April 1 O, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 11865 HOUSE OF REPRESE.NTATIVE.S-Monday, April 10, 1972 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. S. 50. An act to authorize the Secretary of THE LATE HONORABLE JAMES F. Rev. Jack P. Lowndes, president, Home the Interior to construct, operate, and main BYRNES tain the Brantley project, Pecos River Basin, Mission Board, Southern Baptist Con N. Mex., and for other purposes; The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes vention, and pastor, Memorial Baptist S. 2684. An act to amend section 509 of the the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Church, Arlington, Va., offered the fol Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended; McMILLAN). , lowing prayer: s. 3284. An act to increase the authoriza Mr. McMilLAN. Mr. Speaker, I re tion for appropriation for completing work in The earth is the Lord's and the full the Missouri River Basin by the Secretary of gretfully announce the passing of our ness thereof, the world and those who the Interior; former colleague, the Honorable James dwell therein.-Psalms 24: 1. s. 3323. An act to amend the Public Health F. Byrnes. The late Congressman, Sen Thank you, F'ather, for "America the Service Act to enlarge the authority of the ator, Secretary of State, U.S. Supreme Beautiful." We are grateful for our great National Heart and Lung Institute in order Court Justice, assistant to the President land and our wonderful people. Forgive to advance the national attack against dis of the United States during World War us that we have sinned against both and eases of the heart and blood vessels, the II, and Governor of South Carolina, lungs, and blood, and for other purposes; against Thee by our misuse of our re S. 3457. An act for the relief of Katherine passed away yesterday in his South Caro sources, both human and natural. Help Kasaftes Schneider; lina home. We have always considered us to use both for the common welfare S.J. Res. 218. Joint resolution to extend the late Justice Byrnes one of South of our world. the authority conferred by the Export Ad Carolina's greatest statemen, next in We pray for those who serve in this ministration Act of 1969; and fact, to John C. Calhoun, due to his serv body and in other places of service and S. Con. Res. 74. Concurrent resolution ice and leadership, our Nation and the responsibility in our Nation. Give to authorizing the printing of additional copies world are better places to live. of Senate Report 92-634, entitled "Interim them, we pray, the wisdom, courage, and Report of Activities of the Private Welfare Mrs. McMillan joins me in expressing strength they need. Help them to come and Pension Plan Study, 1971." our heartfelt sympathy to his wonderful to the end of this day having made no wife who has been the late Justice's right mistakes and with no regrets. The message also announced that the arm during the years he was so active in Give us something of the wisdom that Vice President, pursuant to Senate Con our Government, and during the years of is in Thy Word, something of the love current Resolution 63, 92d Congress, his illness in his South Carolina home. that is in Thy heart, and something of appointed·Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina, Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, James Fran the help that is in Thy hands. In Thy Mr. MANSFIELD, and Mr. COOK as mem cis Byrnes served in this House for 14 name we pray. Amen. bers, on the part of the Senate, of the years, coming to the Congress in 1911 at Joint · Committee on Inaugural Cere the age of 32. During this time he lived monies of 1973. in the beautiful city of Aiken. My people THE JOURNAL are proud of the fact that both Jimmy Byrnes and John C. Calhoun represented The SPEAKER. The Chair has ex ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER in Congress a large portion of the pres amined the Journal of the last day's The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to ent South Carolina Third Congressional proceedings and announces to the House announce that pursuant to the authority District, which it is now my privilege to his approval thereof. granted him on Wednesday, March 29, represent. In the history of this Repub Without objection, the Journal stands 1972, he did on March 30, 1972, sign an lic we have had only 55 Secretaries of approved. enrolled bill of the Senate as follows: State. Two of these, Jimmy Byrnes and There was no objection. S. 2601-An act to provide for increases in John C. Calhoun, were from the Third appropriation ceilings and boundary changes Congressional District and a third, Hugh in certain units of the national park system, S. Legare, like Calhoun attended Rever MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE and for other purposes. end Waddell's famous academy at Abbe A message from the Senate by Mr. Ar ville. rington, one of its clerks, announced that Without question, James F. Byrnes is the Senate had passed without amend THE HONORABLE MRS. GEORGE South Carolina's greatest statesman ment a bill of the House of the following ANDREWS since Calhoun. He served with distinc title: The SPEAKER laid before the House tion at every level of government. His father died shortly before Byrnes was H.R. 12749. An act to authorize 81pproprla the following communication from the tions for the saline water conversion program Clerk of the House of Representatives: born, and at an early age it was his for fiscal year 1973. responsibility to help support his wid WASHINGTON, D.C., owed mother. At age 14 he left school to The message also announced that the April 10, 1972. Hon. CARL ALBERT, work as a clerk in Judge Benjamin Rut Senate had passed with amendments in House oj Representatives, ledge's law office. Like his great friend which the concurrence of the House is re Washington, D.C. of later years, Barney Baruch, Byrnes quested, a bill of the House of the follow- DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Please be advised that early in life recognized the value of short ing title: ' the Clerk of the House has received the offi hand. H.R. 8140. An act to promote the safety of cial certification of election issued by the Sec He studied shorthand while working ports, harbors, waterfront areas, and navi retary of State of the State of Alaba,ma, show at the law firm and then won a competi gable waters of the United States. ing that Mrs. George Andrews was elected Member of Congress from the Old Third tive exam for a position as court stenog The message also announced that the Congressional District at the Special Elec rapher. It was then that he moved to Senate disagrees to the amendment of tion held in the State of Alabama on Tues Aiken, where he studied law in his spare the House to the bill (S. 1681) entitled day the 4th day of April, 1972 for the unex time and passed the South Carolina bar •'An act to liberalize eligibility for cost pired term, ending on the 3d day of January exam. This skill at shorthand was to of-living increases in civil serviCe retire 1973. serve him well years later, as he took The above certification of election is on file shorthand notes of the Yalta Big Three ment annuities," requests a conference in the Clerk's Office. with the House on the disagreeing votes With kind regards, I am, meetings that were of great value to {)f the two Houses thereon, and appoints Sincerely, President Truman after the death of President Roosevelt. After practicing law Mr. MCGEE, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. BURDICK, w. PAT JENNINGS, Clerk, House oj Representatives. and editing the Aiken Journal and Re Mr. FONG, and Mr. BOGGS to be the con view for several years, Byrnes was elected ferees on the part of the Senate. The SPEAKER. Will the Member-elect solicitor of the Second Judicial Circuit. The message also announced· that the present herself in the well of the House In 1910 he was elected to the House of Senate had passed bills and a joint and to take the oath of office. Representatives, where he was one of the concurrent resolution of the following Mrs. GEORGE ANDREWS appeared at creators of the Federal aid highway pro titles, in which the concurrence of the the bar of the House and took the oath gram. Later he was appointed to the . House is requested: of office. Appropriations Committee. While serv- CXVITI--748-Part 9 11866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE April 10, 1972 ing in the House, Byrnes won the friend the war and upon learning that I was a major degree in education, better labor ship and respect of then Assistant Sec South Carolinian he asked that I convey standards, and aid to the poor and elderly retary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt. his best wishes to his good friend Jimmy became law as a result of his efforts and After Roosevelt became President and Byrnes. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Byrnes was leadership. Byrnes had been elected to the Senate, one of the architects of the destruction of As one who worked with Adam Powell, Byrnes became Roosevelt's chief legisla fascism, nazism, and imperialism, and I learned in the committee and on the tive spokesmen. He was a master of the history will rank him with the all time floor of his gifts as well as his problems, legislative process and knew exactly great leaders of Western civilization. but particularly of his overriding love when to stand firm and when to com As Governor of our State, Jimmy and devotion to the work of Congress. promise. He was largely responsible for Byrnes was greatly interested in improv He valued his friendship in this body passage of the Lend-Lease Act that was ing educational facilities for all students. and respected his colleagues to a high so crucial to final victory in World War Although he had no children, he person degree. It was because of that that he II. Byrnes was a loyal, stanch Democrat ally established a fund that has enabled labored with such determination to re and was really the Senate floor leader re hundreds of young people to attain gain his seat and was eventually Upheld sponsible for passage of the New Deal higher education. in that determination and perseverance domestic legislation. He was extremely He earned the high honor of being by the highest court in this land. active in National Democratic Party named a life trustee of Clemson Uni Now he has gone before the Creator politics and played an important role in versity, located on the site of the Cal of us all in the highest tribunal which he the national conventions. Because of his houn Plantation in our congressional faces, and that judgment, of course, is loyalty to the Democratic Party and to district. He was devoted to Clemson, and the one which will override all others. I President Roosevelt it was widely felt that university now has the official col trust and I hope that the God he loved that he had been assured the Vice Presi lection of the Byrnes papers that are and served will remember his zeal for dential nomination in 1944. He went to indispensable to serious students of the poor, for children, for equality, and the convention expecting the nomina world history. against injustice. Whether you were one tion, but encountered unforeseen ob Mr. Speaker, during his illustrious who agreed with Adam and admired him, stacles. