American Associaton of Single People

[Larkspur]

I belong to AASP - American Association of Single People also call Unmarried America

http://www.unmarriedamerica.com/

Mission Statement
Unmarried America promotes the well being of and fairness for 86 million unmarried Americans whether they live with a family member or partner, a roommate, or live alone. The promise of equality applies to all people – as workers, taxpayers, consumers, and citizens – whether married or not. Our mission is fulfilled by conducting research and providing information and advice to members, elected officials, corporate executives, and the media. Unmarried America is the Membership Division of the American Association for Single People, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization. Donations are tax deductible.

And here is AASP's response to the Marriage Penalty argument
The myth of the marriage penalty http://www.singlesrights.com/taxes/marriage_penalty_myth.html

A column published by MSN Money discloses that marriage creates more tax and financial benefits than penalties. In reality, there is no "marriage penalty" for most couples.

The column is written by financial advisor Liz Pulliam Weston. Here is what she had to say.

If you believed the rhetoric that accompanied the newest tax cut, you would think that marriage was the most financially devastating event that could happen to two people and that Congress was riding to the rescue by “eliminating” the marriage penalty.

Not quite.

The reality is that even before the new tax act, more couples got a tax bonus when they married than suffered a penalty.
<SNIP>

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Not only that

As one of my married graduate school friends, when asked if being married as a student wasn't a financial burden, "Two can live as cheap as two."

Besides, couples get an automatic break on mortgages or rent because you usually have two incomes working to meet those payments.

Also, if you go on a tour "unpaired," you pay a singles supplement, which is several hundred dollars over what paired off people pay.

In retirement, a couple gets both persons' Social Security checks.

Children complicate the picture, but a childless couple has the advantage over a single person in a number of areas.

[TAH6988]

5. And two unmarried people

who live together ALSO can have two incomes working to meet a mortgage payment...there is no automatic break on rent or mortgage.

In retirement, two single people living together ALSO get both people's social security checks. Each person who worked gets one...what's wrong with that?

Sounds like whining to me...

[Larkspur]

10. Read this interview of Thomas Coleman, Exec Director of AASP

http://www.singlesrights.com/kcet-tv.htm


And read The High Cost of Being Single in America or
the financial consequences of marital status discrimination
By Thomas Coleman (bio http://www.singlesrights.com/ed-bio.html)
http://www.singlesrights.com/cost-discrimination.htm

In regards to your Social Security situation, when the single person dies, the other's partner does NOT get the deceased Social Security check; whereas, a spouse would continue to get the deceased spouse's check.

[TAH6988]

13. Not true

If both are receiving social security, the remaining spouse does not get the deceased spouse's social security.

[Occulus]

62. untrue

my mom's getting both.

[AP]

2. Married people get to will all their money to the other untaxed.

Of course, Bush is lowering the inheritance tax every year.

[Butterflies]

3. I'm a member too

and I learn a lot from the articles that I read. Married people have so many other advantages than singles: health insurance, car insurance, retirement (surviving spouse benefits), inheritance tax breaks, property transfers, etc. It doesn't all make me want to get married or anything, it just makes me want to try to help make things more fair. I've written to lawmakers about some of my frustrations, but I'm not holding my breath. For some reason "protecting" and worshipping the institution of marriage is too important in Washington.

[sangh0]

4. Let's see

the economy is going to hell, our soldiers are being killed on a daily basis, our military is being destroyed through over-extension which threatens our national security and interests, elections are being stolen, crime is rising, and war is breaking out all over the world.

So let's worry about how single people are taxed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. News flash: You can be for more than one idea at a time

:-)

I have not joined the organization, and I'm also volunteering for the candidate of my choice.

[sangh0]

7. Another NewsFlash

Time spent on one thing cannot be spent on another.

I said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the issue. I was refering to the idea that we might want to invest our time in the more important issues, like removing the tyrant. We might also want to concentrate on issues that unite Dems, liberals progressives, etc instead of issues that divide the married Dems from the single ones.

