I rise in support of making permanent the marriage penalty tax relief Congress passed in 2003. I believe that we should eliminate the tax penalty that some married couples incur because, simply, it is the right thing to do. The marriage penalty stems from provisions in the Tax Code that impact married couples filing joint tax returns differently than if they filed separate tax returns. In 2001, the marriage penalty hit around 47 percent of married tax filers from all income brackets. Without action, tax relief from the marriage penalty would lapse next year as required under the 2003 tax cut package. While the majority of the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was fiscally irresponsible and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of Americans, its provision providing couples complete relief from the marriage penalty in 2003 and 2004 had bipartisan agreement. Every week I am back in Wisconsin talking to my constituents about the challenges they are facing in today's economy. With rising costs for college tuition, health care, and other necessities, we need to act today to ensure that working families are not going to be faced with a marriage penalty tax in 2005. I also believe, however, that we must work to make sure these tax cuts are paid for so that we do not increase the budget deficit.
Ron Kind: “I rise in support of making permanent the marriage penalty tax relief Congress passed in 2003. I believe that we should…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the need to make marriage penalty tax relief permanent during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Ron Kind
The longer this trade war with China lasts, the more market share we start losing in China.
Even with that introduction, I thank my very good friend and colleague from Colorado for holding this Special Order. I am honored actually to be on the House floor with so many of my esteemed colleagues, who have taken a back seat to no…
Our trade agenda is seriously off the rails, and it needs to get back on track quickly, or we are going to be suffering economically as a consequence.
I am not convinced that China, when they are mis-practicing trade and not abiding by the rules, is only doing that to discriminate against U.S. interests or U.S. companies.