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, career James F. Byrnes presented a as I did, or one who opposed him on mat that the man who was then nominated magnificent image for the South and for ters when you felt he had to be opposed, for Vice President and who later became all Americans. During an era of dema I think we ·can all agree on this: For the President, Harry S. Trwnan, thought so gogs he stayed in the mainstream of life he led and the work he did and the highly of Byrnes that he appointed him moderation. In any definitive history of way he served Harlem and New Yo·rk I Secretary of State. And as Truman's Sec the era of the great depression, the dy think he deserves the respect of our col retary of State, Byrnes was next in line namic first 100 days of the FDR admin leagues all over the land at this time. But for the Presidency. In 1941 Byrnes be istration, the New Deal, and final victory over all I think he said it best himself came the fourth South Carolinian to be in World War II, James F. Byrnes must when he evaluated his own contribution appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. be given a superior place. to his work in public service by saying, We had the privilege of calling on Mr. Byrnes and his wife, the former Maude "No matter how you look at what I did, Justice Byrnes and having a long con Perkins Busche of Aiken, were married I paid my dues." versation with him during his service at for 66 years. Throughout his career she Mr. Speaker, the members of the New the Court, and realized then how he en has been at his side. Mrs. Byrnes has a York delegation invite all Members who joyed his service there. However he an keen appreciation of the world of public wish to do so to join in a special order swered the President's call and stepped service and politics and has been of tre which will be requested by our colleague down to become Director of the Office of mendous help to Mr. Byrnes throughout from New York, Representative RANGEL, Economic Stabilization. Later he also was his career. She is today in the hearts of on Wednesday of this week, in order that assigned the position of Director of War all South Carolinians. we may pay our dues as Members of this Mobilization. He operated from the Mrs. Dorn, my family, and my constit body in terms of the respect we owe him White House and was referred to by uents join me in conveying to Mrs. for the service in which he participated President Roosevelt as the "Assistant Byrnes and to his loved ones our deepest for so many years. President." He was in fact in charge of sympathy and respect. Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, will the gen the entire domestic war mobilization. tleman yield? The fact our free and democratic Nation Mr. CAREY of New York. Mr. Speaker, could reach a higher state of war pro GENERAL LEAVE I am delighted to yield to my colleague duction and efficiency than any of our Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask from New York. totalitarian enemies is itself a magnif unanimous consent that all Members Mr. KOCH. I thank the gentleman for icent tribute to the leadership ability of may have 5 days in which to extend their yielding. James Byrnes. remarks in the RECORD on the life, char Mr. Speaker, I attended the funeral of James Byrnes was also a world figure acter, and service of the late Honorable Adam Clayton Powell yesterday. I know who moved with the giants of that period. James F. Byrnes. that on Wednesday we of New York will He attended the Yalta meetings between The SPEAKER. Is there objection to be holding a special order to talk more Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. And the request of the gentleman from South on Adam Clayton Powell's contribution after becoming President Truman's Sec Carolina? to our country. But I want to say at this retary of State, he accompanied the There was no objection. time that when I was first elected and President to the Potsdam Conference, took my seat in January of 1969, one of and later was the senior American dele the first votes I cast was that to seat gate to the first meeting of the United THE LATE HONORABLE ADAM Adam Clayton Powell in this Congress. I Nations General Assembly in London. CLAYTON POWELL am proud of that vote. Byrnes understood the realities of world (Mr. CAREY of New York asked and power. He was the one to initiate a "get was given permission to address the PRAISE AND THANKS TO OUR NAVY, tough" policy with the Soviets, for House for 1 minute and to revise and through his dealings with them he real extend his remarks.) AIR FORCE, MARINE AND ARMY ized their aggressive policies. He had not Mr. CAREY of New York. Mr. Speaker, UNITS been deceived by Potsdam and Yalta. His on behalf of the members of the New 1971 FEDERAL INCOME TAX PENALTIES FOR MARRIAGE Wife's income $2,000 $4, 000 $6, oco $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000 $30,000 Husband's income: $2,000 _------. -$154 -$149 -$136 -$68 -$3 +$21 +$74 +$153 +$233 +$350 +$901 $4,000------149 -195 -170 -113 -87 -127 -98 -55 +2 +69 +448 $6 ,000_------136 -170 -156 -138 -176 -240 -247 -227 -220 -178 +21 $8,000 __------68 -113 -138 -184 -246 -346 -376 -406 -424 -442 -391 $10,000_------3 -87 -176 -246 -344 -467 -547 -602 -680 -725 -828 $12 ,000 __ ------+21 -127 -240 -346 -467 -640 -745 -860 -965 -1,045 -1,296 $14,000 __------+74 -98 -247 -376 -547 -745 -910 -1,052 -1,192 -1,297 -1,700 $16 ,000_------+153 -55 -227 -406 -602 -860 -1,052 -1,229 -1,394 -1,532 -2,080 $18,000_------+233 +2 -220 -424 -680 -965 -1,192 -1,394 -1, 592 -1, 758 -2,445 $20 ,000------+350 +69 -178 -442 -725 -1,045 -1,297 -1,532 -1,758 -1,957 -2,775 $30,000------+901 +448 +21 -391 -828 -1,296 -1,700 -2,080 -2,445 -2, 775 -3,970 Note: The standard deduction is assumed in all cases. A negat1ve amount in the chart i~dicates that theta~ as a married couple is higher than for 2 single persons. A positive amount indicates t~at he tax is lower if the couple is married. The chart was compiled by figuring the Federal mcome tax for the mcomes shown both ways, as a marned couple and as two smgle persons, and subtractmg to find the diffe renee. Our tax code contains a number of tax 4. Hon. Eugene J. McCarthy. inequities in our tax laws rather than mere preferences. Whrut we are asking for here, 5. Osta. Underwood, President, Nattional ly complaining. Federation of Business and Professional My prime concern is for the widows be is not another preference, but simple Women's Clubs. cause they, I feel sure, have few spokes equity for the unmarried taxpayer and 6. Christine Beshar, on behan.f of the Asso men against their cruel taxes. the working couple. ciasbion of the Bar of the City of New York. Just imagine, if you can, what it must Wherever taxpayer is described as he, 7. Kelly Rueck, Vice Presiderut, Air Line mean to lose your spouse after 20--30-40- replace he with she. Taxes know no sex. Pilots Associa.tion. maybe even 50 years of building a life to Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like 8. Florence B. Donohue, Chairman, Com gether. The tragedy of the death is fol to insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD mittee on TaxSition and the Working Woman, lowed by an inheritance tax. Isn't that triple some of the remarks presented by the New York Women's Bar Associa.tion. tax? It usually means one thing for the be 9. Al,bert H. Turkus, on behaU of the Tax wildered widow-she must be uprooted from witnesses appearing before the Ways and Reform Research Group. the nest she and her husband built--move Means Committee. Unfortunately, the 10. Hon. Robert Cline, State Assemlbiyman, to smaller quarters, reorient herself, discard lead witness, Miss Vivien Kellums of Oalifornia.. so many memories because there is no long Connecticut who has worked so long and 11. James T. Kelly, Ridgewood, New York. er room for them. Her whole mode of liv· effectively in pursuit of tax equity for ing must be downgraded. Why? How can any single taxpayers, did not have a prepared STATEMENT OF GLORIA SWANSON government with any sense of justice dole statement and so I am not able to in out this kind of treatment? I know of many Mr. Chairman and Members of the Com such cases. She has been robbed of the few clude her remarks here. mittee, I am here to speak for Representa comforts and dignity left for her few re The liSit of witnesses and some of the tive Koch's blli H.R. 850 as amended. maining years. I resent this. Perhaps, because prepared statements available to me fol I am Gloria Swanson of New York City most men do depart first--(yes-even the lows: mother of three---grandmother of seven-and ones making these outrageous tax laws) they hopefully a "great grandmother" somewhere have failed to give this problem enough LIST OF WITNESSES SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BE just around the corner-and for the curl• FORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS thought. Remember, I do not fall into this ous-yes, my age is 73, which allows me to category, but I do have a heart for the de ON THE TAX TREATMENT OF SINGLE PERSONS remember well the cries of indignation dur AND MARRIED PERSONS WHERE BOTH HUSBAND fenseless, who in most cases have paid a. ing the first World War, when in 1916 the lion's share of taxes over many, many years. AND WIFE ARE EMPLOYED tax was raised from 1% to 2 % II However, MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1972 the cries very quickly abated when the cit I feel sure there are many here who will speak on behalf of the married couples who 1. Coordinated testimony presented on be- izenry were led to believe it was only for the duration of the war. both work-not because they want to but half of a number of different organizations: because of sheer necessity-and who messed Vivien Kellems, East Haddam, Conn. Nobody likes to be lied to, least of all up their economy? Did they? So I shall con Gloria Swanson, New York, N.Y. the government (re taxes). If, however a cit fine my remarks to the singles tax. Most of Henry Couture, President, Single People izen should lie, even inadvertently, it is my life I have been in the single bracket. I United. called perjury and punishable by law. It started working when 14¥2 years of age. So Paul Keane, Kent State Univers1·ty gradu must be wonderful to have privileged ad these United States have received a goodly ate student . vantages. share of my earnings. During most of these Mary E. Frisina, president, Taxpayers' Cru We talk of the importance of parents set 60 years of taxes there was no consideration sade. ting a good example for their children. What given to the plight of the artist in the per Polly K. Ruhitenberg, Colorado Springs, about our government's obligation to its forming arts. I fell under two categories Colo. citizen's, from whom the employees of the married-but mostly single. During the last Adrienne N. Neuman, Denver Supporters government derive their salaries, to set an thirty years I have made but three pictures of Vivien Kellems. example of honesty and justice. Is it any so I suffered unfair taxes because taxation 2. Shirley M. Oorrigan, Single Persons for wonder that the young generation is against did not take into consideration the lean years Tax Equallity Assn. "the establishments"-? (plural). of an artist's career. Now, at least, the artist 3. Committee of Single Taxpayers: Patty My reason for being here today is to add has a five year period in which to average his Cavin, Ron. George L. Murphy, Hon. Robert my name to the list of "Georges" who are income for tax purposes. But only the ex K. Gray. trying to do something about the outrageous perts can figure out this one. And what of CXVIII--749-Part 9 11874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April 10, 1972 the estimated tax? No one in the performing ties, union dues) he has approx $102 a month the Minnesota legislature passed, with only arts can possibly know what his earnings to live on. one dissenting vote, a Memorial to Congress will be next year any more than next Then he was served a Notice of Levy by the urging enactment of the remedial Bills you month-or tomorrow-yet they are penalized Internal Revenue Service. They were gar have before you, which are cosponsored by 6% 1f they are off by a large margin. In place nishing his wages for $593.30. the entire Minnesota congressional delega of a five year average why not a tax deferrable He was not aware that he could not take tion. certificate? the regular exemptions inasmuch as he had · The speed with which this political sup I do not believe the salaried middle bracket all the community obligations, and his ex port was obtained confl.rmd our earlier judg working American minds paying fair taxes spouse became a. full fledge welfare recipient. ment that the principal obstacle we face in but what I do believe he minds and resents He was uninformed and uneducated. How achieving our goal is the lack of general paying more taxes than some oil men--some ever, he still worked to pay his bllls. Since awareness of the problem. millionaires-some large corporations and his ex-wife was on welfare, receiving all the We have had messages of support from all crooks. This is an evil! benefits, the child support payment was Minnesota congressmen after we had pre As Edmund Burke said, "All that is neces dropped temporarily in order to pay the In sented our case to them: sary for the triumph of evil is that good men ternal Revenue Service. With the active support of such able and do nothing". May I look forward to you good Another case--similar circumstances-re influential advocates as these, can passage men and good women to do something to cor ceived a Notice of Levy from the IRS for of this legislation be long delayed? rect these evils. Thank you. $517.53. He was making payments to the IRS, Single people are a minority in com and once sent in a payment $5 short. The parison with the total population. Yet, in STATEMENT OF TAXPAYERS' CRUSADE OF next week the IRS advised him they would absolute numbers, they represent a sizeable LOS ANGELES COUNTY take his complete check on 6/ 21/71. The group-approximately 37.5 million people, Mr. Chairman, and members of this Com amount of his check for two weeks' work age 18 and over, including 11.5 million wid mittee, I am Mrs. Mary Frisina, 4581 Ambrose totaled $138.32. IRS kept its word-they took ows and widowers and 4.25 million divorced. Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90027. I'm his complete check for $138.32. Th~s garnish Despite the fact that we generally demand here in support of H.R. 850 as amended. As ment produced a chain of reaction. He had fewer services from our government than our President of the Taxpayer's Crusade of Los absolutely no funds to take care of his obli married friends, the government does not Angeles County I want to speak for thou gations or to live on. reciprocate this lower demand. sands of single men and women and thou Members of this Committee, we ask you These single people are required to pay sands more married couples both of whom to approve H.R. 850 as amended to give tax considerable higher Federal income taxes on work, who are wage earners, small home equity to single unmarried taxpayers and the same taxable income, and that same owners, and pensioners trying not to lose working married couples. government prefers them for such dangerous their homes, as taxes and prices continue If you recommend passage of HR 850 as tasks as fighting wars, taking them rather to rise. Also single men and women and amended I can promise you all of our Cali than marrieds when it can. · married couples in small businesses who fornia. Congressmen will support it. Together with some other minorities, sin are battling inflation, higher taxes, precarious Thank you. gle taxpayers are the victims of segregation. and unexpected situations, while there seems Respectfully submitted, Single taxpayers must use a tax table "sep to be no end to government demands, and Mrs. MARY E. FRISINA. arate and unequal" to the one used by the no end to government spending. married folk. I shall confine myself today to the plight There they find rates which, even after en STATEMENT OF SINGLE PERSONS FOR TAX actment of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, im of the unskilled, the uneducated and the un EQUALITY AssociATION informed. pose a tax obligation as much as 20 percent Take the working mother, victim of a hus Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, higher than that of married people with the band not paying child support. She has two my name is Dr. Shirley Corrigan, and I rep same taxable income. choices-keep working, or go on welfare. resent the Single Persons for Tax Equality Single taxpayers who are aware of the The day she goes to work, her income tax Association, a nonprofit organization incor story behind this separate table find their deductions under Head of Household gives porated under the laws of the state of Min annual task especially galling, for they her a little break, not much. To begin with, nesota which favors passage of H.R. 850 as know- her salary is in the lower income bracket. amended. (1) that it is the result of an historical She must turn to welfare for supplemental This association came into being more accident, aid-remember the husband is not paying than three years ago in the Minneapolis (2) that contrived justifications for it are child support. After working awhlle, she St. Paul met ropolitan area and now has extremely weak and finds it is not profitable for her to work. She members throughout the state of Minnesota, (3) that its constitutionality is being chal quits her job, is no longer receiving sup throughout the country and in three overseas lenged. plemental aid but i·s now a full fledged areas. All attempted evaluations of the various recipient of the Aid to Families with Needy SPTEA adheres to the traditional method schemes to match taxes with ability to pay of redressing grievances within our demo become mired in controversy, but one thing Children. As a full fledged receipient she re cratic society-the organization of an inter ceives more fringe benefits-Medical, dental is clear. We have not arrived at the present est group, the awakening of other members apportionment by a careful balancing of care, you name it she gets it. of the minority to their plight and the Now, let's take single people men or wom means, needs and obligations! education of the electorate-culminating in The disparity didn't happen because the en, with no children. They are not heads of the passage of remedial legislation. household as far as the Internal Revenue electorate and the Congress decided that Service is concerned. They are ones who I am pleased to report that SPTEA, of single people should pay more, but because which I am a past president, has met with of the working of our Federal system in a cannot apply for supplemental aid from the continued success in advancing toward its welfare, they cannot receive Medical. The way surely not envisioned by our founding initial goal-the inclusion of single taxpay fathers. day they become unmarried individuals ers within the split-income provision of the either by divorce or death their withhold We all know how it came about, but in ing deductions sky rocket, other expenses Internal Revenue Code. their haste, the Congressmen overlooked the Through talks to groups of single people, unmarried. The unhappy consequences were are higher, food costs go up. And in almost through information booths in public places, all instances, it is the single person of the set fOI'Ith by Mr. Philip Stern in his book, through radio and TV appearances and news "The Great Treasury Raid": family who is looked upon to take care of the paper articles, and through our April 15th elderly parents, for which deductions are not "And so, Congress proceeded to act, but allowed. protest marches we have taken our message with grea-t illogic. It ended one discrimina It's almost always the single member who to the taxpayers. tion, but created another. The very distinc has to dole out assistance-money or other The results have been both startling and tion that had been considered so unfair to wise-to needy relatives. Because we are cru reassuring. Startling because of the large the married persons of forty states was saders many taxpayers come to our organi number of people, married and single, who picked up bodily and imposed on the single zation for assistance. I want to cite two of were found to be unaware of the existence people of all states." numerous cases called to our attention or the magnitude of the financial discrimi Family tax expert Harold M. Groves, in (Proof Attached). Here is an unmarried man nation against single people wrought by the his study, "Federal Tax Treatment of the with responsibilities who was not being al split-income provision as it now stands, and Family," stated: lowed, by the Internal Revenue Service, to reassuring because of the quick acknowledg "It is probably fair to say that the income fulfill his obligations to his famlly. At the ment by the great majority of the married tax, estate and gift-tax amendments of 1948 time of the divorce, the wife was awarded of the inequity of the situation once they were a political compromise dictated by a the furniture and the custody of the chil were made aware of it. high-pressure historical situation and that dren; he was awarded the Community Bills Encouraged by our initial experiences and they were hardly a deliberate choice, made and her Attorney Fees. The world falls apart by our growing strength, we moved into the afte·r all equities and other consequences around him-no home, no family, but he stlll political arena at the state and national were weighed." must pay the bills. {$90 month on the furni levels. This activity has been conducted on It is as simple as this: If all states had ture blll; $60 month on a loan; $27.00 on the a strictly nonpartisan basis, for this is not been common-law states, the problem would TV, $110 month child support and $120.00 a partisan issue. Our governor and all of our not have arisen and a single tax table would rent). His take home pay is $580 monthly. state constitutional officers have expressed be used by all taxpayers. After expenses (rent, transportation, utili- approval of our goal. During the last session, Twa factors act to increase the impact of April 10, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 11875 the split-income provision on single tax SPETA favors tax equality for everyone. I assisted Mr. Gray and Senators Murphy payers--the steep progression of the income We insist, however, that our tax relief should and McCarthy in organizing the Committee tax raJtes in the early part of the rate table not be delayed or denied because of any dif last spring, and have directed our Wash and the impact of inflation. ficulties in arriving at this settlement. ington headquarters since last September. In the basic table from which the split A final point I wish to cover is the rela Out of deference for time, and since our three income table is derived and which was ap tionship of this legislation to the overall flE: main principals are present, and prepared to plicable to the incomes of single people be cal policy. While these Bills need not be con testify, I should like to leave the details of fore 1971, half of the rise in tax-rate pro sidered as a tax-cutting measure or evaluated the CO$T Crusade to Bob, Gene and the gression is imposed on the first 1/6 of the on the basis of their effect on the economy proverbial George. income subject to it. Splitting provides the and the revenue needs of the government, Attached are some editorial and newspaper greatest percentage of savings to those with passage would provide additional stimulus to articles about CO$T to illustrate the broad incomes in the $20,000 to $50,000 range. our lagging economy. base of interest generated by our Committee Members of the Committee, you will recog During the last session, you considered in all parts of the country. nize these as your own income brackets. legislation proposed by the President to pro Following are a series of quotes from a Added to this has been the impact of in vide such a stimulus. We asked that our Bills random sampling of the more than 50,000 flation. This has propelled more and more be taken up at the same time, but you did letters received by CO$T to date. They illus people into even higher brackets in terms of not heed us. Now, tax reform measures have trate the strong feelings of a representative money income (which does not represent a been proposed to eliminate some of the loop cross-section of America's 30 million indi real income). Inflationrury government poli holes in the tax laws. We all know these de vidual taxpayers who cannot understand why cies have, therefore, produced an effective ficiencies exist, but we must also recognize they should be singled out for more than tax increase on real income, which has to that there are excesses as well, one of which their fair share of our country's national tax some extent been mitigated for married peo is the "singles' surcharge." Any equitable tax burden. ple by the income-splitting provision, but reform must include tax reductions where Frome Mrs. M. A., Searo Wooley, Wash not for single people. they are proper, as well as provisions which ington: The Tax Reform Act of 1969 has reduced will produce revenue. "My husband passed away in December the gap to some extent, but it has provided Of the roughly 30 million returns filed of 1971. I stood shocked and stunned when no relief at all for taxable incomes of $4,000.00 by single persons and heads of household in I realized there had been $20.13 more taken or less and at $24,000 single taxpayers still 1969, almost 22 million reported adjusted from my pay check for withholding. Yet I pay 20 percent more than marrieds. gross incomes of under $5,000 and more than am faced with the very same bills as when After the 