[IrateCitizen]

18. Yet another news flash...

Time spent debating such issues on message boards is time taken away from real activism, if you want to get technical. ;-)

[sangh0]

30. Actually,

it takes away from office gossip, which is probably what I'd be doing while my queries run, programs compile, etc, if I weren't posting on DU

[IrateCitizen]

43. But sangha, you could be making phone calls during that time...

writing letters to your Congression representatives, organizing others, writing missives on these very subjects.

IOW, you're not using all of your time for "maximum benefit" toward those causes either, are you?

[sangh0]

47. No phone calls

it's a company phone. I do write letters, etc. I find about some of those letters that need to be written here on DU.

IOW, you're not using all of your time for "maximum benefit" toward those causes either, are you?

No, but I don't call upon other people to act on my issues. And, I do devote far more time than the majority of people here do.

You're arguing like a Freeper - you're taking the most extreme interpretation of my words possible, instead of seeing that I've expressed the idea of prioritization.

IOW, I won't be wasting any more time on explaining this to you

[janekat]

37. Thanks for posting this - looks like a good organization.....

n/t

[liberalhistorian]

8. Well, EXCUUUUSSSSEEE US!

Being 38 and never married, although I do have a son, I've noticed that married people don't even seem to notice that singles exist and, if they do, they're really smug about it, with the "well, I've managed to find the right one and at least I have a life, what's wrong with you?" attitude. As if you can't have a life if you're not married.

Married people have no idea how much they benefit legally, economically, and socially, and in many other areas, just by virtue of being married. I'm an AASP member, too, and it's not just in the area of taxes that singles are being screwed, it's social security, salary and benefits, and many, many other areas where we don't get the same financial, legal, and social benefits just because we're not married. And I'm sick of it. This is such a couples-oriented society that those who are not coupled often feel like we're standing outside of a warm, cozy house during a raging blizzard.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Larkspur]

11. Only if I can have a virtual husband

Otherwise, I would cost society more in taxes than benefit it by driving my spouse crazy.

[TAH6988]

15. How do you know

you'd drive him crazy? Maybe he'd love you the way you are...

[Larkspur]

22. I knew at the age of 10 that marriage and motherhood were not for me

I'm 42 now and enjoy my independence. No man has been able to convince me that union with him is better than my independence.

[TAH6988]

25. Good for you!

More people need that kind of attitude!

[Larkspur]

57. Then why do you attack me because I want tax fairness for singles?

We should all be taxed just on our income, not whether or not we are married. That's what income tax should be about, taxing income not playing favorites with those in one marital group or the other.

[pnb]

61. Exactly!

And that is why married couples shouldn't pay higher taxes than those who are single.

[Larkspur]

66. Wrong, the tax tables show that singles pay more than married

filing jointly
Go to page 62 for the start of the 2003 Tax Table
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

Let's use $50,000 taxable income (gross income minus deductions) as an example
On $50,000 taxable income,

singles and married filing seperately pay $9,318 in taxes

married filing jointly pay $6,804 in taxes

single heads of household (single parents) pay $8,201 in taxes

Singles without kids and married filing seperately get socked for $2,512 more than married filing jointly in taxes, just because we're single or married filing as singles.

Singles without kids and married filing seperately get socked for $1,115 more than single heads of household (single parents).

Single heads of household (single parents) pay $1,397 more than married filing jointly.

Singles, both with and without kids, get socked. Married filing jointly make out like bandits.

[liberalhistorian]

20. Geez, who let Shrub

and his "compassionate conservatism" in here! I would, indeed, like to be married, the problem is that there are very few eligible single men where I am, and of those few single men, most are freepers and the rest don't want to deal with single mothers. It's not a matter of just going out and getting married.

And that's not the point, anyway. The point is, why should I and other singles be penalized and pay more in a lot of ways than married couples just because Mr. or Miss Rights hasn't shown up yet, or for any of the million other reasons why someone may be single?

[TAH6988]

24. Stop the name calling

and whine about something else. My wife and I ARE affected by the marriage penalty...we don't whine about it, we pay our taxes. If you'd like to be married, there are MANY places to meet single, eligible men.

