Unmarried Americans question unfairness in federal tax laws
But are members of Congress paying attention?
Question: Why should the Internal
Revenue Service be authorized to pry into the private relationship of
consenting adults and deny dependency deductions based on
antiquated sex laws in some states?
Social security benefits are forfeited by many.
The
Cato Institute has noted that a single worker and a married worker pay the
same social security tax, but benefits for the single worker are much less.
Rates of return for one-earner married couples are up to 85% higher than for
single males. The Rand Corporation says this has an even harsher impact on
African American males, because they are disproportionately unmarried and
die younger as a class. Single people forfeit their benefits when they die,
but a surviving spouse can collect benefits for many years. Plans have
been proposed in Congress to allow employees to invest some portion of the
social security contribution into a private investment plan which they would
own and could pass on to their heirs after they die.
Question: Shouldn't workers be able to invest
a portion of their social security contributions into a private plan which
they would own -- and could leave to a survivor -- rather than forfeiting if
they are unmarried and die prior to retirement?
Some
members of Congress, such as Senator Joe Lieberman, have said that they
favor "marriage neutrality" in the tax codes. The federal estate tax is not
marriage-neutral. Unmarried people with significant assets can have up to
60% of their estates taken by the federal death tax even though they have
paid income tax, capital gains tax, or property taxes on these same assets
during their lives. The estate of a married person, however, is not taxed
when similar assets are left to a surviving spouse, no matter how large the
estate may be. Such favoritism for married people works to the disadvantage
of the estates of unmarried adults who leave their assets to a child, a parent, an
unmarried partner, or a friend.
Question: If a spousal transfer is
not subject to federal estate tax, no matter how large the estate is -- and
regardless of whether it is a third or fourth marriage -- then why
shouldn't transfers to a child, surviving partner, or close friend be exempt
from such taxation too?
Child tax credits are denied to some breadwinners.
Child tax credits are available to low-income
wage earners who are supporting children in their household. But an
unmarried taxpayer who provides support for a child living in his or her
household may not claim the child credit or an earned income credit if the
child is not blood related or placed in the home by
Question: Shouldn't a taxpayer (such as
the unmarried partner of an unemployed parent) be able to claim tax
credits for a child the taxpayer is supporting, even if the child is not a
relative or agency placed?
Head of household status denied.
An
unmarried taxpayer may file as "head of household" and substantially
lower his or her taxes, so long as the taxpayer has a "qualifying
dependent" living in his or her household. But federal tax
law says that if the dependent is not related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, then he or she is excluded from being considered a
"qualifying dependent."
Question: If
an unmarried taxpayer is supporting a dependent in his or her household then
why should the tax law preclude filing an income tax return as "head of
household" simply because the taxpayer and dependent are not "related" to
each other. Furthermore, single people who live alone have the burden of
only one income to support the household. They are in fact the head of
their own household. Why shouldn't solo singles who are struggling to
meet all of their financial obligations be able to file as "head of
household" too?
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT. JOIN AASP TODAY.
American Association
for Single People
P.O. Box 11030,
Glendale, CA 91226
(818) 230-5156 / fax (888) 295-1679
www.unmarriedAmerica.org
mail@unmarriedamerica.org