As Alstott notes, nearly half of American adults are now unmarried, 40 percent of children are born to unmarried parents, and labor force participation among married women is now very close to that of married men... So why even bother with the concept of joint tax filing?The destruction of marriage is set to resume as soon as same-sex marriage becomes the law. We've been pretending that the traditional institution is soooo important that it's terrible to exclude gay people. But you can see the anti-traditionalists itching to move forward — ever forward — with the new! I see we're supposed to call it the "new individualism," because — step into our trap, conservative naifs — conservatives are always touting individualism.
Alstott borrows from Johns Hopkins University sociologist Andrew Cherlin, who calls the trend away from formal marriage “new individualism.” This, she says, “has rendered obsolete legal doctrines and policy analyses that treat formal marriage as a proxy for family life … . Joint filing is no longer well-tailored to serve important social objectives.”
Joint filing makes structuring the family around a single-earner a tax-avoidance strategy. The no-income spouse does all sorts of labor that benefits the family economically without producing taxable income. It's hard for people to do the math and see how valuable this is and how well it works, especially — but not only — when you have children. Those who've set their hearts on women's equality have — for decades — promoted women's entering the workplace and, to do that, they've obscured the benefits of single-earner family structure (even though the male could be the home-based spouse).
Now, after letting 2 or 3 generations mature without understanding the good of this traditional division of labor, they'd like to remove the tax benefit. It's just completely outdated and has nothing to do with the way people live these days. And when that happens, we will all be endlessly in the grip of the all-seeing, all-taxing government, and the days of life centered around the home will be just some old joke about Ozzie and Harriet, ha ha, so old fashioned. So dumb. So naive.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
I doubt anyone has ever accused you of being consistent.
Weren't you arguing just a couple weeks ago for a national sales tax or a flat tax? Both would necessarily eliminate the tax benefits of marriage (and the child tax deduction for that matter).
Now, after letting 2 or 3 generations mature without understanding the good of this traditional division of labor, they'd like to remove the tax benefit. It's just completely outdated and has nothing to do with the way people live these days.
when everyone is special, no one is. why shouldn't the unmarried get equal tax treatment?
The thing that annoys me is I actually kind of agree with Althouse that social conservatives are on to something when they believe there's actually such a thing as a "Gay Agenda."
But I can't explain.
I'll be dead. I don'care. BTW Bite me Barry.
It is not a "Gay Agenda" per se; it is an "Anti-Family" agenda.
The long-term goal is to completely de-legitimize the family as the center of our lives and replace it with the State.
Maybe the Way Of Ozzie And Harriet was a better way than the Way Of The Ambiguously Gay Duo?
Gee, didn't some of the anti-gay marriage folks here predict this?
And didn't they get smeared for being bigots?
Oh, well, who cares?
The Magic gay Elves won, and traditional families will die.
Whatever.
I'm all for getting the government out of marriage. How about just having a lower tax rate overall instead of having these exceptions and schemes.
Ridiculous! Even if most families don't have a single earner (though plenty do, including my own), almost every couple I know with kids has a "main" earner - the person who works more and makes more, and who's job is most important to the family. Barring hiring a brigade of nannies or barely getting by, it's nearly impossible to raise children without that system. Plus, don't almost all couples buy houses or pay the rent together, plan for retirement together, etc.?
Marriage is a partnership.
Well, if the "institution" of marriage is inherently important, even after the kids have flown the nest, then tax advantaging it makes sense, no matter the composition of the sexes. However, the major argument for same-sex marriage is not respect for the institution, but attempting to force respect for the relationship. Of course, once you step outside of the biological basis of one man and one woman being required to produce children, then one must ask, what's so special about two? The relationship between 3 people can be just as significant, special and sacred as between 2 and failure to tax advantage an equally important relationship between 3 people would be viewed as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
However, the tax advantaging aspect of the tax code for marriage has largely been eliminated and the only tax benefits derive from having individual exemptions that expand as the number of dependents grows and are eliminated as the kids leave the nest.
