Re: the "marriage penalty"

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (robert)]

 > From: Margaret <http://www.juno.com/~margaretch>
 > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:22:57 -0500
 >
 > 
 >  (robert) writes:
 > > Here are the reasons why I am against the revoking of the "marriage 
 > > penalty":
 > > 
 > > 1.  Unfairly benefits two-income high-wage earners.
 > > 2.  An arbitrary moral code.
 > > 3.  Promotes procreation (the fuel for capitalism) due to 
 > > encouraging
 > >     heterosexual marriage.
 > > 4.  Punishes people like Candy and Brian who will likely stay single 
 > > for
 > >     the rest of their lives.
 > > 
 > I see your point - the imbalance.  Would you know how to remedy this?

Write my senators and congressperson.

 > I'm
 > at a loss because of my ignorance.  Who is Candy?

Candi?  Is that how it's spelled?

 > And does this punish
 > you at this time?

Not this particularly.  If Noelle and I were to marry, the "marriage
penalty" would make us pay more in taxes overall.  (Unless Noelle or I
lost our jobs...)

 > Mom-Me