I concur with most of what has been said here. I read this resolution, and it is hard to argue with a resolution that is praising marriage and the married. I think we are all for that. Anything in the law of this land, whether tax law or otherwise, which detracts from that institution, should be examined and seriously considered. But I keep wondering--I am not an expert on tax law, but there are some situations where marriage actually reduces the tax burden; where, in fact, if you have one of the spouses who has a high income and marries someone with a much lower income, it could reduce the tax rate. I certainly hope there is nothing in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution which suggests we should change that. I think we want to try to encourage people, and when the Tax Code rewards those who are married, we should continue doing that. What I am told is there are two sides to the story. As there are those who are losers and are penalized by the Tax Code by marriage, there are those who are benefited by the Tax Code.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of tax law on marriage during Senate debate.
Share
More from Dick Durbin
In the coming weeks, we remain committed to supporting our union members during this transition and working with Tyson to ensure that they have access to resources that support their return to work.
Nominations hearings, like this one today, are an essential part of the Senate’s role in providing advice and consent on presidential nominees. This constitutional duty is a critical check on the Executive Branch. And it has never been…
It’s great to be here at the EBC to celebrate the good, impactful work that is at the core of this center’s mission.
We want to be clear: Democrats and Republicans did not work together to appropriate funds for AHRQ as a gentle suggestion for the Department to follow at their discretion or leisure.