So, the net conclusion is that the current tax code does not favor marriage at all.
I've been saying this for years. The insistence on gay marriage is not based on respect for the sanctity of marriage, it's simply that homosexuals do not want to be told that they are different from the mainstream, except in the ways that they themselves cherish. Once gay marriage is universal and mundane, gays will go back to ignoring or trashing marriage just like the rest of "progressives".
I've been saying this for years. The insistence on gay marriage is not based on respect for the sanctity of marriage, it's simply that homosexuals do not want to be told that they are different from the mainstream, except in the ways that they themselves cherish. Once gay marriage is universal and mundane, gays will go back to ignoring or trashing marriage just like the rest of "progressives".
I don't care if you like this provision or not. It's not worth all work it takes to deal with the humongous, dripping wet, stinking box it comes in. Send it all back. We need to clean out the mess up in here.
So, the net conclusion is that the current tax code does not favor marriage at all.
except that the Supreme Court gay marriage case is specifically about tax benefits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
My libertarian streak says that government should exit the marriage business altogether. That way, it doesn't matter who marries who. But I can't ignore that government has a big part in marriage through taxes, property rights, child custody, benefits for federal employees, etc. It's not simply a change to the tax code.
Ultimately, it up to each couple to define their marriage. Some use the Word of God as a model. Some use their own parents. Some use the Cosby Show. But ultimately, it's each couple that defines the roles and responsibilities of a marriage -- the government can't do this for us.
There is also no doubt the definition of marriage is changing in society. And government is playing a role in that change. No fault divorce is allowing divorce to become much easier and more common. And over time, people are opting for either no marriage or much shorter marriages – and less kids. I don't think any of us can predict the affect this will have families and society. All we know is that it will just be very different than what we've seen in the past.
We may not realize it but we're in the middle of huge societal changes. Many of the social institutions we grew up with are changing in dramatic ways. While we see some of these changes, I doubt many people can accurately predict the long term affect these changes will have. I'd also argue that those that want to go back to the 1950s definition of family are being unrealistic -- it's not going to happen without a fundamentalist revolution and serious curb on civil liberties. We need to accept that the water around us has grown.
So looking forward, say 40 years, what elements of America need to remain constant regardless of these huge social changes?
I'd argue that our Constitution provides a tremendous guide to navigating these changes. Our Founders would be very surprised that the US Constitution has lasted well over 200 years, with only 1 civil war and a few hard-won modifications. The constitution has remained. It's imperative that during this time of flux we are careful stewards of the Constitution's separation of powers and checks and balances. If the America 40 years from now is going to survive and thrive, it's only going to occur because we prevented one small group or another to become too powerful.
I lived with Ozzie and Harriet for while back in college. She was banging the mailman and so was he, and kids were running a meth lab in the garage. It's not how it looked.
There is a always a backlash to these demographic predictions. An only child will marry an only child and they will not want their kid to be an only child so they will have bigger families. Mexicans immigrants will move into higher economic spheres, become selfish libruls and have fewer kids.
It is a natural cycle- even the librul psuedo-psychologists- faux science- pop culture-poli-sci-communications major innumerate leftist predictions can not alter human nature.
The progressive tax rate is what introduces a married/single difference in the first place.
You want to achieve two things
1. Families with the same total income pay the same tax
2. The tax code neither favors nor disfavors married/single
You can't do both with a progressive tax code. The tax code in fact flips between favoring and disfavoring marriage every generation or so, trying again to solve it.
A flat tax fixes a thousand things, and equalizes tax treatment of married/single automatically as well.
My libertarian streak says that government should exit the marriage business altogether. That way, it doesn't matter who marries who. But I can't ignore that government has a big part in marriage through taxes, property rights, child custody, benefits for federal employees, etc. It's not simply a change to the tax code.
there was a time when marriage was a proxy for raising the next generation of society and it was in society's interest to benefit that. that is no longer the case.
