Current Issue

Print Edition: May 20, 2012

 



  • Donate
  • Archives
  • Blogs
  • Store
  • Resources
  • Advertise
  • Jobs
  • Radio
  • Subscribe
  • Make This
    My Homepage
  • Resources
  • Christmas Music
  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Books
  • Commentary
  • Culture of Life
  • Education
  • In Person
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sunday Guides
  • Travel
  • Vatican
  • Dan Burke
  • Edward Pentin
  • Mark Shea
  • Matthew Warner
  • Jimmy Akin
  • Matt & Pat Archbold
  • Simcha Fisher
  • Tito Edwards
  • Jennifer Fulwiler
  • Steven D. Greydanus
  • Tim Drake
  • Tom Wehner
  • Our Latest Show
  • About the Show
  • About the Register
  • Donate
  • Subscribe
  • Stations
  • Schedule
  • Other EWTN Shows
  • Advertising Overview
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Order Web Ad
  • Order Print Ad
Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us
Print Edition » News

House Passes Marriage Tax Relief

But Vote Doesn't Have Vetoproof Majority

Share
by Joshua Mercer, Register Correspondent Sunday, Feb 20, 2000 1:00 PM Comment

WASHINGTON—Jim Crawford of Bryantown, Md., drove to the nation's capital to petition Congress to alleviate a discrepancy in the tax code that penalizes married couples.

Crawford said that he noticed the marriage penalty when comparing his family's tax bite with a similar couple of the same income bracket.

“They were divorced and they were paying $1,000 less than us,” Crawford told the Register. “It seems that every April 15 we get fined $1,000 for being married and it's just not right.”

The marriage penalty refers to the additional taxes paid by many two-income, married couples. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 25 million families pay an average of $1,400 in taxes because of the marriage tax penalty.

Crawford said it's unlikely that politicians intentionally passed laws to penalize marriage, but now that this situation has caught their attention, they should act as quickly as possible to rectify the situation.

“It got this way by accident,” he said, “but it's easy to rectify.”

Crawford's plea didn't go unanswered.

In a bipartisan vote Feb. 10, the U.S. House voted 268-158 to end the marriage penalty, timed just days before St. Valentine's Day. Although 48 Democrats joined all Republicans in favor of the tax change, the vote fell short of a vetoproof majority.

“Today a majority of the House of Representatives said no to the unfair marriage tax penalty, and said yes to the 25 million married couples who suffer this $1,400 tax penalty just because they are married,” said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill.

President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill, but stressed that the marriage penalty must be corrected. At a Capitol Hill appearance he said, “We know we should do this.” Clinton's proposed a $45 billion tax plan to alleviate the part of the penalty that focuses on lower- and middle-class families. The House was bolder, proposing a $182 billion plan to almost completely eliminate the penalty for all married couples regardless of income.

House Speaker Denny Hastert commended the bill. “We need a tax code that recognizes that working families need help,” the Illinois Republican said. “They don't need the federal government picking their pocket and taking money out of their account just because they're married.”

The legislation would:

—increase the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly by $1,450, up to $8,800 beginning in 2001;

—double the standard deduction for married couples to twice that of single filers by 2001;

—expand the lowest tax bracket (15%) to $51,500 from $43,050 for married couples.

—increase the Earned Income Tax Credit by $2,000 to include those who make $32,580 per year.

Questioning the Cost

Democrats worried that the bill would threaten the strong economy and the newfound surpluses.

Michigan Democrat Sander Levin said, “The Republican proposal falls far outside this common sense budget framework. It would drain down surpluses that may be needed for Social Security and Medicare.”

But citizen Crawford from Maryland insists that the marriage penalty tax ought to be eliminated on principle even if it left less money in the Treasury.

“I don't care how much the estimates are,” said Crawford. “The fact is this is a gross injustice. It makes my blood curdle.”

Crawford said his daughter asked him about the penalty before she got married: “She asked me, ‘But does that mean we will pay more this year because we're getting married?’ and I said, 'Yes, Pam, you will pay more this year because you checked the box marked ‘Married.’”

The Next Step

The bill now goes to the Senate where support is strong from both sides of the aisle.

Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told reporters, “There is a real good possibility we'll pass some form of marriage penalty tax relief this year.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman William Roth, R-Del., said the issue was “a top priority” for his panel. “We look forward to righting this wrong.”

The Senate, known for long deliberation, promises swift action on the bill. Republicans hope to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote by March 10.

This is the fourth time since 1997 that Rep. Weller has tried to end the marriage penalty in the tax code.

During the House debate, Weller recited the number of married couples that reside in the districts of individual Democrats when they came to the floor to oppose the bill.

“You may be able to explain your opposition to them, but I sure can't,” Weller said each time.

Subscribe to the National Catholic Register!  Click here to begin a trial subscription to the print edition, and receive 3 free issues with no risk and no obligation.

Filed under

Comments

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

     

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Also in this Issue

  • Arts & Culture

    Prizer’s Picks
  • Into the Pigeonhole Again
  • Commentary

    God, Business and the Super Bowl
  • Why the New Century Won't Bring Vatican III
  • Despite Rumors, Consecrated Life Is Alive and Well
  • Culture of Life

    FACTS of LIFE
  • LIFE NOTES
  • The Gospel Of Life
  • Linus’ Legacy: Bits of Fabric and Yarn
  • Gene Therapy: Ethics Depend on the Method
  • THE CHURCH IN AMERICA EASTERN EUROPEANS
  • Education

    Education Notebook
  • In Person

    Full Steam Ahead
  • News

    Media Watch
  • Media Watch
  • ‘Jesus Touched My Heart And Healed My Eyes’
  • Sudan Film Captures a Nation’s Genocide
  • Executions Moratorium Applauded
  • Suicide Video Triggers Uproar
  • Opinion

    LETTERS
  • Breakfast With the Pope
  • Vatican

    Catholic Population Up, Number of Priests Rises
  • Beatification Dates Set for Great Jubilee
  • Solemn Maronite Liturgy for Jubilee Highlights Church’s Diversity
  • Vatican Museums Open New Door, Itself a Work of Art

Most Popular Now

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Daily News

    Unprecedented Legal Action Takes HHS Mandate Battle to the Courts (5687)
  • Daily News

    Mother Angelica’s Monastery at 50: Southern Hospitality Meets Divine Providence (5478)
  • Daily News

    Remembering Catholic Psychiatrist Conrad Baars (2698)
  • Daily News

    Finding Balance in Personal and Professional Life (2645)
  • Daily News

    California May Soon Ban Reparative Therapy for Same-Sex-Attracted Teens (2413)
  • Daily News

    Let Freedom Ring! (1874)
  • Daily News

    Vatican Authorities Arrest Pope’s Butler on Suspicion of ‘Vatileaks’ (1739)
  • Blogs

    When Reverend Mothers Cease Being Motherly (14314)
  • Daily News

    Unprecedented Legal Action Takes HHS Mandate Battle to the Courts (60)
  • Daily News

    California May Soon Ban Reparative Therapy for Same-Sex-Attracted Teens (45)
  • Daily News

    Let Freedom Ring! (8)
  • Daily News

    Remembering Catholic Psychiatrist Conrad Baars (7)
  • Daily News

    Vatican Authorities Arrest Pope’s Butler on Suspicion of ‘Vatileaks’ (1)
  • Daily News

    Finding Balance in Personal and Professional Life (1)
  • Daily News

    Mother Angelica’s Monastery at 50: Southern Hospitality Meets Divine Providence (0)
  • Blogs

    On Coping with NFP Zealotry (246)

E-mail Signup

Receive our free e-mail updates!

As part of this free service, you will receive occasional special offers

 
Close

Free Newsletter Sign-Up

Enter your e-mail address below to receive the latest news and blog posts in your inbox each day.

As part of this free service you will receive occasional free offers from us. We won’t share your information, and you can unsubscribe at anytime.
Click here if you don't want this message to show again.

National Catholic Register

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Subscriptions
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Press Releases
  • RSS Daily Register
  • RSS Bloggers
  • RSS Print
  • Contact
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2012 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of material from this website without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Accessed from 38.107.179.231