[liberalhistorian]

34. See, that's what I mean about

married people not understanding singles at all and not understanding how much more they benefit financially, legally, and socially, just by virtue of being married, and then just being dismissive about how "there are always places to meet people."

How would you know? You're married. You have no idea what it's like to be out in the singles world, especially if you're older than 30, which I am, and ESPECIALLY if you're a single mother, and ESPECIALLY if you're not a superthin gorgeous model-type, and especially not from a female perspective. It is not in the least easy, and it can be very emotionally discouraging at times.

And PLEASE stop telling me and other singles to "quit whining", it's always so easy to tell people that when you're not in their situation, like a white person telling a black person to "quit whining" because you don't know how easy "you people" have it.

[TAH6988]

35. I got married

at 33; my wife was 31. So I DO know what it's like to be single and over 30. I was in your "situation," and you ARE whining!

[liberalhistorian]

44. Well, there'a a big difference between 31 and 32

and almost 39, which is what I am. And I am most definitely not whining, I'm stating facts.

[jafap]

69. keee-rimeny

Once there was a quiz in Newsweek about longevity. The table said that being a single male had the same impact on your health as smoking three packs of cigarettes a day.

I am 41, and male, and quite sure now that I have a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than I do of getting married.

Yet that is not the issue about fair taxes. I pay property taxes so other people's kids can goto school. I accept that, since, in theory, an educated populace is good for everyone. But thanks to the per child deduction a family of four making $40,000 pays $50 in income taxes. Myself, at $13,000, I pay about $500. Explain to me how that is fair. Do not tell me about their expenses. If I had a cocaine habit, I would have expenses too, but I do not ask other taxpayers to subsidize my habits or hobbies, but I am compelled to subsidize their procreation.

That is the old line of Eeyore - "I am not complaining, just stating facts."

[pnb]

55. Oh lord

You speak as if people who are married were born that way or something. Well I have a newsflash for you...married people were once single and are actually able to make a comparison...a better comparison I might add than someone who was never married most likely. How can you actually say that married people don't understand anything about being single but single people can understand marriage just fine?!?

And your comparison to the race issue is whining...and is disgustingly insulting to anyone who has had racial problems.

[liberalhistorian]

64. Because my experience has been and is that

most married people really do NOT understand singles, and I get a lot of patronizing, condescending junk from them.

[DrGonzoLives]

42. That's awfully snotty

And uncalled for. What, should liberalhistorian just marry the first being with a penis that comes knocking at her door? Do you know how hard it is for women her age to find a single, not-completely-insane man?

I've alerted you, by the way. There was no call for that comment.

[liberalhistorian]

45. Thanks for the backup!

n/t

[sangh0]

14. You're excused

As a 44 year old single person with no children, I have no idea why you're complaining about how some married people don't notice single people. However, I will say this, even if you're 100% right, I still think that issues that infringe on a small segment of the population are less worthwhile to pursue than issue that affect the huge majority of citizens. I could be wrong, but the theft of our democracy seems more important than the tax inequities visited on singles.

[liberalhistorian]

17. SMALL segment?

Try almost half the country, because that's how many unmarried adult Americans there are now, more than ever before in our history. THAT IS NOT a SMALL segment!

[sangh0]

26. Yes, small segment

relative to the 280 million who are having their govt stolen from them

[Selwynn]

19. Read the post - it has nothing to do with inequities on singles.

It has to do with defending the legitimacy of taxation on married couples, and criticism of congresses attempts to remove the so-called "marriage" penalty, which isn't really a penalty at all, but its fair taxation.

What you did was read about three words of the post then STOP readind and make your brilliant analysis. At least the fact that you're 44 and sinlge makes a lot of sense to me.

[sangh0]

27. Yes, that's true

but just the same, the theft of our govt, the destruction of our economy and world peace, etc, seem a bit more urgent.

But then again, maybe that's just me.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Perhaps you'd get better traction minus the condescension

While I would agree with you that your list is one of "bigger" issues, would it not help you to get people to agree with you if you would not denigrate them? Additionally, are you in a position of such utter perfection with regards to those issues that you can castigate others without being the least bit hypocritical?

Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone....

[sangh0]

39. Possibly

but I doubt it.

"Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone...."

I said nothing about morality. I even tend to agree with the point of the first post. It's actually a bit incredible the way people read some sort of moral implication into a matter of prioritization. Another poster claimed I was implying that "people don't care about those important issues". I said nothing of the sort, and I've said nothing about sin.

[IrateCitizen]

41. You're missing my point entirely by taking something out of context

My point was that, on one hand, you're berating others for wasting time talking about an issue that, in your opinion, pales in importance to many others out there. At the same time, you are failing to do EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER to address those concerns that, in your opinion, are of such great importance.

Perhaps I should have said, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Or, perhaps someone just pissed in your cornflakes this morning and you're feeling a little more combative than usual.... ;-)

[sangh0]

48. Berating others?

I didn't "berate" anyone, IC. I said nothing about "wasting time". And the issues I mention are FAR more important than this one, and that's not just MY opinion. It's yours too.

[IrateCitizen]

50. Let's repost your original quote, shall we?

Let's see... the economy is going to hell, our soldiers are being killed on a daily basis, our military is being destroyed through over-extension which threatens our national security and interests, elections are being stolen, crime is rising, and war is breaking out all over the world.

So let's worry about how single people are taxed.

That pretty much sounds like berating to me, sangh0. Do you think that you would take such a statement kindly if you were on the receiving end of it?

As for the "wasting time" -- it was an implied reference. As in, "You're wasting time by worrying about such a trivial issue while there are so many more important ones out there."

As for accusing me, in this instance, of using a "Freeperesque tactic of arguing by taking the most extreme interpretation possible", it's so ridiculous I hardly know where to begin. But perhaps if you don't want your posts to be interpreted so "extremely", you should go to greater care to ensure that they are made in language that cannot be perceived in such a manner -- for it seems as if I'm far from the only person on this thread to see it that way. :shrug:

[Selwynn]

16. Hey Sangh0 - did you watch any TV this week, go to a movie?

Spend time with your family? Do anything that involved thinking about something else other than politics?

HOW DARE YOU WHEN YOU KNOW THAT OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!!!!!! That's time that could have been spent focused on the fact that he economy is going to hell, our soldiers are being killed on a daily basis, our military is being destroyed through over-extension which threatens our national security and interests, elections are being stolen, crime is rising, and war is breaking out all over the world :eyes:

Hey I notice in your list that health care is not on your list, nor privacy rights, nor the environment, nor education, nor worker's fair treatment, nor equal rights issues -- so I guess that we shouldn't worry about those because YOU'VE defined the scope and parameters of what we should care about.

I've got a better idea. FIRST, let's actually read peoples posts - the issue is not how single people are taxed. The issue is a defense of the "so-called" marriage penalty and opposition to the attempts to undo reasonable taxation by congress. SECOND, let's care about all the issues that affect society, not just some of them.

Just because someone raises another issues doesn't mean that they aren't equally focused on the issues you considered by more important. But what I'm discovering around here is that this is quickly becoming a disgusting debate tactic. Frequently now, when someone doesn't like a case that's being made, but they really can't make a good argument, the play this card:

"It's sad to see someone so obsessed about this issue rather than caring about the horrible Bush admin/war in Iraq/White House Scandals/etc."

In other words, a person cheaply implies that if you make x argument, then you are not concerned about other "more important" issues. It's a pretty cheap shot, and its totally untrue, and we should start calling people on the carpet when they do this.

For those of us with more than two brain cells, we are capable of caring about a wide and diverse variety of issues!

[TAH6988]

21. "So called" marriage penalty??

My wife an I pay a huge marriage penalty...and so do many other married couples. Even the article cited here say that 49% of couples pay it. Easy fix...make the tax rate the same PER PERSON. No exepdeductions for children, no child care deductions...nothing like that.

[Heddi]

31. My husband and I pay more in taxes now that we're married

than we did when we were single, but living together.

BTW--we lived together for 3 years before we were married. Our finances were pooled the same way they are now. Our incomes were the same then as they are now. We shared as much then as we do now.

