NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/misc/consumer/14691

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-30 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!news
From: [e-mail] (David Brady)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Middle-class salary range
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:41:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Tandem, Inc.
Lines: 67
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.252.127.70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(bill nelson) writes:
>[e-mail] (David Brady) writes:
>:
>: About "uses things in common":  When I lived with my girlfriend (now my
wife)
>: we used things in common, but we weren't taxed for it.  It seems like the
>: additional tax burden which punishes people for being thrifty.  If roommates
>: can pool their resources (like college students or communes or best friends
or
>: whatever) to save money without a tax bite, why can't married people?  Or
>: should roommates be taxed like married people.  That'll go down well.
>
>Should spouses be saddled with alimony payments if they get divorced? It is

Yes and this is a completely different subject.  What's the difference between
alimony and palimony?  Granted, palimony suits may be harder to win, but they
can be won (and have been won).  There is legal precedent for 'em.  So, in this
case, married couples = unmarried couples, and makes this point irrelevant to
the TAX question.

>an unfair world whenever there is a graduated (so called progressive tax).
>I have always felt that a flat tax would be the most equitable - then it
>doesn't matter if you are married or not.

Now, however, it does matter if you are married.  The sad thing is is that my
S.O. and I could afford a house much more easily unmarried than married.  (BTW,
I agree with the flat sales tax idea.  There are problems such as: the impact
on the poor.)

(This ought to start something interesting, but I'll throw it out anyway...)
What are the legal/financial benefits of being married?  (Note: I'm not asking
about emontional benefits.)  I can think of one: power of attorney (is this the
right phrase?  I'm thinking of the case when I need to make medical decisions
for my wife).  What about credit benefits?  I imagine it is somewhat easier to
get a sizeable loan when pairing 2 incomes through marriage vs. non-marriage.
How big is the difference?

You've admitted that there are inequities in the tax system against married
people.  If the benefits I asked about (above) turn out to be minimal - that
is, they don't offset the additional tax, then why does getting married require
financial punishment?

>
>: It'll be hard to convince me that I'm better off now (post marriage)  - but
you
>: can keep on trying!  :-)
>

Let me take a moment to change the poorly worded sentence above.  I should have
said "It'll be hard to convince me that I'm better off now FINANCE-WISE (post
marriage) - but you can keep on trying!"

>I am sure that you are the only one who can decide that. There are advantages
>and disadvantages to being married. If you think the disadvantages are greater
>then you can always get divorced.  :-)

Or, change the tax laws to remove the punishment (it is that, isn't it?) for
being married.  I seem to remember someone mentioning that in the '86 tax
reform a benefit for married couples with two incomes was removed.  Someone
care to comment on this?  Did anybody out there get hurt by this?

And, just to reiterate (I've said this before in another message - boy y'all
have short memories), my RELATIONSHIP is much much much more important than
financial matters.  Remember, this is MISC.CONSUMERS not MISC.RELATIONSHIPS.

David