One reason for the reduction in marriage rates may be the marriage tax penalty for dual income earners.
I calculated a cumulative tax penalty of over $100k for us as a couple if we had gotten married.
I laugh when I think of all the gay couples who want to marry so they can have all the attendant rights of married couples. If they are both high earning professionals earning equal amounts, they are going be surprised at how much those rights will cost them.
AustinRoth said...
The long-term goal is to completely de-legitimize the family as the center of our lives and replace it with the State.
What Austin said. The Left wants kids raised by the state in crèches, trained by the state and dependent on the State.
It does not want co-dependent marriage
"Both would necessarily eliminate the tax benefits of marriage (and the child tax deduction for that matter)."
-- A sales tax may do that (in theory), but not a flat tax, which could still have deductions (a flat tax implies a flat rate for everyone, but you could still allow charitable deductions.) A sales tax could also allow for tax rebates, though that's a clunky system.
there was a time when marriage was a proxy for raising the next generation of society and it was in society's interest to benefit that. that is no longer the case.
Really? Because it isn't happening as much, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be a proxy anymore. Which new hybrid familial unit is now going to be the best for raising kids, now that traditional marriage isn't a proxy anymore?
To clarify, the flat rate on an income of 50,000 would be different than on 45,000 (assuming 5k in deductions to lower your effective taxable income.)
so..if the advocates of same sex marriage will return to an assault on the institution of marriage, what is the point? to a cynical person, it would seem that same sex marriage is simply a political ploy to increase the power of one political faction.
It is past time that the Internal Revenue Code recognized the current reality of marriage.
In the first comment on this post, Freder Frederson says: "I doubt anyone has ever accused you of being consistent. Weren't you arguing just a couple weeks ago for a national sales tax or a flat tax? Both would necessarily eliminate the tax benefits of marriage (and the child tax deduction for that matter)."
You're thinking of this post, where I said:
"The unequal, politically skewed enforcement of a law is a far more serious problem than the level of harshness of a neutrally enforced law. We can disagree about what the tax laws should be and how strictly or harshly they should be enforced, but everyone knows it is fundamentally wrong to vary the degree of enforcement, selecting victims by their politics. If government cannot be trusted to avoid that fundamental wrong, it cannot be trusted with any power at all. It would be better to wipe the tax code clean and rebuild it without any complicated corners where government officials — great or small — have a place to do their dirty work."
To say X is better than Y, is not to say I'm for X. It's saying, it's so important to avoid Y, that I'd support X to avoid Y. I'd avoid swimming if it were the only way to avoid drowning.
"Yale lawprof Anne Alstot"?
Your nom de plume?
It's the new bloodletting.
They want our money. This is just another way to take it.
She knows what you are thinking, Freder.
And she knows you don't think very clearly.
Joint filing was not added to the Tax Code because Congress gives a rat's ass about families or marriages. It was added to create parity between the community property states and the common law states. Community property laws automatically allow a married couple to split their income, a big advantage when you have progressive tax rates. Once the Courts said that federal tax law had to respect state community property law, joint filing was added for everyone just to level the playing field.
Accordingly, you can't just eliminate joint filing, as it would have no practical effect in California and other community property states. Other states might well move to a community property regime just to restore that tax benefit to their citizens.
when everyone is special, no one is. why shouldn't the unmarried get equal tax treatment?
Actually, the marriage penalty is back for dual income families who earn a combined income over $72K a year. From this source:
Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
• 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
• 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
• 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
• 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
• 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
• 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000.
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,850, plus
• 15% on taxable income over $17,850 to $72,500, plus
• 25% on taxable income over $72,500 to $146,400, plus
• 28% on taxable income over $146,400 to $223,050, plus
• 33% on taxable income over $223,050 to $398,350, plus
• 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $450,000, plus
• 39.6% on taxable income over $450,000.
Suppose you had two couples living together, one married and the other not married. Suppose their combined incomes were both $150,000 a year and to keep it simple, each partner earned $75,000 AGI.
