[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 58 (Friday, April 30, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E718-E719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, April 30, 2004

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, when a couple plans to marry, it is a time of 
anticipation, joy, and yes, stress. There is much to think about, to 
plan for, and to organize. But when a couple is finally standing at the 
altar, they should not be thinking about paying more in taxes. When the 
marriage penalty tax was in effect, there is evidence that couples were 
thinking just that: many couples stayed unmarried for tax purposes, and 
others even tried to game the system by divorcing each December and 
remarrying each January. Unless they went to great lengths to avoid 
marriage altogether, many couples were walloped with the marriage 
penalty at tax time.
  The marriage penalty did not always exist. When the Federal 
Government first levied an income tax in 1913, all taxpayers filed 
individual tax returns, and the rate schedules did not differentiate 
between singles and married couples. By basing a married couple's 
federal income tax entirely on the separate income of each spouse, the 
original code taxed married couples no differently than it taxed single 
taxpayers.
  Created in 1969, the marriage penalty caused many married couples to 
pay more in taxes than the sum of what they would have paid as 
unmarried individuals filing separately. In recent years, it punished 
married couples where both spouses worked with an average tax penalty 
of $1,100, while giving couples where only one spouse worked a marriage 
bonus. By making the repeal of the marriage penalty permanent, we will 
allow 70,000 working families in my district--and 810,000 in New 
Jersey--to use their savings for mortgage payments, car payments, 
college payments, childcare, or other needed expenses. It will be 
beneficial to the New Jersey economy.
  This vote is the sixth in a series of votes over my time in Congress 
to remove the marriage penalty. I have always voted for its repeal. In 
fact, several years ago, I voted to override the former President's 
veto of it. Simply put, Americans have rejected the idea that our tax 
laws should make it more expensive to be married than to be single.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made a botch of tax 
policy in this country. The Tax Code remains burdensome, unwieldy, and 
in places, unfair. Some Americans pay excessive and unfair taxes 
relative to other Americans. The unfairness is glaringly obvious. It 
should be fixed.
  I believe, as many do, that tax cuts should first go to the middle-
class. Not only do middle-class tax cuts ease the tax burden on the 
group that feels it most, but they also deliver more economic stimulus 
than tax cuts targeted to the wealthiest 1 percent. Through middle-
class tax cuts, we can help families in New Jersey and around the 
country provide for their families' healthcare, education, housing, and 
other priorities.
  The marriage penalty is one of the only parts of the Republican tax 
package that can fairly be described as a middle-class tax cut. That is 
why I support its repeal, even though I do not support the broader 
budgetary approach that has taken our country back down the road of 
deficits as far as the eye can see. Generally speaking, tax policy has 
a unique role in the American political system: it is perhaps where the 
government and the citizen interact most directly. Because the marriage 
penalty seems illogical and capricious, it makes the whole government 
seem illogical and capricious. The repeal was passed in 2001, and it 
should be sustained.
  Of course, I am disappointed that this legislation is not offset with 
other revenue or savings. This repeal could have been done with a 
higher priority placed on balancing the other side of the ledger, but 
the Republican leadership is more interested in symbolism then fiscal 
responsibility. Still, although I do not support--and have voted 
against--the overall

[[Page E719]]

Bush tax cuts because they are skewed to benefit the wealthy, the 
marriage penalty should not be allowed to return. In accomplishing this 
victory for married couples and working families, I invite my 
colleagues to begin immediately to revise their overall budget so that 
it responsibly and effectively meets America's needs and priorities.

                          ____________________