Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $35,069
43%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 43%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: marriagepenalty

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • IRS Increases 'Marriage Penalty,' Unmarried Cohabitants To Get Twice The Mortgage Interest Deduction

    08/05/2016 9:46:56 PM PDT · by Rabin · 16 replies
    forbes ^ | AUGUST 1, 2016 | Tony Nitti , contributor
    IRS Increases 'Marriage Penalty,' Designated Cohabitants To Get 2 X 3, Prior Mortgage Interest Deduction rates Significant tax hits that come with getting hitched, or as they’ve collectively been coined, the “marriage penalty.” For example, the 28% tax bracket kicks in at $45,577 each income for single, but at only $75,595 for taxpayers declared gander married pairs. In addition, single taxpayers to lose 3% of itemized deductions. In updated, AOD 2016-02, the IRS acquiesced in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sophy v. Commissioner, allowed a same-sex, unmarried, co-habiting singel and multi gender couple to each deduct the mortgage interest on...
  • Tying the Knot Under ObamaCare

    11/07/2013 8:34:01 AM PST · by sevinufnine · 25 replies
    American Thinker ^ | October 27, 2013 | Eileen F. Toplansky
    In true Marxist form, the ludicrously named "Affordable Care Act" mounts an all-out attack on marriage. In 2010 the Heritage Foundation pointed out under the bill couples would face massive financial penalties if they marry or remain married. Conversely, couples who cohabit without marriage are given highly preferential financial treatment. If the Senate bill becomes law, saying 'I do' would cost some couples over $10,000 per year.
  • ObamaCare’s Marriage Penalty

    08/19/2013 6:45:42 PM PDT · by xzins · 27 replies
    New American ^ | 19 August 2013 | Michael Tennant
    Jeffrey offers a hypothetical example, basing his calculations on the Kaiser Family Foundation’s online subsidy calculator. A 50-year-old divorcee with three children who earns $47,100 a year would be faced with an annual health insurance premium of $11,140. However, since her household income is only 200 percent of the FPL for a family of four, she would receive a subsidy of $8,172 to keep her insurance cost to 6.3 percent of her income, or $2,967. Our single mom meets a 56-year-old man who makes $63,000 a year and pays an annual premium of $7,041 with no subsidy because his income...
  • 23 Million Americans Hit by a Tax Hike, But They May Not Know It Yet

    10/06/2010 12:05:46 PM PDT · by WOBBLY BOB · 15 replies
    CNS ^ | 10-5-10 | Doug Joseph
    (CNSNews.com) - Almost 23 million American households are about to have their federal taxes raised by an average of $3,900 this year, but they may not know it yet. They could get a big surprise when they prepare their tax returns next year. Among those subject to this already-in-place tax increase are some families making less than $50,000 per year, and virtually all married couples earning between $100,000 and $500,000 a year, according to data published by the Congressional Budget Office. The looming tax hike is contrary to President Barack Obama's repeated promise not to increase taxes on any individual...
  • Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill

    01/06/2010 9:09:20 PM PST · by icwhatudo · 9 replies · 563+ views
    Wall Street Journal ^ | 1-6-10 | By MARTIN VAUGHAN
    WASHINGTON -- Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress. The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do." The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the...
  • The myth of the marriage penalty (MSM attempt to soften the coming tax increase of 2010).

    06/08/2008 3:15:05 PM PDT · by willk · 13 replies · 89+ views
    MSN.com ^ | 7-08-08 | Liz Pulliam Weston
    If you believe the myth about the marriage penalty -- the one that says you pay more taxes when you're married than if you'd stayed single -- you might be baffled by the whole gay marriage thing. "Who's really penalized: The poor The people who faced the most egregious penalties, as a portion of their income, were the working poor, according to tax expert Edward McCaffery, a law professor at the University of Southern California and the author of "Taxing Women."
  • Marriage tax tango

    05/14/2004 12:44:34 AM PDT · by JohnHuang2 · 3 replies · 136+ views
    Washington Times ^ | Friday, May 14, 2004 | Matt Daniels
    <p>A strange thing happened in the U.S. House of Representatives recently. Republicans and Democrats came together to pass an important piece of legislation by an overwhelming majority -- even though it is an election year.</p> <p>Now, Americans should hope the U.S. Senate will do an equally strange thing -- in the interest of our nation -- and pass the same bill, too.</p>
  • House Passes Tax Cuts for Married Couples

    04/28/2004 6:49:19 PM PDT · by Blood of Tyrants · 43 replies · 292+ views
    Foxnews ^ | 4/28/04 | Unknown
    WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday to lower taxes for some married couples, part of an election-year push to lock in some of President Bush's most popular tax cuts. The bill, passed 323-95, would permanently change three parts of tax law that cause some married couples to pay higher taxes than they would as single individuals and reduce their taxes $105 billion over the next decade. Some married couples face a tax increase next year if the changes expire as scheduled. "It encourages the values we hold most dear — marriage, family, hard work," said Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Ill. The...
  • Tax-Cut Cynicism

    06/13/2002 2:45:43 PM PDT · by greydog · 7 replies · 149+ views
    NYTimes ^ | 13 JUN 02 | unk
    At a time of terrorism anxiety and scarce budget resources, Congress is increasingly in the grip of a bad case of warped priorities. Were Americans to be asked if they wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy just now, the answer would be no. Yet that is what President Bush and Republican Congressional leaders are seeking. Yesterday rationality prevailed in the Senate, which killed an attempt to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax enacted last year. But other unnecessary tax cuts will be on the agenda soon, just as Congress is scrimping on funds for homeland security. The...