> The rationale for the (slightly) higher tax rate on married
> couples is that
> marriage creates economies of overhead -- that is, you're paying one rent,
> not two; one utility bill, not two; etc. This doesn't apply, of course, to
> those folks with six homes, one for each micro-season.
Quite right, but there is also a logical dilemma.
It is mathematically impossible for a tax to satisfy all three of the following conditions:
* higher income pays higher rate * taxpaying units with equal income pay equal tax * marriage does not affect aggregate tax liability of spouses
A simple proof is quoted in Graetz.
Of the three conditions, given the rationale cited at the top, the third is arguably most dispensable. "Fixing" the tax will mean violation of the second condition and could also leave some married couples-- ironically those with an employed spouse and one "homemaker"--worse off.
The "tax," which is a loaded characterization to begin with, did not originate with Reagan, but with efforts to mollify single women in the 1960's who complained--correctly--of discrimination in the LACK of a "marriage tax."
MBS