That assessment is a pretty extreme reach. There is no such thing as a second earner, man or woman. There are simply two earners, the income from the two earners is pooled, and taxes are taken from the pool. To automatically consider the woman a "second earner" is pretty disingenuous. I agree with the first post which points out this is really a marriage tax, but then again, the marriage tax is nothing new. It kept my wife and I from getting married for several years. On the other hand, people are rewarded for having children by getting tax breaks and subsidized education for their children. For whatever reason, we have seen fit as a society to monetarily punish marriage and reward having lots of children.
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
Other reader comments on this article
Comment
By
Date
To JIM, who commented on Aug. 25. You are a condescending individual who is rather out of touch with what... [MORE]
lucia
Sep 18, 2008 14:29
Boy, talk about a stretch to make such a rabid feminist argument. Gotta make everything about feminism nowadays don't we,... [MORE]
Tracie
Sep 5, 2008 11:19
Who makes over $200,000 a year anyway? I don't want to punish anyone for their success but ...come on. [MORE]
Axl VanJovi
Sep 4, 2008 12:55
I think it's about time that the rich pay their share of taxes. They have had a free ride under... [MORE]
J Vandermeer
Sep 4, 2008 08:56
Any Federal Income Tax that is direct and not apportioned is illegal--period. The 16th amendment does not allow the government... [MORE]
isaiah
Sep 4, 2008 03:42
I agree the article may be stretching the case that the proposed taxes are against women. Why is everyone so... [MORE]
Sharon
Sep 3, 2008 18:46
I guess we have one of those households where we evil ones earn too much. If we have to give... [MORE]
Jim
Aug 25, 2008 16:14
RichardB What deluded planet are you on if you think the top wage earners aren't paying thier fair share. For... [MORE]
Chance Haywood
Aug 20, 2008 23:58
The title of the article is quite misleading. It is quite a stretch of imagination to come to the same... [MORE]
Anthony
Aug 17, 2008 23:44
Everytime the subject of taxes comes up people get all hysterical. Let it be remembered that taxes are what pays... [MORE]
RichardB
Aug 16, 2008 19:10
All tax policies are going to be unfair to someone. The republican attitude has been that if the rich have... [MORE]
John Doe
Aug 16, 2008 14:53
The subject of the article is misleading. "War on women"? More appropriately, we should all be asking what will be... [MORE]
Pamela
Aug 16, 2008 08:49
War on women? Vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade is a war on women. Suggesting that women who make less... [MORE]
TKK
Aug 16, 2008 00:20
I don't know a single person earning more the $100,000 but if I did earn that amount, which means a... [MORE]
RFO
Aug 15, 2008 20:45
What is the real size of the demographic we are talking about? I mean let's be serious, a household combined... [MORE]
Nick Zamonis
Aug 15, 2008 14:46
First, if two people marry and incur higher taxes why is this a penalty only on the woman? Hopefully the... [MORE]
Tim
Aug 15, 2008 14:06
That assessment is a pretty extreme reach. There is no such thing as a second earner, man or woman. There...
ff11
Aug 14, 2008 18:48
I dislike the attitude of the commenters here. Basically, you are saying that you don't care if a policy is... [MORE]
Steven
Aug 14, 2008 17:57
We are expecting our second child this winter. I make a good income enough to afford daycare for two children... [MORE]
lisa
Aug 14, 2008 17:47
It makes no difference whatsoever, whatever Obama claims he'll do on taxes before the election, will be out the window... [MORE]
Robert Arvanitis
Aug 14, 2008 17:21
So a couple making almost $400,000 a year will have to pay more taxes? Cry me a river. [MORE]
sefton
Aug 14, 2008 17:19
The hypothetical high wage earning couple can in most cases drastically reduce their exposure to federal and state income taxes... [MORE]