifting of the tax burden and without the need for a tax
increase on any individual. Middle and low income families would
benefit as much as earners with higher incomes. The bipartisan support
for eliminating the marriage penalty is overwhelming. The House of
Representatives passed the bill with 268 votes.
In the Senate, our bill increases the standard deduction for joint
returns to twice the amount of the standard deduction for single
returns, doubles the size of both the 15% and 28% tax brackets for
joint returns to twice the size of the corresponding tax rate brackets
for single returns, and increases the phase-out income level for the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for joint returns by $2,500.
Additionally, it makes permanent the current allowance of personal
nonrefundable tax credits to offset both regular and alternative
minimum tax liabilities.
Critics have claimed that most of the tax relief under our plan would
go to wealthy couples. That is simply not true. The Congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation's distribution analysis estimates that couples
making under $75,000 annually will be the biggest winners.
Additionally, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that couples earning
between $20,000 and $30,000 will receive the biggest percentage
reduction in their federal taxes out of any income level, with couples
making between $30,000-$40,000 fairing almost as well.
Opponents of this measure have argued that some married couples,
where only one spouse works, will receive a so-called ``marriage
bonus''. Although the word ``bonus'' implies an additional benefit,
this is simply not the case. First, this money belongs to the
taxpayers. With a surplus of over $2 trillion, not including Social
Security, all taxpayers are entitled to a return of their tax
overpayment. Second, should the federal government, through tax policy,
discourage either parent from staying at home with children? If a
couple chooses to raise their family on just one income, they will need
all the financial help they can get. The government should not penalize
a family simply because it takes both spouses working outside of the
home to make $50,000. Being a stay at home parent should be rewarded--
not penalized.
This means over $64 billion in tax relief over the next five years.
Combined with the other tax relief measures adopted by the Senate this
year--tax relief for small employers, improved health care access, and
education savings accounts--the total tax relief considered by the
Senate falls well within the $150 billion budgeted for tax cuts in the
recently-adopted budget resolution.
This is a modest proposal. Eliminating the marriage penalty will
result in less tax paid to the federal government. However, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will send Uncle
Sam almost $2 trillion in additional surplus taxes over the next ten
years. That is after Congress has locked up 100% of Social Security
surplus and paid down the public debt. Our proposal asks Uncle Sam to
give back to middle class families just 10 cents out of every extra
surplus dollar they send to Washington. Is that really to much to ask
to help families? The Federal government should not put a price tag on
the sacrament of marriage.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, next Monday is the deadline for all
Americans to file their 1999 income tax returns with the Internal
Revenue Service. This week the Senate has appropriately dedicated its
attention to the tax burden placed on Americans, particularly the
unfair marriage tax penalty. Simply, the marriage tax penalty is an
injustice in the current Federal income Tax Code that results in a
married couple filing a joint tax return paying more in taxes than if
the same couple were not married and filed as individuals.
Every week of the year I receive letters from Washington state
constituents outraged by the marriage tax penalty, but during tax
season my mailbox is deluged with the protests of married couples. Last
year, Congress passed a tax relief bill that would have eliminated the
marriage penalty, but President Clinton vetoed this needed reform. This
year, Democrats have spent this entire week delaying and then blocking
a Senate vote on a bill to end the marriage penalty.
Maybe some of my colleagues should hear what I read in the letters I
receive asking for action by Congress and the President to eliminate
the marriage tax penalty. From an email I received from a constituent
in Maple Valley, Washington: ``I wanted to express my hope that you and
the other members of Congress will be able to eliminate the marriage
penalty tax * * * Why should I pay more in taxes since I am married?''
From Bellingham, Washington: ``Fairness! It all comes down to fairness.
Please stop penalizing us for being married. We deserve the same as two
single taxpayers.'' From a family farmer in Eastern Washington state:
``I believe the marriage tax penalty is a mistake that should be
corrected. It would establish fairness in our tax system.'' This is
merely a sampling of the hundreds of letters I have received, but it is
an accurate representation of the views of my constituents and the vast
majority of Americans.