1948 law, when Lt was pointed 28.5 million reported adjusted gross incomes my husband was living. My take home pay out that single individuals we·re the only of under $10,000. Monies restored to this un is $292, thus the $20 is considerable." ones still at a disadvantage, recourse was derprivileged caste will obviously not end up From a single in San Mateo, California: made to the arguments used to justify the in socks or under mattresses, but will be "At the present time, the alternatives fac advantages already given to married taxpay quickly spent in day-to-day living, providing ing a single person are grim . . . support ers by means of personal exemptions and a fiscal stimulus for the economy. another "Boston Tea Party," have four ille itemized deductions. Principally, this legislation must be looked, gitimate children and go on the welfare rolls, In essence, these arguments are based on upon as a long-delayed rectification of an or highjack a plane to Outer Mongolia." Does the proposition that the financial burdens injustice. The demands of justice must not your organization have a more cogent plan of marriage reduce the ability of married be postponed to a time when they can be met of attack so that single people may even people to pay and, therefore, people who are conveniently. tually expect an equitable tax?" single, whether by choice or by chance, By the bloated standards of today's budget, From a recent widow in Lexington, Ken- should pay part of the share of the marrieds. the cost will not be large-perhaps a bil tucky: . This position gives no recognition to the lion or two. Such amounts cannot be crucial "I am glad to have the opportunity to lesser demand for government services at to a nation which spends 230 billion annu join CO$T to fight the unfairness of the tributable to singles. If all taxpayers were ally, or to fiscal planners who miscalculate tax discrimination of widows and single peo married, the revenues would be lowered and the balance of income and expenditures by ple. I am a widow as my husband died two the demands for government services would more than 20 billion in a single year. years ago. We bought a home on a GI Loan. be increased. References to higher priorities and claims I have almost 8 years more to pay before it Whatever the merits of these argumeruts, of revenue shortages are not valid excuses will be mine. I am trying to keep it, but the split-income provision would appear to for continued inaction. The tax laws, sup my bills are the same as when he was here, be a poor vehicle to balance taxes with abil posedly reformed in 1969, still shower bene except for the medicine. But he did get social ity to pay. The major burdens of family life fits on favored groups. The taxes collected are security disability, and a little veteran's are associated with the raising of children. squandered in ways which draw groans from bonus, which helped. I am 56 and all I can Yet the benefits of this provision accrue to taxpayers with each revelation. The Treas get now is what I have earned. So I sure all couples, childless or otherwise, and ury writes off as "uncollectible" several hun could benefit by lower taxes." whether or not they maintain a household. dreds of millions of tax dollars eacb year. The From a spinster in Berkeley, California: Furthermore, the need for extra funds is Justice Department fails to collect additional "I am single and highly indignant of our felt most heavily in the lower income brack millions in fines imposed by the courts. government's punitive treatment because I ets, but the law bestowed its greatest ad The money can be 'found. Our government have chosen my way of life. Nowhere in the vantage on the middle and uppe•r income can afford to be just I I ask you to establish United States Constitution can I find any groups. It must also be noted thart the ad justice by approving H.R. 850 in this com words or phrases saying single people must vantage is given principally to one-income mittee and by securing its enactment. pay higher taxes than other groups of citi families and not to those in which the wife's Thank you! zens. Why are we being punished? This is income is a signifloont supplement. also true of California's new withholding Even if the income-splitting provision were STATEMENT BY PATTY CAVIN, OF THE tax." better suited to the aims professed for it, COMMITTEE OF SINGLE TAXPAYERS From a bachelor in Lewiston, Idaho: it would not be just in the eyes of single tax "It has always been unfair to us who live payers. A generalization that single people Mr. Chairman, I am Patty Cavin, a past alone, mainly because we also have to pay have greater abll1ty to pay does not stand president of the Women's National Press for a place to live, pay for a car, and most examination. Singles are not a homogeneous Club, widow of F. Edward Cavin, and mother of the other things that married or "head of group of carefree swingers. Rather, they ex of two young sons. I am here as the Execu household'' persons have to do. I consider hibit a great diversity, with millions of di tive Director of CO$T, the Committee of myself head of my household and all its vorced, widows and widowers in their ranks. Single Taxpayers, which is a nonprofit, non expenses, and would like to be heard on this Some have family responsibilities and ex partisan national citizens action group. issue. It has a very strong smell of dis penses far greater than those of many mar CO$T was formed last June in the District crimination." rieds-especially those marrieds without chil of Columbia as the full time voice in Wash ington of the nation's over 30 million in From another spinster in Long Beach dren in the home. California: ' Persons living alone pay disproportionately dividual taxpayers. Our Committee is headed by the Honorable Robert Keith Gray, former "You bet the taxes for single people are for food, lodging and transportation. Those unfair! Out of the raise for federal empJoyees that never marry must look to their own re Secretary of the Cabinet during the Eisen sources in time of need and at retirement. hower Administration. Our Advisory Co in '72, my first check shows a grand total Here there is further discrimination, for sin Chairmen are the Honorable Eugene Mc of $1.01increase, balance paid to taxes. Heads gles get fewer social security benefits than Carthy and the Honorable George Murphy, of household and marrieds are averaging marrieds, but pay the same taxes. Indeed, the 'former United States Senators. $10 to $12 clear. I hate being punished for discriminations continue even after death in In addition to myself, our professional staff being single, or not getting pregnant just the form of higher taxes on the estates of sin consists of one secretary and several hundred for another exemption. There must be an gle people. volunteers who work in Washington, and easier way . . ." One of the results of the Tax Reform Act with our volunteer CO$T Chairman in major From a lady in Lakewood, Ohio: of 1969, which will be exacerbated by exten cities and key congressional districts from "Thank goodness someone has decided to sion of the full income-splitting privilege to coast to coast. In addition to mobilizing the move in the direction of the over-taxed sin single taxpayers, has produced some opposi individual taxpayer for group action, our gle taxpayers. Matter of fact, the time is tion. This is the apparent "marriage penalty" goal f.s effective legislation to establish an long overdue for taxing the head of a house which affects two-income couples. equal tax base for all individuals. hold EXTRA for every child over two. We are 11876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE April 10, 1972 no longer an agricultural economy iz: which nally realized in part the heavy inequity They suffffer the inequities of current tax the old man planned to put every child to which exists. laws in all income brackets. Among our mem work the minute he could Sltumble to the Even with head of household status, horri bers are women who are m.arried, single, di hen house." ble inequities persist. Take the ridiculous vorced, and widowed; women who are mothers From Annabel W. !n Fremont, California: situation whereby a divorced or widowed tax and grandmothers; women who have in the "I am 71, widowed, living alone and am payer with say three children, using the past and are now, even after their unswerv not given the privilege of Head of Household, head of household schedule, pays taxes at a ing efforts at tax reform, paying inequitable although I maintain my own home. Property higher rate than a married couple with no amounts of income tax vis-a-vis each other tax this year-$1,702.00; Federal Income Tax children. and vis-a-vis the rest of the taxpaying public. last year $924.00; California state Income The 1969 Tax Act was a step in the right We approach you now to urge your prompt Tax--$127.00. Living on a pension leaves lit direction, but certainly not the solution. approval of the legislation before you which tle for myself." Out of 74 million 286 thousand tax returns will deal with us uniformly and fairly and From Pam D. in Clarkston, Washington: filed in 1970, nearly half were filed by single will eliminate the inequities I will describe. "I am 21, living alone and I have to watch taxpayers. Why should over 30 million bache Across the nation our membership has my funds closely. I would like to go to college lors, widows, divorced and spinsters be sin come into contact with individuals u niting but because of bills and the high rate of gled out by IRS, and forced to pay a 20% to defeat the continuation of the unreason taxes, I am unable to. Any help I receive will heavier burden than their married friends? able tax classifications reflected in the rate be much appreciated." The Scripps-Howard Dally News headline of schedules. From Minnesota, where the State last Saturday, "40% of U.S. firms escape all Legislature adopted a Resolution urging the income taxes," reads like a ba;ttle cry if you Congress to pass legislation comparable to STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE GEORGE MUR· are single and socked with the same ex that presently before you,1 to Connecticut, PHY, FORMER SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA penses as that married coupled next door. where Vivian Kellems' long-suffering efforts Mr. Chairman, the Internal Revenue Com The Committee of Single Taxpayers is not against the "penalty" tax for unmarried in mission estimates that there are approxi against married, however, and has many dividuals began/~ to here in the metropolitan mately 30 million bachelors, spinsters, married members like the former Director W~Whington area where the Committee of widows, widowers, divorced and marTied tax of USIA who joined because he and his wife Single Taxpayers (CO$T), sponsored by for payers who file individual tax returns 1n the feel that "taxation must be fair 1f it is to mer Senators McCarthy and Murphy among United States today. I am happy to appear be borne, if not w1llingly, at least without others, is fiourishing,8 our membership has before the Ways and Means Committee today resentment." seen the attention of the nation turn to the as a spokesman for a sizeable portion of these CO$T sympathizes with the large group cause we have long supported. individuals, plus a growing number of mar of double income married persons. They too Consider the history upon which we base ried couples with double incomes, who are were discriminated against by the 1969 Tax our position here today. members of CO$T. Our Committee is obvi Reform. They must now pay up to 40% As you know, the income splitting proce ously nonpartisan l more than the one income family who files dure may be thought of as a product of his CO$T was formed in the District of Colum jointly. torical accident. Before World War II, eight bia last June as a national citizens action While the actual number affected by this states had community property laws which group to speak and act from Washington for '69 "Mistake" is yet to be determined by treated income as divided equally between America's previously unorganized minority the Census, a good yardstick is provided by husband and wife. The U.S. Supreme Court the individual taxpayer. Our immediate goal the Bureau of Labor Statistics which reports, ruled that married couples in these states is to end the current tax discrimination and as of March, 1971, th&t there are 17 million could divide their income and file separate to work for equal and fair tax treatment of couples in the American work force today. U.S. tax returns.' With this In mind, several ALL individuals. This figure Is bound to grow as equal rights other states soon passed laws giving their Gene McCarthy and I may disagree on for women are exercised on the U.S. labor citizens similar tax advantages. In an effort many things, but we agree on this goal-an front. to restore tax equality and to prevent whole equal tax base for all individuals. Further proof that the time is right for sale disruption of local tax and property laws, CO$T recognizes that laws are changed by an eqUal tax for au individuals is found in Congress in 1948 made income splitting ana organized support. Our Committee is active simple mathematics. Seventeen million tional procedure. While solving the problem in all 50 States and Puerto Rico, and has American couples amount to 34 m1llion for married couples, this legislation increased volunteer CO$T Chairmen in Oakland, Los double income taxpayers. Add this number the relative tax burden on single citizens. At Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Tacoma, to the over 30 m1llion !ndividual taxpayers tention was given to this inequity when, in Searotle, Denver, Dallas, Huntsville, St. Louis, who have, since :i948, been forced to pay an 1951, the heads-of-households provision was Chicago, Boston, Rochester, New York, Pitts unfair burden for their single status. 