A good article in Sunday’s NY Times dispels the myth of the “marriage penalty” in our tax code. The author, Edmund Andrews, points out that married couples with only won income earner and more than one child fare the best, while single parents and two-income couples fare worse. And behind it - and behind Bush’s pledge to address the “penalty” - is a socially conservative agenda that wants to encourage stay-at-home wives. I don’t know how much I buy Andrews’ assesment that Phyllis Schlafly is behind it all (is she really THAT powerful?), but clearly the issue unites the neocon sense of taxation overburden with the cultural conservative version of social engineering. I’m amazed more people aren’t up in arms about it. For one, gays and lesbians who rail against the pro-marriage activists seem unconcerned with government policy that actually enshrines a socially conservative agenda. And more generally, liberals you think might be speaking up more for single parents and for professional women.
No comments have been added to this post yet.