My No. 1 tax legislative priority is complete tax reform. I believe
the entire confusing and incomprehensible Tax Code should be scrapped
and replaced with a system that is fair, simple, uniform and
consistent. Until such fundamental reform can take place, I will
continue to work in support of tax reform and relief measures that
correct unfair aspects of the existing tax code mess. The marriage tax
penalty is absolutely one of the most outrageous and indefensible
injustices in the current Tax Code. Efforts to delay and block the
elimination of the marriage tax penalty are clearly an affront to a
sense of fairness, the institution of marriage, and they are contrary
to the desires of an overwhelming majority of Americans. The Senate
should vote now to correct the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the marriage penalty is the extra tax a
couple pays as a result of being married. When a couple says ``I do''
they
[[Page S2671]]
are really saying ``IRS, we will pay.'' The tax code has 63 provisions
that penalize couples for being married. There are more than 20 income
phase-outs and each is a marriage penalty. The two biggest marriage
penalizers are the standard deduction and the tax brackets. Fairness
would dictate that the standard deduction for a couple should be twice
what it is for a single taxpayer. Fairness would dictate that the tax
bracket income cut-off points for a married couple should be twice that
of a single taxpayer. That is not the way the current code is
structured. This bill would restore fairness.
About 25 million married couples annually are adversely affected by
the marriage penalty. Average marriage penalty is $1,400. If we
eliminated the marriage penalty, the typical family would have an extra
$1,400 to pay the electric bill for nine months, pay for three months
of day care, pay for a five-day vacation at Disneyland or eat out 35
times.
There wasn't always a marriage penalty. Prior to 1948 the tax code
taxed individuals, but today, the marriage penalty has infiltrated the
entire tax code. It didn't matter when most women stayed at home, but
now that so many women work it is indefensible to have the marriage
penalty in our law. A working wife often works to support the federal
government, more than she works to help her family, because the first
dollar she earns is taxed at the highest rate her husband's income is
taxed. Some economists call this the ``second earner bias'' because the
income of the secondary earner is stacked on top of the primary
earner's income resulting in a relatively high marginal rate.
Of the 27 OECD countries 19 countries taxed husbands and wives
separately so there is no marriage penalty. The biggest culprits are
the standard deduction and the tax brackets.
The standard deduction for two individuals filing single returns is
not twice what the standard deduction for a married couple filing a
joint return is. It isn't but, it should be.
Marriage penalty hits low income workers. Eligibility for the earned
income credit is the same for single heads of households and married
couples. Combining two incomes on a joint return may push a couple into
the phase-out range of the EIC and reduce the size of their credit.
As I mentioned, a growing number of tax provisions--credits and
deductions--are phased-out at certain income ranges. Any tax provision
that has an income phase-out contributes to the marriage penalty. Few
of us probably ever stop to think about the marriage penalty when we
vote for tax provisions with income phase-outs. Some phase-outs start
as low as $10,000 of income. The dependent credit, the elderly credit
and earned income credit have phase out ranges that compound the
marriage penalty for the working poor.
Several provisions have phase-outs in the $50,000 to $75,000 in
income range which add to the marriage penalty of the two income middle
class families. The dependent credit, the Hope education credit, the
elderly credit, adoption credit; the IRA deduction and the Education
loan interest expense deductions. Itemized deduction threshold,
personal exemption, all get ``marriage penalty-ed'' out of existence
for many married couples with modest incomes.
S. 2346 provides total tax relief to married couples of $64 billion
over the next five years. Combined with the other tax relief measures
adopted by the Senate this year--tax relief for small employers (H.R.
833), improved health care access (H.R. 2990), and education savings
accounts (S. 1134)--the total relief considered by the Senate
falls well within the $150 billion budgeted for tax cuts in the
recently-adopted Senate budget resolution.
Let me describe in particularity the provisions of the bill. Standard
deduction: The bill increases the standard deduction for married
couples filing jointly to twice the standard deduction for single
taxpayers. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this provision
provides tax relief to approximately 25 million couples filing joint
returns. It is effective for taxable years after December 31, 2000.
Increased brackets: The bill expands, over a six-year period, the 15-
percent and 28-percent income tax brackets for a married couple filing
a joint return to twice the size of the corresponding brackets for an
individual relief to 21 million married couples, including 3 million
senior citizens.
EIC: The bill increases the beginning and the end of the phase-out of
the Earned Income Credit for couples filing a joint return. Currently,
for a couple with two or more children, the EIC begins phasing out at
$12,690 and is eliminated for couples earning more than $31,152. Under
this bill, the new range would be $2,500 higher. For these couples
eligible for the EIC, the maximum credit is increased by $526, from
$3,888 to $4,414. It is effective for taxable years after December 31,
2000.