64 plus enacted giving one-half of the income split burgh, Newark, Tulsa, Chattanooga and million out of the 74.3 million American tax ting benefits of married couples to widows, Lexington. payers cannot be wronged indefinitely 1 widowers, and certain other single persons Our Committee members come from all The Oommittee of Single Taxpayers sup with dependents in their households. In 1954 categories including single secretaries, tax ports the original Koch Bill H.R. 850 and its surviving spouses with dependent children accountants, newspaper reporters, lawyers, amended version, H.R. 14193, that would were permitted to use the joint return tax doctors, nurses, college professors, airline provide tax equity for single taxpay&s and rates with full income splitting for two years stewardesses, publishers, many senior citi married persons filing separately. As a group, following the death of the husband or wife. zens, retired servicemen, a state commis we are In favor of any legislation that would Prior to the 1969 Tax Reform Act, a single sioner of internal revenue, an American Am bring about immediate tax equality for all person's tax bill could have been as much as bassador, and even a dozer operator from our citizens. 40.9 percent higher than the tax bill due on Peck, Idaho I In a p&lod when our government is work a joint return with the same amount of in CO$T also has sizeable membership support ing wholeheartedly to end discrimination in come. The 1969 Act provided a new rate from "Parents Without Partners," the na all its ugly forms, no one can deny we are schedule for single taxpayers which reduced tional organization of those widowed and di discriminating unfairly against those, who this gap to a stm staggering 20 percent. The vorced; the American Newspaper Women's through circumstances beyond their con schedule is designed to provide tax liabil1ty Club; the National Secretaries Association; trol or choice, are taxed at a ra;te that im for single persons which is 17 to 20 percent the National Association of Retired Federal poses an unfair burden on them. above that of married couples for taxable Employees; and NAST, the National Associa incomes between $14,000 and $100,000, with tion of Single Taxpayers which merged with TESTIMONY PRESENTED ON THE PART OF THE the maximum differential of 20 percent being CO$T last August. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS AND PRO reached at $20,000. Below $14,000, where in One thing has been clear from the start FESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUBS, INC. BY 0STA come splitting is less beneficial, the excess of of our Committee, and reflected in the thou UNDERWOOD, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, BEFORE the single person's rates over those of mar sands of letters which continue to pour into THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ried couples gradually decreases. This is also our P.O. Box 1789 here in Washington, D.C.: true above $100,000, again where the benefits the individual taxpayer who has been footing Mr. Chairman, I am Osta Underwood. It is of income splitting become less significant.6 up to 40% more tax burden than his mar my honor and privilege to address this Com The Tax Reform Act of 1969 also set up ried counterpart, may have suffered in silence mittee concerning H.R. 850 and H.R. 14193, a new head-of-household tax rate schedule legislation which wm extend to an unmarried since 1948 when Congress legislated the split individuals the full tax benefits of income income provision for marrieds . . . but no splitting now enjoyed by married individuals 1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOl. 117, pt. 32, longer. filing joint returns, and which will remove p. 42193. With the cost of living index rising, our rate inequities for married persons where 2 CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, vol. 117, pt. 3, pp. members are critically hurt on the national both are employed. 3037-3038 and pt. 6, pp. 6884-6887; Grider, tax front. They consider the 1969 Tax Reor As President of The National Federation of "Miss Kellems Bugs IRS Again," The Wash ganization Act which lowered their burden Business and Profesional Women's Clubs, ington Post, October 19, 1971, at A6, col. 1. to a maximum 20% a mere token-and at Inc., I represent working women in all of s The Washington Daily News, August 7, best, conscience legislation. the fifty states, the District of Columbia, 1971, "Potomac Patter," col. 1. The fact that Congress has finally granted Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, who are 4 Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930). to individual taxpayers the right to file as vitally interested in the future of these bills. 6 Senate Committee on Finance, Tax Re unmarried heads of households, is viewed by Our members are lawyers, clerks, saleswomen, form Act of 1969, S. Rep. No. 91-552, 9lst CO$T as recognition that Congress has fi- secretaries, teachers, managers, and Ph. D.'s. Congress, 1st Sess., 260-261 (1969). April 10, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 11877 conveying tax benefits half way between ing reasonable deductions. However, once the This, of course, would be the case only if the schedule applicable to joint returns and taxable income is determined the same rate the two single persons were not living to the new schedule applicable to single per should apply to all who have the same in gether. Without seriously believing that the sons, and extended the head-of-household come, regardless of whethet" they are married legislation was intended to encourage the tax rates to certain married individuals living or single. promiscuity, contrary to our public policy, apart from their spouses.a "Many people attempt to explain the pres which it seems· to reward, we think it too is That is the history which has given birth ent system by saying that single persons do susceptible to the argument that any prov to the two inequities which we seek to rectify not bear the costs and responsibilities of rais able relationship between costs of living as a today: ing children. But income splitting under married couple and tax benefits conferred to 1. A single person making $8,000 a year present law does not differentiate among offset these expenses can be more equitably pays $210 more in Federal income taxes than (married) taxpayers in this respect, since the translated into deductions and exemptions a married person making the same salary. .A benefit is the same whether or not they have than they can into rate differentials on ad single person making $12,000 annually pays children." u justed income. $370 more than a married person making the It cannot be stressed too strongly that dif· Therefore, based on the sincerely held be same salary. The penalties for being unmar ferences in the responsib111ties of individuals lief that incomes should be taxed at an equal ried range from a difference of $10 yearly should not, and cannot continue to be re rate, allowing each citizen tax benefit for the (with an income of $1,500) to $12,110 (with flected in the rate of tax they pay on their responsibilities he or she assumes in our so an income of $200,000) .1 base income after deductions and exemp ciety before adjusted income is determined, 2. A married person making $14,000 a year, tions. These responsibilities, which surely The National Federation of Business and whose spouse also earns $14,000 a year, pays must be recognized from an income tax Professional Women's Clubs, Inc. strongly $680 more in Federal income taxes, if both standpoint, should be brought home to those urges you to report favorably on H.R. 850 spouses file jointly, than two singles who each who have them in the form of beneficial de and H.R. 14193. earn $14,000 a year and file separate returns ductions and exemptions. (To the end that Thank you. using the unmarried individual's tax this may be a meaningful benefit, we support schedule. a legislation to incre~e the exemption for STATEMENT BY CHRISTINE BESHAR ON BEHALF To deal with the inequity perpetrated upon dependents.) OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEX AND LAW, OR the single individual by the current law, If this policy change does not take place, VILLE SCHELL, CHAIRMAN, THE ASSOCIATION H.R. 850 and H.R. 14193 would establish a the misplaced good intentions of prior Con OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK uniform rate structure for all taxpayers and gresses will cause the anomalous situation to end the tax penalty imposed on the unmar persist in which widows and divorcees sup The 1969 Tax Reform Act reduced the tax porting one or more children wlll pay a rates for Unmarried Individuals and Heads of ried taxpayer. Households [Internal Revenue Code Section As to the inequity perpetrated upon mar higher tax based on their adjusted income ried individuals filing jointly, the establish than that of a married couple which is child 1 (b) and (c)]. A probably unintended re less. sult is that the tax liability of two income ment, under H.R. 850 and H.R. 14193, of a earning taxpayers is now higher if they are uniform rate structure for all taxpayers Although the Senate Report does not ex would end the tax penalties imposed on mar plain why it chose the rate adjustment route married than if they are not. This result is instead of the deduction and exemption inequitable and socially undesirable. It ap ried persons where both are employed. pears to induce tax conscious young people Because of its effectiveness in remedying method of reflecting the peculiar responsibil two problems we set forth earlier, and in ities of taxpayers, if that choice is based on to ~ive together without marriage or in some any statistical data intended to be reflected cases even to get a divorce. The increased tax establishing an equitable system of inoome comes about because, while married tax taxation for all citizens, we strongly urge in the rate differentials set, surely that data your support of this legislation. can be conve.rted into a system of deduction payers may elect to file either a joint return We feel it our duty to deal with those and exemptions, just as fairly reflecting the or two separate returns, they must, if they differing costs of the responsibllities involved, file separate returns, use the table for "Mar criticisms of the legislation of which we are ried Individuals Filling Separate Returns" aware. and allowing adjusted incomes to be taxed In support of leaving a 20 percent gap be at a uniform rate. [Section 1 (d) ] which was not amended when If the rate differentials set are not based those for Unmarried Individuals were amend tween the tax paid by singles and that paid ed in 1969. by marrieds filing jointly, the Report t.l! the on such data, they represent an arbitrary Senate Finance Committee on the 1969 method of taxation, inherently inequitable, The attached table illustrates the "penalty for marriage" on the b~is of 1971 tax rates. Tax Reform Act says: and surely deserving of re-examination. ". . . some difference between the rate of In support of allowing marrieds filing Congress should cure the obvious inequity tax paid by single persons and joint returns Jointly to pay a greater tax than two singles which crept into the tables with the 1969 fl.ling separately, the Staff of the Joint Com Tax Reform Act and results in discrimination is approprtate to reflect the additional living against a married couple with two incomes expenses of married taxpayers .