June 1, 2003: New York Times says millions of singles get no tax cuts

Unmarried Americans question
 unfairness in federal tax laws

But are members of Congress paying attention?
 

Millions of unmarried and single taxpayers are being penalized by the federal tax laws because of their marital status.  This can result in the loss of tens of thousands of dollars, often much more, during the years that an adult is unmarried.  For some people who are unmarried for their entire life, the penalty is greater and feels even harsher.

It is time to reevaluate these marital status tax penalties, especially since we are fast approaching the day when there will be a "new unmarried majority" in American households and living arrangements.

The "unmarried majority" members of Congress -- some 26 Senators and 113 House members, should take the time to become educated about how a majority of households they represent are being treated by federal tax laws.  And once they are aware of these inequities, these members of Congress should take the lead in proposing and pressing for appropriate reforms in the tax laws to remove these marital status penalties.

The number of unmarried Americans is increasing.

The U. S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2002 more than  86 million adults in the United States were unmarried – many of whom have never married, while others are divorced or widowed. About 49.4% of the nation’s households do not contain a married

   couple. In large cities, the majority of adults are not married. About 40% of the nation’s full-time workforce is unmarried. In the most recent presidential election, 35% of people who voted were unmarried. In some states, the figure was as high as 42% of voters.

Question:  Shouldn't marital status penalties in federal tax laws be reexamined in view of the large and increasing numbers of unmarried Americans?

 
Marital status creates penalties and bonuses.

Millions of married couples save money because they can file a joint income tax return.

In fact, there are more married couples who have a "marriage bonus" by filing a joint return than there are married couples with a "marriage penalty" from joint filing. (Report to the House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation, June 22, 1999.) Many unmarried adults who live together, including two blood relatives or two unmarried partners, would like the option to save on taxes by having the ability to file joint tax returns but they are currently prohibited from doing so.

Question:  Shouldn't the income tax laws be marital status neutral, taxing all individuals using the same methods and tax rates regardless of whether taxpayers are married or not?

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Workplace health benefits are unfairly taxed.

Workplace health benefits for the spouse of an employee are not subject to income taxes, regardless of how much income the beneficiary- spouse earns -- and regardless of whether this is a third or fourth marriage of the employee.  Many employers now offer health benefits for domestic partners or extended family members. But in most cases, these benefits are taxed because the health-benefit recipient does not qualify as a "dependent." Not only does this affect the employee who must pay tax on this benefit, but it imposes extra tax on the employer too. Congress should be promoting, not taxing, the extension of health care to household members of working people.  

Question: Should workplace benefits for an adult child, sibling, or domestic partner of an employee be taxed when spousal benefits are exempt from tax?

Adult dependent deduction is often not available.

Taxpayers in about a dozen states and the District of Columbia may not claim an unemployed unmarried partner as a dependent because federal tax law prohibits such deductions if the       
                                    CONTINUED