this morning we will vote on an amendment that brings to light a particularly glaring injustice of the Federal Tax Code, and that is the marriage tax penalty. In recent months, the Senate has debated this issue more than once. I think these efforts are significant. I congratulate Senators Brownback and Ashcroft for offering this amendment and also the many other Members who have championed the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Let me also say this: The U.S. Senate should not rest until we are able to eliminate this counterproductive, unfair, and regressive policy. I will continue to support amendments to end the marriage tax penalty until we are successful. I ask myself one fundamental question before I make up my mind on any issue we deal with on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That is: Does this policy make sense for the American people? Let us apply this question to our current Federal Tax Code, which quite simply penalizes a working couple for getting married. Should folks pay more tax because they are married? Absolutely not. The marriage tax penalty raises revenue for the Government but it is poor public policy. It most often raises taxes on lower- and middle- income families who claim the standard deduction. That is wrong. We must strengthen the bonds of family to strengthen the fabric of our society. Before 1969, marriages were treated by the Federal Tax Code like partnerships--allowing husbands and wives to split their incomes evenly.
Dirk Kempthorne: “this morning we will vote on an amendment that brings to light a particularly glaring injustice of the Federal Tax Code…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the marriage tax penalty during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Dirk Kempthorne
Mr. President, I have been the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee for the past two years, and in that time I have learned the subcommittee itself cuts a wide swath on all the issues that we deal with. This subcommittee…
I recently created the Department of the Interior Task Force to study climate change, because of its possible effects on our ability to be good stewards of wildlife, national parks and other landscapes, as well as our responsibility to…
I agree. They object to the scope of the proposed EFH program and are concerned that it will subject activities, including land development, agriculture, water supply, forestry, and mining, to the jurisdiction of the Fishery Management…
I rise today to discuss Idaho's Very High Performance Backbone Network system (vBNS). The State of Idaho is in a strategic position to increase its economic base by strengthening collaboration on research and development projects between…