AMT relief: The bill permanently extends the current temporary
exemption from the individual alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for several
family-related tax credits, including the $500 per child tax credit,
HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits, and dependent care credit. The bill
also exempts two refundable credits, the Earned Income Credit and the
refundable child credit, from being reduced by the AMT. It is effective
for taxable years after December 31, 2000.
Mr. President, this bill addresses one of the biggest federal income
tax injustices and I hope the Congress will enact this legislation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the S. 2346--
legislation that would dramatically reduce one of the most insidious
aspects of the tax code: the marriage penalty.
Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, there are several primary
causes of the ``marriage penalty"within the tax code, including
different tax rate schedules and different standard deductions for
joint filers versus single filers.
In terms of the impact of these differing tax provisions, the
marriage penalty is most pronounced for two-earner couples in which the
husband and wife have nearly equal incomes. While this may not have
been as noticeable in society 30 or 40 years ago, the demographic
changes that have occurred since the 1960s--with more married women
entering the workforce to help support their families--has led to a
significant increase in the share of couples who suffer from the
marriage penalty.
Mr. President, make no mistake, the impact of the marriage penalty is
severe. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 42% of
married couples incur marriage penalties that average nearly $1,400.
When measured by income category, fully 12% of couples with incomes
below $20,000 incurred a marriage penalty in 1996; 44% of couples with
incomes of $20,000 to $50,0000; and 55% of couples with incomes above
$50,000.
In addition, according to CBO, empirical evidence suggests that the
marriage penalty may affect work patterns, particularly for a couple's
second earner. Specifically, because filing a joint return often
imposes a substantially higher tax rate on a couple's second earner,
the higher rate reduces the second earner's after-tax wage and may
cause that individual to work fewer hours or not at all. As a result,
economic efficiency is harmed in the overall economy.
Furthermore, while I would hope that the tax code would not be a
factor in a couple's decision to marry or stay single, the simple fact
is that a couple's tax status could worsen if married and could,
therefore, impact a couple's decision to marry. Therefore, we should
eliminate this potential barrier to marriage and ensure that couples
make one of life's biggest decisions based on their values and
beliefs--not on the federal tax code.
Mr. President, as a strong opponent of the marriage penalty, I am an
original cosponsor of S. 15, legislation introduced by Senator
Hutchison that eliminates the marriage penalty through a proposal known
as ``income splitting.'' Under this approach, a married couple would
add up all their income and then split it in half. Each spouse would
then file as a single individual and pay taxes on his or her half of
the total income, with exemptions, deductions and credits being split
evenly between the two spouses.
Last year, to advance this legislation or any other proposal that
would provide marriage penalty relief, I offered an amendment during
the markup of the FY 2000 budget resolution that ensured a significant
reduction in--or the
[[Page S2672]]
outright elimination of--the marriage penalty would be a central
component of any tax cut package adopted during last year's
reconciliation process.
Later that summer, in accordance with my budget amendment, the $792
billion tax cut reconciliation package that was passed by the Senate
last summer included such relief, as did the final House-Senate
conference report. However, just as President Clinton vetoed the tax
bill in 1995 that included marriage penalty relief, last year's tax
bill was vetoed as well.
In an effort to address this issue outside a broader tax package, the
House of Representatives passed legislation earlier this year--by a
bipartisan vote of 268 to 158--that would reduce the marriage penalty.
Now, in the Senate, we are considering stand-alone legislation that
would dramatically reduce the marriage penalty by doubling the standard
deduction for married couples relative to single filers; expanding the
15 percent and 28 percent income tax brackets for married couples to
twice the size of the corresponding tax brackets for single filers;
increasing the phase-out range of the Earned Income Credit (EIC) for
couples filing joint returns; and permanently exempting family tax
credits from the individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Mr. President, it is my hope that, by considering this package of
marriage penalty relief proposals as a stand-alone bill--and not as
part of a broader, and potentially controversial, tax cut package--we
will not only pass this legislation prior to ``tax day'' on April 17,
but ultimately send a bill to the President that he will sign for the
benefit of all married couples.
The bottom line is that we should not condone or accept a tax code
that penalizes married couples or discourages marriage, and this bill
provides the Senate with the opportunity to correct this inequity in a
straightforward manner.