Why was it when we were single, we pretty much got back a few thousand A PIECE in Fed. income taxes, but starting the year we got married, we had to pay back a few thousand TO the government?

[TAH6988]

33. Why are you addressing me?

I AGREE with you! My wife and I pay a lot more in taxes than we would if we just shacked up.

[Heddi]

52. Oh I was just making the comment

agreeing with your post---kind of a piggy-back!

No attack, just another story of married people who would be better off (tax-wise) if they were single.

We've even joked about getting divorced, but staying together in a co-habitational relationship so we don't pay so much fugging money in taxes..... :)

[sangh0]

29. Talking of cheap shots

it's extremely cheap to say that I implied people "are not concerned" about the more important issues when I said nothing of the kind. I merely stated my opinion that there are more important issues.

For those of us with more than two brain cells, we are capable of caring about a wide and diverse variety of issues!

Well, I'm impressed. I didn't realize you had more than two

[DrGonzoLives]

40. Allow me to translate

"Everybody should only care about what I care about. Otherwise you're worthless."

Did I pretty much nail that one head on, sangh0?

[liberalhistorian]

49. LOL!

Good one!

[Blue_Chill]

12. The goverment encourages marriage

I see no problem with that.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Encouraging marriage is one thing,

and I guess that's okay because there's nothing at all wrong with marriage. PENALIZING those who are NOT married, for whatever reason, is another thing altogether.

[Blue_Chill]

60. Are they raising your taxes?

No. Then it is not a penalty.

They are simpley lowering them for those that do get married. That is providing motivation to wed via taxes. The goverment influences behavior via taxes in all sorts of ways. I see nothing wrong with this one.

now if they did in fact place a penalty on people I would agree with you. However I do not think a tax cut for some and not others is the same as a penalty.

[liberalhistorian]

63. When they lower the taxes on one group,

other groups have to take up the slack to make up for it. When they lower the taxes on married couples, just which group do you think has to make up for it?

[NicoleM]

28. I'm married but

I think the unmarried and the childless/child-free get a raw deal a lot of the time. There is a perception among a lot of people that if you're not married by a certain time then there's something wrong with you, and if you don't have children you're not as important as those who do.

I don't know if we've been affected by the "marriage penalty"--DH does the taxes. But I don't see why I should pay more taxes just because I'm married, or less taxes just because I'm married. But the tax code screws a lot of people in a lot of ways. This is just one of many.

[JHB]

36. Can we reframe this? Debunking tax lies: Good

It's a long-standing standing Rethuglican srtategy to find (or invent) such "problems" in the tax code so that a) they can pose as "pro family" by railing against it, and b) use the "fix it" bill as a smokescreen for any number of bills which pay off supporters at the expense of the general public.

No matter what you think of this organization or its agenda, can't we agree that exposing pious fictions about the tax code is a good thing?

[TAH6988]

38. Except it's NOT a lie!

My wife and I pay MORE in taxes being married, than we would as two single people shacking up.

[IrateCitizen]

46. Agreed 100%

When you are married, you pay taxes on your COMBINED income. And the tax rates are at a level at which you pay a higher percentage when you are married, than if you were simply living together and filing separately.

That much is quite far from a myth. The only time it becomes really worth your while to file as a married couple is when kids start to enter the picture, and you're eligible for the child deduction.

[Heddi]

53. It really sucks,

esp. for married people like hubby & I who have no plans on having children in the near (or really distant) future...so we just have to suck it up and pay much higher taxes than we did when we were living together but not married.

If married people have to pay a higher tax b/c of the combined income, then roommates should have to pay higher tax b/c of their combined incomes. Sig Others living together who aren't married should have to pay higher b/c of their shared incomes. Grown children who live with parents should have to pay higher b/c of their shared income.

Or, better yet, just get rid of the whole marriage tax alltogether and just get taxed on whatever YOUR income is, regardless of what the shared-income ratio is in your household.

I mean, my god---I've known people who have had 5 roommates, ALL expenses were pooled---but they don't get taxed higher b/c of 'shared income" or "pooled income"---why is it when two people say "I Do" do they suddenly get slammed with paying higher taxes?