Working the numbers, the single couple would pay $29,357.50 in federal income taxes and the married couple would pay a bit more, $29,465.50. That's a marriage penalty of a bit more than $100 which isn't too big a deal.
OK, increase the combined incomes to $250,000 and the single couple pays $56,465.50 and the married couple pays $58,813, a marriage penalty of $2,226.50. As their combined income increases, so does the marriage penalty.
How is this "fair"?
Nonapod,
They'll never cut taxes because they'll never cut spending. We NEED these social services for children, who'll be increasingly raised by single parents (ie, mothers), or by parents who are rarely home.
And once you NEED these services, only a MONSTER would cut them.
The more civilized countries of Europe tax earners as individuals.
Bringing in children is a diversion, since they can be treated as if their parents aren't married, which is often the case anyway.
The biggest rip-offs of singles are in the areas of Social Security spousal benefits, where one wage earner can have up to 5 indolent ex-spouses that gain benefits from his earnings, in immigration, where spouses are given a free pass for a green card while singles often can't even arrange for a visit of a lover, brother or kid, and in inheritance that allows spouses special tax treatment.
Actually I was thinking of this one. And you pretty clearly said:
"We should do what we can to redesign the structures of power so the inevitable degradation of commitment to freedom will not have such a damaging effect. When it comes to taxes, we do have an obvious legal solution at the statutory level: replace the tax code — with all its hiding places for abuse — with the flat tax or national sales tax."
Now if you are claiming that it is not inconsistent to retain the joint tax advantage to encourage certain social structures but to simultaneously eliminate it to protect free speech, I just don't know how to deal with that logic.
Socialist have for a hundred years listed the destruction of the family as a primary goal. If you eliminate the family, people are more dependent on the government and thus more likely to support socialism.
Gay marriage has always been a mechanism for socialists to destroy marriage. Socialists don't care about gays. If the day ever comes that making homosexuality criminal again helps socialists achieve their end, homosexuals will be sent off to prison. For socialists it is always about the cause.
"So why even bother with the concept of joint tax filing?"
Because a family is an economic unit?
Or is it? Does this "new individualism" presume that there's no longer "Yours, Mine, and Ours" but only "Yours" and "Mine"?
And if so, do these "new individualists" understand the social costs involved? (To take just one example- if it's "you" and "me" but no "we" then why would I want to invest in your education?
Do they understand any of the reasons why marrieds are, in the aggregate, happier, healthier and wealthier than singles?
In respone to "X" first post, the creation of tax-free fringe benefits is the major driver for the 000's of dollars in tax benefits that favor the married. Don't worry, Obamacare has created an incentive to not give healthcare benefits to spouses, so I believe these benefits will go away over time if not changed in the law. The affordability provision (9.5% of income) in Obamacare only looks at the cost for the employee's healthcare coverage. Bye-bye!!.
Actually, "X" second post.
There are other ways to promote family, without using the tax system. Marriage existed before the IRS. It is why I acknowledge there is something objectively different in heterosexual behavior. Obligation to offspring.
Can we give marriage back to the churches then?
What about birth certificates being in sync with UN standards noting both biological kin.
Personally, I think joint filing ought be either (a) restricted solely to people with children or (b) expanded to cover any person or group of people who choose to use it.
I see no reason to give special bennies to childless couples.
The entire idea should be rejected as a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is anti-green (in both senses, environmental and personal financial) to boot. Indeed, the very proposal is reason enough to adopt the Paperwork Reduction Amendment to the Constitution.
Getting rid of joint returns would require, oh, a zillion additional tax returns to be filed annually. Only accountants and lawyers could want such a thing.
For married couples living in community property states, elimination of the joint tax return would create lots of complications. If required to file individual returns, they would have to create a complete joint statement, and then adjust their individual returns so that each return reported 50% of the total.
This is similar to what same-sex married couples and registered domestic partners in California have had to do for the past few years. Since Wisconsin is also a community property state, those in the Badger state might want to think twice about any changes to the status quo.