••" 11 mittee on Internal Revenue Taxation ex and, in support of leaving a 10 percent gap plains: by imposing a greater tax on a married cou between singles and heads-of-households, the "This is a necessary result of changing the ple th.an on two unmarried individuals with Report says: income splitting relationship between single the same income. " ... there is good reason !orr maintaining a a.n.d joint returns. Moreover, it is justified The change can be accomplished by allow tax differential between single persons and on the grounds that although a married ing each taxpayer, whether he be married or heads-of-household who in fact maintain a couple has greater living expenses than a not, to file a separate return in respect of household for a dependent." 1o single person and hence should pay less tax, his income and to use the rates in Section To these statements we offer, first, the the couple's living expenses are likely to be l(b) which are now applicable only to un words of Senator Ribicoff: less than those of two single persons, and married individuals. "The income tax should reflect differences therefore the couple's tax should be higher If is 12 such an amendment made, it becomes in condition and responsibilities by allow- than that of two single persons." necessary ( 1) to make sure that the income 11 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOl. 117, pt. 3, pp. earned by one spouse in a community prop-· 6 I d. 3037-3038. erty state is taxed to him alone and (2) to 7 Int. Rev. Code of 1954, (a) and (c). 12 Staff of The Joint Committee on Internal amend the child care provisions which pres 8 I d. Revenue Taxation, 91st Congress, 1st Sess., ently require a married individual to file a 9 Supra, note 5, at 260. General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act joint return in order to claim the child care 1o Supra, note 5, at 262. of 1969 (December 3, 1970). deduction. 1971 FEDERAL INCOME TAX PENALTIES FOR MARRIAGE Wife's income $2, 000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12, 000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000 $30,000 Husband's income: $2,000 _------$154 -$149 -$136 -$68 -$3 +$21 +$74 +$153 +$233 +$350 +$901 $4,000 _------149 -195 -170 -113 -87 -127 -98 -55 +2 +69 +448 $6,000 _------136 -170 -156 -138 -176 -240 -247 -227 -220 -178 +21 $8,000_------68 -113 -138 -184 -246 -346 -376 -403 -424 -442 -391 $10,000 _------3 -87 -176 -246 -344 -467 -547 -602 -680 -725 -828 $12,000------+ 21 -127 -240 - 346 -467 -640 -745 -860 -965 -1,045 -1,296 $14,000 _------+74 -98 -247 -376 -547 -745 -910 -1,052 -1, 192 -1, 297 -1, 700 $16,000_------+153 -55 -227 -406 -602 -860 -1,052 -1,229 -1,394 -1,532 -2,080 $18,000 _------+233 +2 -220 -424 -680 -965 -1,192 -1,394 -1,592 -1,758 -2, 445 t20 ,000_------+350 +69 -178 -442 -725 -1,045 -1, 297 -1, 532 -1, 758 -1,957 -2,775 $30,000_ ------+ 901 +448 +21 -391 -828 -1,296 -1,700 -2,080 -2, 445 -2,775 -3,970 Note: The. stan dar~ deduction i~ assu"!ed in all cases. A negative amount in the chart indicates that the tax for a married couple is higher than for 2 single persons. A positive amount indicates that the tax IS lower 1f the couple IS marned. 11878 CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April 10, 1972 STATEMENT PREPARED FOR HEARINGS ON TAX So that spouses on pensions could have the any pension or annuity received by reason of TREATMENT OF SINGLE PERSONS AND MARRIED same benefits as working spouses, pensions an employment relation shall be considered PERSONS BOTH WORKING, BEFORE THE HOUSE flowing out of an employment would also earned income. WAYS AND MEANS CoMMITTEE qualify the spouses to make the election. (4) The election shall apply for all pur My name is Florence Donohue. I am an at The proposal would also provide that only poses of this subtitle." one of two electing spouses could claim SEc. 2. Section 2 (relating to definitions torney admitted in New York. I am the head-of-household status, and that only the and special rules) is amended by renumber Chairman of the Committee on Taxation and spouse electing head-of-household status ing subsection (e) as subsection (f), and by the Working Woman of the New York Wom could deduct child and household care ex adding after subsection (d) the following en's Bar Association. I speak for the organi penses of up to $4,800 a year under the new subsection: zation in urging a law change that would " (e) Married Persons Electing to File as permit married couples both working to file newly liberalized Sec. 214. Withholding. Withholding tables now in Unmarried Individuals.-Married persons returns as though they were unmarried in effect take into account that married persons who elect under section 6013(f) to file as dividuals. both working owe more taxes than if they unmarried individuals shall be treated as un I am employed as an Executive Editor with were single. The proposal would permit mar married at the close of the taxable year, for Prentice-Hall, Inc., the publishing firm. ried persons who make the election in one Married taxpayers have discovered with purposes of subsection (b) (1). Only one such year to qualify for reduced withholding in electing spouse may qualify as head of house some shock in 1972, a.s they file their 1971 the following year. returns, that many of them are paying more hold under section 1(b) ." It is intended that the election should be SEc. 3. Paragraph (1) of section 214(e) is tax just because they are married. The result effective for all purposes of the income tax flows from two factors: lower rates now ap amended to read as follows: swbtitle of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus " ( 1) Married couples eligible to file joint plicable to unmarried individuals and heads electing spouses would both be eligible for of-household, and the increase in the stand returns. If the taxpayer is married at the the $1,300 low income allowance, and for a close of the taxable year, the deduction pro ard deduction. maximum standard deduction of up to $2,000 There is no question that Congress meant vided by subsection (a) shall be allowed only each. They would also each be entitled to de if the taxpayer and his spouse file a single only to ea.se the situation for single taxpayers duct up to $1,000 under Sec. 1211 (b) (limi when it changed the rates for them in 1969. return jointly for the taxable year, unless tation on capltal losses). There are several both spouses elect to file as unmarried indi Nevertheless, the end result has been to place other situations under the income tax law a "tax on marriage" when both spouses are viduals under section 6013 (f). If the latter where hus,band and wife are treated as one election is in effect, only the spouse eligible earning income. The examples that follow taxpayer. The general reason for these pro show just how much tax penalty may be in to claim head of household status under sec visions was the tax benefit that flowed to mar tion 1(b) may claim the deduction allowed volved: ried persons through the use of the joint re Example 1. Bill and Mary are married and by subsection (a)." turn rates. Once it is recognized that work SEc. 4. Subparagraph (A) of section 3402 have two children. They are unskilled work ing spouses do not enjoy any such benefit, ers and each makes $4,000 a year. If they file ( 1) ( 3) is amended to read as follows: and they elect to be treated as unmarried, "(A) as not married, if (i) he is legally a joint return, they will pay a tax of $672. then the provisions of present law related to On separate retll!rns, they would each pay a separated from his spouse under a decree of married persons filing separate returns should divorce or separate maintenance, or (11) tax of $339, for a total of $678, if each claims not apply to them. For instance, it would be one child. If they were not married, each either he or his spouse is, or on any preceding quite proper for one spouse to itemize deduc day within the calendar year was, a nonresi would pay a tax of $246, for a total of $492, tions, and the other to claim the standard This low income family would pay a mar• dent alien, or (iii) the spouses elect for the deduction. Only one personal exemption preceding taxable year to file returns as un riage penalty of $180. If one qualified as head would be available for each chlld, of course, of household, there would be an additional married individuals under section 6013 (f)." and parents would have to decide which of SEc. 5. The amendments made by this Act $6 saving if they were not married. them would take ee.ch chUd's exemption, in Example 2. Bert is a young accountant and shall apply to taxable years ending after the ligh-t of such factors as eligibllity for December 31, 1970. makes $12,000 a year. His wife Susan teaches head of household status and the child care school; her salary is $10,000. Assuming they expense deduction. Neither spouse of an elect have no children and use the standard de ing chlldless couple would qualify for head STATEMENT BY ALBERT H. TuRKUS BEFORE THE duction for 1971, their tax on a joint return of household status unless a disabled de COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS is $4,142. If they file separate returns, be pendent lived in the household. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members cause they are married, their tax would be Effective date. It would be highly desirable of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am $4,165. But if they weren't married at all, the to have this change effective retrooctively for Albert H. Turkus, an attorney-at-law and an combined tax Bert and Susan would pay the 1971 taxable year, the first year in which associate of the Tax Reform Research Group. would be $3,642.50. So they are paying be rate differentials applied to unmarried in With me is Thomas H. Stanton, Director of tween $499.50 and $522.50 more taxes be dividuals. the group. The Tax Reform Research Group calllSe they are married. Proposed legislation approved by the New is an organization concentrating on matters Example 3. John and Julia are both at York Women's Bar Association to meet the of legislation, regulation, and enforcement torneys. They are in partnership together, objectives outlined in the above statement in the fields of federal, state, and local taxa and each partner's share of the partnership follows. The legislative proposal was approved tion. It is funded by Ralph Nader's Public income 1s $20,000. If they are single, they at the meeting of the Association on Febru Citizen, Inc., a broad-based group of citi wlll each pay a tax of $4,450.50, for a total ary 24, 1972. zens throughout the country who are con tax of $8,901. If they got married in 1971, cerned about consumer and tax issues. their total tax b111 went up to $10,857.50. H.R.- At the outset I must commend this Com Their tax loss for getting married: $1,956. mittee for its responsiveness to the public Example 3 above assumes the standard de A b111 to permit married individuals to elect in holding these hearings. In the last six _duction of $1,500 available for 1971. The to pay tax as though they were unmarried months many people have begun to express 1972 maximum standard deduction of $2,000 individuals concern about the relative tax burdens of wlll increase the tax penalty even more. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of single people versus married people, espe Example 4. Jim is a young widower with Representatives of the United States of cially in families where both husband and two children aged 8 and 10 who live with America in Congress assembled, That section wife are working. him in hi$ household and are his dependents. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 The great bulk of public outcry concern He makes $20,000 a year and itemizes deduc (relating to joint returns of income tax by ing this issue has focused on the argument tions of $4,000. He contemplates marrying husband and wife) be amended by adding at that it is cheaper in terms of tax llability for a young woman who 1s an accountant and the end thereof the following new subsec two wage earners to "live together in sin" makes $13,000 a year. She presently takes tion: than it is if they get m84'ried.1 Whlle this kind the standard deduction and intends to go "(f) Election to File as an Unmarried Indi of discussion has real emotional appeal, it on working. If they do not marry in 1972, vidual or Head of Household.- tends to obscure the complicated questions Jim's tax bill will be $2,912.50, and the girl's ( 1) If both spouses so elect, married per of economics and the ditflcult value judg will be $2,171, for a total of $5,083.50. If they sons eligible to file a joint return may each ments which must be taced by the Congress do marry, their tax on a joint return, as file separate returns as though they were in setting the relative tax burdens of our suming the total itemized deductions remain unmarried individuals, if they satisfy the various taxpaying units. $4,000 will be $6,380. The difference-the conditions set forth in paragraph (3). penalty tor getting married-is $1,296.50. (2) Only one of such electing spouses may HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The New York Women's Bar Association claim head of household status under sec In 1948, the Congress adopted the income recommends that this unconscionable result tion 1 (b) ( a.s defined in section 2 (b) ) . splitting provisions of the Internal Revenue be avoided by permitting married persons an (3) The election permitted under para Code in order to achleve geographical tax election to be taxed as though they were not graph (1) shall only be available to spouses . equity between those states which had com married. To avoid providing an additional 1f at least 80% of their combined adjusted mon law rules of property and the commu loop-hole for the well-to-do, the election gross income is composed of: nity property states. The Supreme Court had should be limited to spouses who both have (A) wages as defined in section 3401(a); or determined in 1930 that under existing law substantial amounts of earned income. The (B) earned income as defined in section attached proposed blll sets the rule at 80%. 91l(b). For purposes of this election only, Footnotes at end of article. April 10, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 11879 a family in a community property state was is not working. The married couple with two structure, we urge this Committee to con entitled to split its income in two for pur wage earners and the single couple should sider more comprehensive reform of the tax poses of filing federal tax returns.2 In part to pay essentially the same tax; there may be treatment of the family. achieve tax equity between a couple living in some cost savings to the married couple The Committee should consider the advisa a community property state and a couple liv which are not available to (or are not gen bility of eliminating income splitting. This ing in a common law state, and also to avoid erally engaged in by) two single wage earners provision alone costs the federal government a "mad rush" by states to adopt community living together-to this extent the single over $21 billion each year. I would suggest the property laws, Congress enacted a provision couple might pay a sUghtly lower tax. Committee consider the ·alternative of a sin in the Revenue Act of 1948 which allowed all How does this economic analysis compare gle rate structure with mandatory joint re couples to split their income for federal tax to the situation which exists under present turns. Such a structure could include a sys purposes.3 tax law? Today the married couple with one tem of exemptions (preferably vanishing at The income splitting provisions in effect wage earner pays substantially less than the higher income levels) or credits related to the since 1948 essentially allow a family to divide single taxpayer due to an additional exemp size of the taxpaying unit. It would be pos its income in half and pay twice the tax on tion (or exemptions) as well as to the ad sible to tailor the exemptions or credits s one half its income. Under a progressive rate vantages of income splitting. The married to both the size of the taxpaying unit, its structure this represents a substantial tax couplJ with two wage earners pays the same income level, and, at the same time, the rela savings for the family. Economists Joseph A. tax as the married couple with one wage tive economic status of the taxpaying unit Pechman and Benjamin A. Okner of the earner; and, the single coupl~epending on to other units at the same income level.o Brookings Institution recently estimated the split of income between the two wage Such a system could eliminate entirely the that income splitting reduces federal tax earners--wlll pay the least. need for a multiple rate structure; not only revenues by over $21 billion per year.4 It is the disparity between married cou could the second rate schedule for married But the Congress decided that the family ples with two wage earners and single cou couples be eliminated, but also the separate was the proper unit for purposes of taxation ples which seems to have generated the most schedule for "Heads of Households" could and that a single taxpayer should be taxed public interest. In my opinion this problem be done away with. There seems to be no le more heavily than a married couple earning has been greatly exaggerated. Only those gitimate reason for denying those who pres the same total amount. And income splitting families with two more-or-less-equal wage ently qualify for this schedule the full bene was one way to achieve these goals. earners suffer today vis-a-vis the single fits available to married taxpayers with simi In 1951, however, in order to mitigate the couple.7 lar dependency circumstances. resulting heavy tax burden on some Of the TAX EQUITY FOR THE MARRIED COUPLE WITH TWO Economists Pechman and Okner propose a single people, the Congress established a WAGE EARNERS somewhat different system which would third rate structure for the category it ca.lled There is, however, a more general problem achieve similar results.1o They suggest a dual "Head of a Household." Under the '51 pro for all families with two wage earners which rate structure with brackets half as wide for Visions a single person supporting a "quali does deserve serious consideration. A married married couples as those for single taxpay fying" dependent was taxed according to a couple with both members of the family ers. We respectfully urge this Committee to rate schedule with half the advantages of working suffers a real economic loss by virtue consider such comprehensive reform of the income splitting. The economic justification of the loss of services normally performed tax treatment of the family. We have only for this halfway treatment has never been by a family member in the home. They are proposed the exemption or credit for two convincingly articulated. forced to purchase these services on the gen wage-earner families described above in case In any case, the tax incentives favoring eral market, much as the single person does. the Committee should be unwilling to act marriage continued virtually intact until For this reason, we suggest that the Com now on comprehensive reform. the Tax Reform Act of 1969. The '69 Act mittee consider the possibility of establish substantially changed the relative tax treat THOROUGH TAX REFORM OF THE ENTIRE REVENUE ing a special credit or exemption for the fam CODE ment of single and married people, especially ily with two wage earners. Such an exemp with respect to single people liVing together The kind of comprehensive reform we are tion could be equal to a percentage of the urging should not be limited to the tax versus married couples with two wage earn lower income in the family, with a maxi ers. By lowering the tax rates for single peo treatment of the family. The need for mum upper limit or a phase-out at higher thorough reform of our entire tax code is be ple and by raising the low income allowance family income levels. (A credit could be de and the upper limits of the percentage stand coming a major issue of public concern in vised to achieve similar results.) this election year. Recent news articles sug ard deduction, the Congress created what An exemption of this kind has a number some have called a "marriage penalty" for of features to commend it. First, it would gest that many taxpayers may favor revolt two wage-earner families. lighten the tax burden of the married cou against the tax system if reform is not forth coming.11 Even the Wall Street Journal sug THE ECONOMICS OF THE TAX TREATMENT OF THE ple with two wage earners vis-a-vis the mar gested in a recent editorial that it might be FAMILY-IN BRIEF ried couple with only one income producer. time to replace exemptions with tax credits.lll Before examining the economic justifica This would recognize the difference in eco nomic circumstances between the two fami And one popular magazine recently published tions for differing tax treatment of various an article telling taxpayers how they could economic units, there are two points which lies set out above. At the same time, it would act to decrease the "marriage penalty" or the cheat on their returns,u describing this as a deserve speci·aJ. emphasis. First, it is difficult "penny ante strategy" t' compared to the to design a system which wm equitably dis incentive to "live in sin" which currently exists between married couples with two wage loopholes available to the rich. tribute the tax burden among all the various The Committee should recognize the ur economic units in our society and which will, earners and two single wage earners living together, as the latter couple would not be gency of this situation and begin now with at the same time, be reasonably easy to ad hearings on comprehensive reform of the minister and enforce. And, second, the ulti eligible for the special exemption (or credit). While we recommend this proposal for kind embodied in three. important reform mate decisions which must be made in re bills presently pending before this Commit solving this problem are based primarily on Committee consideration, we would note that value judgments rather than on obvious it will not solve all of the problems which tee: HR 11058, introduced by Congressman principles of equity. might concern the Committee. For example, Corman; HR 13877, introduced by Congress Let us concentrate for a moment on the 1t does not recognize the economic savings of man Reuss; and HR 13601, introduced by relative tax treatment of four different eco the single taxpayer who lives with his par Congressman Aspin. The first two contain nomic units: (1) a single person living alone ents or those of two single taxpayers who live proposals to close various loopholes and tax and earning "X" dollars, (2) a married cou together as roommates (whether they are of preferences. Some of the most notable reform ple with one wage earner earning "X" dollars, the same or opposite sexes). We would sug proposals include the following: (1) chang (3) a married couple with two wage earners gest, however, that there are just too many ing exemptions to credits, (2) repealing the earning a total of "X" dollars, and ( 4) two economic factors for all to be recognized $100 dividend exclusion, (3) taxing capital single working people living together and in the Revenue Code without developing a gains at death or upon transfer by gift, {4) earning a total of "X" dollars (the "single tax system which is virtually impossible to repealing the ADR accelerated depreciation couple"),& administer or enforce. system, ( 5) eliminating the tax exemption on Economically the following relative tax This proposal would seem desirable both income from state and local bond issues, {6) burdens would appear to be the most equi to cure a serious inequity and also to as eliminating or lowering the percentage de table. The single taxpayer should pay the suage the present public outcry. However, we pletion allowance, (7) repealing the DISC heaviest tax because he (or she) has less urge this Committee to carefully consider the tax exemption, (8) requiring ·capitalization expenses and, therefore, more "clear in possible revenue effects of this or any similar of intangible drilling and development costs, come." 6 The married couple with one wage measure before enactment. At the present (9) expanding the list of items covered by earner should be next in line; although time, with budget deficits totaling nearly $87 the minimum tax on tax preferences, and married couples with one wage earner and billion for three years, new revenue-losing (10) removing or reducing the $30,000 ex those with two wage earners may appear to measures--even those which are desirable be emption in the minimum tax provisions. All be in similar circumstances, the couple with cause of the equities involved-should be of these and other proposals-such as those only one wage earner has more "real" income carefully weighed before passage. for a more simplified tax code-should be because of the imputed v·alue of the services GENERAL REFORM OF THE TAX TREATMENT OF carefully studied by the Committee now be performed by the member of the family who THE FAMILY fore the average citizen, and not just the Instead of merely grafting the proposal set fringe, begins to turn towards tax evasion or Footnotes at end of article. out above onto the currently inequitable tax revolt. 