![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearI mean, think about it.
Last I checked, the "marriage penalty tax" was still in effect, even though Bush promises to get rid of it within his lifetime (caused because 2-income families with no property or children, therefore no deductions, end up paying more in taxes by the tax-bracket crossing than they would if they stayed single).
However, with the recent events in SF, they now have over 1000 couples married, zero kids (except for the miniscule few who adopt), and few likely own property (SF isn't exactly the cheapest neighborhood in the country). So that's a huge increase in tax revenue caused by 2000 people now meeting the conditions for the marriage penalty tax.
The feds would make a killing by encouraging this...
Last I checked, the "marriage penalty tax" was still in effect, even though Bush promises to get rid of it within his lifetime (caused because 2-income families with no property or children, therefore no deductions, end up paying more in taxes by the tax-bracket crossing than they would if they stayed single).
However, with the recent events in SF, they now have over 1000 couples married, zero kids (except for the miniscule few who adopt), and few likely own property (SF isn't exactly the cheapest neighborhood in the country). So that's a huge increase in tax revenue caused by 2000 people now meeting the conditions for the marriage penalty tax.
The feds would make a killing by encouraging this...