Ultimately, this bill is not simply about providing the American
people with a reasonable and rational tax cut--rather, it is about
correcting a gross discrepancy in the tax code that unfairly impacts
married couples. Accordingly, even though individual members of this
body disagree on a wide variety of tax cuts policies, I would hope we
would all agree that the act of marriage should not be penalized by the
Internal Revenue Code--and would support the proposal before us
accordingly.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Roth
marriage tax relief plan. The clock is ticking, Mr. President. In less
than forty-eight hours, Americans across the country will empty their
pockets to pay the government thousands of dollars in taxes.
For approximately 42 American couples, tax day will have an extra
sting to it, because they will have to pay an average of $1,400 extra
in taxes to accommodate an outdated and discriminatory tax system.
When we first adopted the tax code, women made up only about three
percent of the work force. But today, women are full time
entrepreneurs. Some seventy percent of mothers work, only to find their
income penalized. Our tax system did not anticipate this dramatic
growth in dual income families. So now an outdated system discriminates
against women and married couples.
When Mr. and Mrs. Smith get married, they look forward to a bright
and prosperous future--to have and to hold, for richer and for poorer.
But they soon find that Uncle Sam has moved in and cast his low shadow
over them. And they are undoubtedly poorer.
The marriage penalty cuts two ways--by pushing married couples into a
higher tax bracket and by lowering the couple's standard deduction. Two
married income earners, with their combined income, must pay their
income tax at a higher rate with a lower deduction than they would if
they were two single people.
This is not a one time penalty. Under our tax system, marriage is not
a freeway. It is a toll road. For ten years of marriage, couples must
pay an average of $14,000 extra. For twenty years, couples must pay
$28,000 extra. And they must forgo money that they could have invested
in a car, a house, or their children's education. Mr. President, we
must update the tax system and we must lift this extra burden on the
backs of American couples.
The Roth plan takes solid steps on the path of tax relief. It
increases the standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint
return to twice the basic standard deduction for a single individual
beginning in 2001. This standard deduction increase will help 25
million couples filing joint returns. The Roth plan expands the 15-
percent and 28-percent tax brackets for a married couple filing a joint
return to twice the size for a single individual. Twenty-one million
couples will benefit from these tax bracket expansions. This
legislation also expands the Earned Income Credit (EIC) beginning and
ending income levels by $2,500, removing the disadvantage of receiving
a smaller EIC after marriage. Finally, the Roth plan exempts family tax
credits from the individual Alternative Minimum Tax.
Mr. President, all week I have heard my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle claim their support for marriage penalty relief. Yet they
insist on quenching the thirst of American couples with only a raindrop
relief. They offer nearly $100 billion less in tax relief for American
couples in the next ten years. Fifty percent of the benefits under
their plan do not occur until 2008.
We must be serious about tax relief for American couples. If you talk
to any marriage counselor, he or she will quickly tell you that the
number one cause of problems in marriage is money--specifically, the
lack of it. If we want to support American families, if we want to
support the future of America, we can start by reducing the money
problems of married couples.
Mr. President, there are 207,677 couples in my home state of Arkansas
suffering from the marriage penalty. They have called for marriage
penalty relief. I want to give it to them.
I hope that when the clock stops ticking on Saturday, the Senate will
have lightened the load on the couples and the American family. I urge
my colleagues to support the Roth marriage penalty relief plan.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues across the aisle
will not prevent us from reducing the marriage penalties in the tax
code. This bill will provide married couples the relief that President
Clinton denied them last year with his veto of the Taxpayer Refund and
Relief Act of 1999. President Clinton's action last year increased
taxes by close to $800 billion and imposed a marriage penalty on middle
class American families.
There is no place in the tax code for marriage penalties. Marriage
penalties are caused by tax laws that treat joint filers relatively
worse than single filers with half the income. It has of late become
common practice to use the tax code for purposes of social engineering,
discouraging some actions with the stick of tax penalties and
encouraging others with the carrot of tax preferences. But there is no
legitimate policy reason for punishing taxpayers with higher taxes just
because they happen to be married. The marriage penalties in the tax
code undermine the family, the institution that is the foundation of
our society.
I view this bill as just a start. Our tax code will not truly be
family-friendly until every single marriage penalty is rooted out and
eliminated, so that married couples with twice the income of single
individuals are taxed at the same rates, and are eligible for the same
tax preferences--including deductions, exemptions, use of IRAs and
other savings vehicles--as those single filers. This bill is an
important step toward that ultimate goal.
The Democrat criticisms of our bill are misplaced. They argue that
our bill contains complicated phase-ins, in contrast to their simple
approach. But anyone who reads the bill and their alternative would see
that this is false. The Finance Committee bill contains percentages in
it, sure enough. And it phases in the relief, that is true. But the
percentages and the phase-ins are instructions to the Treasury and the
IRS, to make adjustments to the tax brackets. The only people who have
to make any new calculations under the Finance Committee bill are the
bureaucrats who make up the tax tables, not the taxpayer.
By contrast, the Democrat alternative, in phasing in its relief,
requires
[[Page S2673]]
taxpayers to calculate their taxes as joint filers, then calculate
their taxes as if they were single--a complicated process that requires
the allocation of various deductions and credits. Next, the taxpayer
would have to determine the difference between these two calculations
and then reduce this by a certain percentage. That is supposed to be
simple? The Democrat substitute adds to the headaches of tax filing and
the demand for tax preparers and tax preparation software.
The Democrats also complain that the Finance Committee bill does more
than address their narrow definition of the marriage penalty. They
invoke the so-called ``marriage bonus.'' But the ``marriage bonus'' is
a red herring. What they call a ``marriage bonus'' results from
adjustment tax brackets for joint filers to reflect the fact that two
adults are sharing the household income. Under the Democrat approach,
single taxpayers who marry a non-working or low-earning spouse should
pay the same amount of taxes as when they were single, even though this
income must be spread over the needs of two adults.
This approach is fundamentally flawed. The Democrat approach would
enshrine in the law a new, ``homemaker penalty.'' The Democrats would
make families with one earner and one stay-at-home spouse pay higher
taxes than families with the same household income and two earners.
But why discriminate against one-earner families? Why would we want a
tax code that penalized families just because one of the spouses
chooses the hard work of the household over the role of breadwinner?
The Democrat alternative discourages parents from staying home with
their infant children, and penalizes people who sacrifice income in
order that they can care for their elderly parents. That is just plain
wrong.
The Finance Committee bill reduces the marriage penalty in a rational
sensible way, by making the standard deduction for joint filers twice
what it is for single filers, and by making the ranges at which income
is taxed at the 15% and 28% rates twice for joint filers what they are
for single filers. This recognizes that marriage is a partnership in
which two adults share the household income. Our approach cuts taxes
for all American families. The Democrats call this a ``bonus.'' We calm
it common sense.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on
this side of the aisle?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just a little less than 3
minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. And if somebody
else wants the remaining 2 minutes, I would be glad to yield it.
I take this opportunity, just before the cloture votes, to clear up a
couple things. First of all, the Senator from North Dakota is a very
good friend of mine. I work very closely with him. I do not dispute
what he said. But I do want to clarify his reaction to my saying that
taxes are as high as they have ever been in the history of our country.
The Senator made the point that taxes have gone down for many
taxpayers. Of course, that is true. He concentrated on middle-income
taxpayers. But it is mostly true because of the tax credit for children
that the Republicans promoted and passed in the 1997 tax bill. For a
family with two kids, for instance, that means $1,000 that Republicans
provided, or about $25 billion a year.
But despite the protests of the Senator from North Dakota, I still
stand by my comments that the overall percentage of taxation is at a
historical high of near 21 percent of GDP.
Then in response to Senator Robb's comments on the Medicare reserve,
it is my understanding that $40 billion was reserved for Medicare and
prescription drugs in the conference report. I hope and think that the
Senator from Virginia is incorrect.
I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five seconds.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, I say to all my colleagues, this is the vote on
marriage tax penalty relief. If you support marriage tax penalty
relief, vote for cloture so we can consider this bill. We can send a
clean bill to the President. If you are not for marriage tax penalty
relief, do not vote for cloture.
This is the vote on whether or not we are going to grant marriage tax
penalty relief to nearly 25 million American couples. That is what this
vote is all about now. It is not about a whole bunch of extraneous
amendments. It is about the marriage tax penalty.
If you ran on this issue, this is your chance to vote to say: I am
for eliminating the marriage tax penalty. If you ran on it, this is the
time to stand up and say: I am for eliminating the marriage tax
penalty.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture to go to the bill.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). All time has expired.
____________________