"Personally, I think joint filing ought be either (a) restricted solely to people with children or (b) expanded to cover any person or group of people who choose to use it."
Makes sense, since the children are being claimed as a dependent.
But what about blended families? Can you file jointly with more then one person, if you have children from a prior relationship?
Here's how joint-filing tax incentives work in Amerika:
He and she fall in love in college.
He goes to med school, she works to put him through. It soon occurs to them that they should marry so as to enjoy the marital tax benefit.
He graduates, does his internship and residency, and starts to earn big bucks.
It soon occurs to them that they'd save money if she'd drop out of the workforce and keep up the house instead, seeing that her paltry income is now being taxed from the first dollar at 60%, his marginal rate as a doctor + FICA and state income taxes.
Now doing housework, she pushes for cats, dogs and kids to keep her entertained at home, while he goes on learning and advancing in his career.
Now that they have brats and pets, they need a much larger home. A larger home leads, of course, to more brats and pets--partly subsidized by single, taxpayers.
One day he comes home from a stimulating cutting-edge international medical conference to realize that he can't go on living with a woman who is spending her time watching soap-operas and ferrying kids to school, and who is now talking baby-talk and doggy-talk.
They divorce, she gets the house, he gets a new trophy wife, and the taxpayer starts paying to help support the kids. His trophy wife is pretty, sterilized and loves foreign travel. She's ready for Europe anytime, since she has no job and no kids to pollute her life.
The other wife, older and wiser and for so long abused by the tax code, struggles on, helped by child support, taxpayer contributions and alimony that will end if she ever finds anyone to marry again.
The happy ending for the doc, having gone on to marry, for 10 years each, another 3 women in succession, is that, by age 67, he will have enjoyed 4 doting young foreign wives who in exchange will be entitled to great SS benefits based on his salary for some 40 years each, even though none may ever have worked a day in her life.
What a country!
Question for the group of commentators: Would you rather pay less total in taxes in a complicated system (i.e. what we have today)? Or, would you rather pay slightly more taxes in a simple, no paperwork, flat tax type of system?
I personally would like to see our taxes significantly simplified to either a sales tax or flat tax on any income while ending the corporate income tax. No corp income tax would eliminate the need for tax exempt status and would focus companies on producing profits and long-term investing while reducing tax avoidance strategies. Further, it would probably boost employement. And I'd be willing to live with a slightly higher individual flat tax. But that's just me.
Tom,
I do favor a flat tax, but it has to be a tax that doesn't favor all kinds of non-productive behavior, like marriage, breeding, subscribing to insurance, idling at college and home-ownership.
Both Ozzie and Harriet worked! So did the children.
this is what David Brooks was talking about, although he doesn't realize it:
(apocryphal)
When Josef Stalin was on his deathbed he called in two likely
successors, to test which one of the two had a better knack for ruling
the country.
He ordered two birds to be brought in and presented one bird to each
of the two candidates.
The first one grabbed the bird, but was so afraid that the bird could
free himself from his grip and fly away that he squeezed his hand very
hard, and when he opened his palm, the bird was dead.
Seeing the disapproving look on Stalin's face and being afraid to
repeat his rival's mistake, the second candidate loosened his grip so
much that the bird freed himself and flew away.
Stalin looked at both of them scornfully. "Bring me a bird!" he ordered.
They did.
Stalin took the bird by its legs and slowly, one by one, he plucked
all the feathers from the bird's little body.
Then he opened his palm. The bird was laying there naked, shivering,
helpless.
Stalin looked at him, smiled gently and said, "You see... and he is
even thankful for the human warmth coming out of my palm."
family, friends, religion, free association...all just feathers
we will look much better naked, won't we
No joint tax filing? Does that mean the non-working spouse (where that still exists) can qualify for a full slate of welfare benefits?
Well Titus what do you have to say about that? How was your mehndi? You're the only Indian bride here I think.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा