Comments on: TAX CUT MATH http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:30:07 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Steven http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1446 Steven Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1446 I believe it is the case that the deduction only goes up for only two-earner married couples, and that it stays the same for single-earner married couples. I believe it is the case that the deduction only goes up for only two-earner married couples, and that it stays the same for single-earner married couples.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1447 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1447 I can't figure that out, to be honest. The chart seems to indicate otherwise, as does <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35969-2003May24.html">this story</a>. But I haven't actually seen the bill. I can't figure that out, to be honest. The chart seems to indicate otherwise, as does this story. But I haven't actually seen the bill.

]]> By: MommaBear http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1448 MommaBear Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1448 Of course, one can also assume that it's like a little credit for the spouse who stays home and does the work that hired help would otherwise be doing for the two-earner household. Of course, one can also assume that it's like a little credit for the spouse who stays home and does the work that hired help would otherwise be doing for the two-earner household.

]]> By: Steven http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1449 Steven Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1449 I have read numerous stories about the bill the last several days, and am fairly certain that I read that it only applies to two-earner families, but I can't remember where I read it. One thing is for certain--the reportage on these stroeis really isn't very good insofar as they are lazy with the numbers, as <a href="http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/archives/000855.html">I pointed out the other day</a>. I have read numerous stories about the bill the last several days, and am fairly certain that I read that it only applies to two-earner families, but I can't remember where I read it.

One thing is for certain--the reportage on these stroeis really isn't very good insofar as they are lazy with the numbers, as I pointed out the other day.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1450 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1450 MB: <i>...one can also assume that it's like a little credit for the spouse who stays home and does the work that hired help would otherwise be doing for the two-earner household.</i> Sure. Indeed, the whole point of having a category for "married" to begin with was for it to be a disguised government subsidy. The tax code takes money away from singles at a disproportionate rate and redistributes it to the married, even those without kids; those with kids get even more. My point, though, is that there is no "marriage penalty" in the tax code in the sense that the government penalizes you for getting married. Most married couples, even under the old code, were better off being married. It's just that the rewritten one takes away a glitch that penalized dual earners who both had highish salaries--a fairly small subset of the population. MB: ...one can also assume that it's like a little credit for the spouse who stays home and does the work that hired help would otherwise be doing for the two-earner household.

Sure. Indeed, the whole point of having a category for "married" to begin with was for it to be a disguised government subsidy. The tax code takes money away from singles at a disproportionate rate and redistributes it to the married, even those without kids; those with kids get even more.

My point, though, is that there is no "marriage penalty" in the tax code in the sense that the government penalizes you for getting married. Most married couples, even under the old code, were better off being married. It's just that the rewritten one takes away a glitch that penalized dual earners who both had highish salaries--a fairly small subset of the population.

]]> By: jen http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1451 jen Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1451 Someone needs to lobby for the single people with no dependents and no property. We get screwed. Someone needs to lobby for the single people with no dependents and no property. We get screwed.

]]> By: Scipio http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1452 Scipio Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1452 Despite popular imagination, there is no town of Podunk in Mississippi. However, we do have the towns of Saucier (pronounced not "sau-see-eh" but "sow-sheer") and Wiggins. Despite popular imagination, there is no town of Podunk in Mississippi. However, we do have the towns of Saucier (pronounced not "sau-see-eh" but "sow-sheer") and Wiggins.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1453 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1453 You sure, Scipio? I thought Ole Miss was located in Podunk? You sure, Scipio? I thought Ole Miss was located in Podunk?

]]> By: dustbury.com http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/tax_cut_math/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 dustbury.com Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-1454 <strong>Equal distribution of miseries</strong> James Joyner notes that regional variations mean nothing to the tax code: $50,000 a year is big money in Podunk, --- Equal distribution of miseries
James Joyner notes that regional variations mean nothing to the tax code: $50,000 a year is big money in Podunk,

---

]]>