It just doesn't make sense--especially since when we were dating and living together, we pooled our incomes the same as we do now. We shared a car same as we do now. We even had legal documents giving the other power of medical attorney (or whatever it's called) over the other should one of us get in an accident, whatever------

just doesn't make sense

[Larkspur]

51. The only way you'd pay more taxes than 2 singles is if you make MORE money

than 2 singles living together.

Go to the tax tables and see that after you calculate you taxable income, the tax rates are divided into 4 categories -- single, married filing jointly, married filing seperately, and single heads of households. The first column, singles, pay more taxes than all the rest, except married filing seperately, who are treated the same as singles.

[Heddi]

54. That doesn't make sense

if 2 singles live together, they don't have to claim 'joint household income' on their taxes---which you do even if you are married filing separately.

When you're married, filing separately or jointly is usually only a difference of about $5-$20 give or take.

When my husband and I were living together but not married, and filing 'single', and making the SAME INCOME AS WE DO NOW< we got about $1500+ EACH back in Federal Income taxes.

However, the year we got married, we had to PAY Fed. Income taxes to the tune of about $1000. Same for the year after that. Last year, we paid $1800 in Fed Income Taxes.

Why? Because we're married.

Figured out that if we happened to be single (yet living together) now as opposed to being married, we would STILL Be GETTING around $1000 each from the gov't.

But we're not. We're paying money TO the gov't, ONLY because we're married.

[Larkspur]

56. The marriage penalty only happens when married couples make

widely disparate incomes, like when one spouse is a mulitmillion dollar CEO and the other a convenient store clerk at minimum wage.

The Marriage penalty does not happen when incomes between the couple are about the same.

The Marriage penalty relief is geared to upper income married folks, who vote Republican anyway.

[IrateCitizen]

58. You're getting false information, Larkspur

My wife and I have incomes that are separated by less than $10,000. We pay a significantly higher amount of money in federal income tax as a married couple than we did when we were just "shacking up". Even if we file "married, filing jointly".

But hey, why let our personal experience of being taxed at a higher rate get in the way of trying to make a point, right? :eyes:

[Larkspur]

67. Tax tables show you are wrong

Go to page 62 for the start of the 2003 Tax Table
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

Let's use $50,000 taxable income (gross income minus deductions) as an example
On $50,000 taxable income,

singles and married filing seperately pay $9,318 in taxes

married filing jointly pay $6,804 in taxes

single heads of household (single parents) pay $8,201 in taxes

Singles without kids and married filing seperately get socked for $2,512 more than married filing jointly in taxes, just because we're single or married filing as singles.

Singles without kids and married filing seperately get socked for $1,115 more than single heads of household (single parents).

Single heads of household (single parents) pay $1,397 more than married filing jointly.

Singles, both with and without kids, get socked. Married filing jointly make out like bandits.

[Heddi]

65. oh really?

Well considering my husband makes about $33k a year, and (when I was working) made about $27k a year----we were STILL penalized with the marriage tax.

I find that $6k a year difference in our income is hardly "widely disparate", and please note that neither one of us is a multi-million dollar CEO while the other is working minimum wage.

Please---get factual information when trying to make your point.

(PS...we don't vote republican, so your ENTIRE 'argument' is totally blown out of the water)

[pnb]

59. Completely untrue

And you also conveniently leave out the fact that if you are taking the standard deduction, the amoung deducted for a single person is close to 20% higher than the amount for a person married and filing separate and the if you double the standard deduction for a single person, it is FAR higher than the amount for a married couple.

It is a penalty. My wife and I have similar incomes and when we got married we wound up paying significantly more in taxes.

[Larkspur]

68. False

Singles and married filing seperate got $4,750 standard deduction
Married filing jointly got $9,500 (= $4,750 * 2) standard deduction
Single heads of household got $7,000 standard dection

Page 5 of the 2003 1040 Tax Form Instructions http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf

The only way you don't get the standard deduction is if you itemize your deductions and those itemized deductions are greater than you standard one.