11880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE April 10, 1972 The Corman bill would bring in approxi support of their personal staff with whom 10 Pechman and Okner, supra note 4, at 17. mately $11 billion in additional revenues: they work on a day-to-day basis. 11 Gould Lincoln, "The 1972 Taxpayers Re the Reuss bill would increase revenues by (5) And, finally, the Democratic members volt," The Evening Star (Washington), approximately $7~ billion each year. Either of this Committee should consider divesting April 1, 1972, at A-4, col. 3. of these measures would go a long way to themselves of the power they hold as the Richard L. Stout, "Taxtime struggle, ward reducing current budget deficits and Democratic Committee on Committees. This populists vs. loopholes," The Christian Sci providing the funds for needed government power may cause undue deference to Com ence Monitor, April 1, 1972, at 1, col. 4. programs. mittee decisions by a large portion of the u The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1972, at The Nixon Administration is presently House-such deference, even if only a po 8,col. 1. considering a proposal to impose a regres tential problem, would seem an undesirable 13 Bob Cratchit (pseudonym), "How to sive national sales tax-the value-added warping of the legislative process. Cheat on Your Income Tax: A Guide," Ram tax-on the nation's consumers. Prompt ac Mr. Chairman, members of.the Committee. parts, April, 1972, at 32. tion by this Committee on reform proposals I am sure that to some of you some of these 14 Id., at 38. could forestall this regressive measure remarks appear at first glance to be far 15 The list of presently existing tax sub which, by the way, will hit large families the afield. But it must be recognized that the sidies is taken from "The Economics of Fed hardest-and, at the same time, restore inequities in our tax law today cannot be eral Subsidy Programs," A Staff Study pre equity to our tax system. fully separated from the process by which pared for the use of the Joint Economic The bill sponsored by Congressman Aspin they were enacted. Nor can the inequities Committee of the Congress of the United is a different kind of reform measure. It calls suffered by one taxpaying group be fully un Sttaes (January 11, 1972). for the termination of all presently existing derstood without a look at our entire tax 16 See especially Pechman and Okner, supra tax subsidies 15 on J anuary 1, 1974, with the structure. note 4. That study proposes a more compre provision that all subsidies enacted in the It is certainly possible to do something for hensive tax base and revisions of the rate future would be of only a two-year duration. married couples with two wage earners which structure that could generate an additional Such a proposal would return tax subsidies will ease their tax burden. But such minor $77 billion in federal revenues. The authors to the public spotlight periodically for review relief will not long assuage the growing dis also set out in detail alternative rate sched and reconsideration much as appropriations satisfaction with our tax laws which is sweep ules which could be used after their reforms measures are now treated. ing the country. in lieu of increasing the federal revenues. These bills and other proposals for tax re You distinguished gentlemen and women Under their proposals tax rates could be cut form ta deserve hearings now. The public's have an opportunity to accomplish truly by an average of 43% without a decrease in concern with tax inequity has surfaced in meaningful tax reform and, through re federal revenues. Pechman and Okner, supra these hearings today. We urge this Commit forms in the legislative process, you can note 4, at 29. tee to immediately undertake hearings and involve the entire House of Representatives thorough study of comprehensive tax reform. in such an effort. We respectfully urge you to take the first step in this direction by TESTIMONY BY CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLYMAN ROB THE NEED FOR POLITICAL PROCEDURAL REFORMS holding hearings on those tax reform bills ERT C. CLINE BEFORE THE WAYS AND MEANS The kind of serious tax reform we are sug presently pending before this Committee. COMMITTEE gesting and, in fact, even a minor reform Chairman Mills and Members of the Com relating to the tax treatment of the family, FOOTNOTES mittee, it is a distinct pleasure for me to will require important value judgments by 1 See, for example, Milton Friedman, "A join with the many members of your distin members of Congress as to the proper rela Family Matter," Newsweek, April 10, 1972, at guished House who have called for revision tive tax burdens of various kinds of tax 74. of the personail income tiax law to remove the payers. 2 Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930). outright discriininl8!tion ag:atnst single tax The Committee should not only focus on 3 At least one scholar has suggested that payers. I wish to publicly commend Miss the substantive tax reforms this nation this provision was motivated in part by Con Vivien Kellems for her fight a;t the national needs; we urge it also to consider the fol gressional desire to pass a tax cut which level and thank her again for testifying for lowing possible reforms of the process by would not be vetoed by the President. Boris my California legislation to accomplish equi which tax bills are enacted: I. Bittker, Federal Income Estate and Gift table taxation for single persons and ( 1) This Committee should offer its bills Taxation, at 335 (3 ed 1964). unmarried heads of household. to the House under an "open" or "modified 'Joseph A. Pechman and Benjamin A. Ok There is a wide misconception held in open" rule rather than under a "closed" rule. ner, "Individual Income Tax Erosion by In many quarters of government and the public Under the present procedure less than 12 come Classes," at 40, prepared for the U.S. in general that income taxes are based on million of the nation's 200 million citizens Joint Economic Committee Compendium of "ability to pay". have a meaningful voice in the tax laws that Papers on the Economics of Federal Subsidy I would suggest, on the other hand, that are passed. Pr:ograms (January 14, 1972). alternative phrasing is more appropriate and (2) The present members' bill procedure s The following discussion focuses on all that income taxation is based on a person's should be scrapped. The reaction of Repre units earning "X" dollars for purposes of "ability to earn". If we are to adopt the sentatives Patman and Aspin and others on simplicity. The equity of relative tax burdens philosophy of a person's "ability to pay" as February 29th of this year shows what aJt must, of course, be considered at various a criterion for taxation, that "ability to pay.. least some of our Representatives think of levels of income for each of the units. This would be translated into taxation at the the present procedure. Bills of that nature can best be done with the aid of modern sales and use tax level and not at the income should be considered only after public hear computer equipment which was unavailable level, for the "ability to pay•• is based not ings have been held by the Committee. In during the preparation of this testimony. just on an individual's ability to earn in order to make such public participation o~ Clear income "consists of net income (ad come, but also his ability to borrow in a. meaningful, the Committee should have its justed gross income on the tax forms) minus society which is increasingly running on staff prepare reports for public distribution an uncertain allowance to the taxpayer of credit. at least six weeks before Committee con personal expense money deemed sufficient The personal income tax revenue collected sideration. These reports should fully explain to maintain himself and his dependents ac by the federal government has grown from in lay language the purpose, revenue effect, cording to some biological or conventional $45.6 billion in 1962 to $93.7 billion in 1972. and historical perspective of the proposed standard." Harold M. Groves, Federal Tax Table #4 (attached) outlines this growth, legislation along with a full discussion of Treatment of the Family, at 10 (1963). and when social insurance taxes paid by in possible alternative measures. 1 Ideally the tax code should be as neutral dividuals (the other half is paid by employ as possible with regard to incentives or dis (3) The Committee should adopt a pro ers) are added to the personal income tax. cedure which allows 25% of its members to incentives towards marriage. For Inany years call for public hearings on proposed legis the tax incentives towards Inarriage were these figures would show 1962 income re lation. As of March 1, there were 1140 bills ignored-they stil: exist as some income lated tax revenues of $54.1 billion and in pending before the Committee; present pro levels today-even though some would argue 1972 of $122.5 billion. cedures have held too many of these bills that the societal costs of tax-induced mar I have prepared for your committee Table from proper public consideration. The pro riages are greater than those from tax-fore #1 to which you may refer in comparing posed tax reform bills discussed above are gone marriages. It is our view that this prob personal income taxation imposed by the obvious examples. Alternatively, the Com lem could be best solved as part of a compre federal law at varying levels of income from mittee could establish permanent subcom hensive reform of the tax treatment of the the lowest level to $20,000 for classes of tax mittees which would be able to hear testi family, as discussed below. payers. If deductions are itemized, taxable mony on many more bills than the full Com s These would. replace the current system income is computed after itemized deduc mittee can now schedule. of personal exemptions pi us standard deductions. tions and personal exemptions. The discrim (4) The Committee should allow its mem ination against the single person and the bers to bring staff assistants with them to e Professor Groves discusses various budget unmarried person who qualified as head of Executive Session. Currently members mus~ studies on the relative cost of living by fam rely on the Committee staff, the staff of the ilies of di1Ierent sizes pointing out, for ex household becomes apparent after the $500 Joint Committee, members of the Executive ample, that it costs a married couple approxi level of taxable income. Branch, and their own expertise. There seems mately 1.4 times as much to live as it costs For example, at the $6,000 level, the head little reason to deny them the additional a single person. Groves, supra note 6, at 28. of household pays $40 more taxes than the April 10, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 11881 married couple, and the single pays $110 TABLE 4 federal action to use the time of their own choosing, MADDEN said. more than the married couple. {Dollar amounts in billions] I need not dwell on the amount of pub· MICHIGAN ALSO AFFECTED Ucity which has been circulated widely about Revenue sources 1962 Percent 1972 Percent The Uniform Time Act, enacted to take the discrimination against the single per some of the confusion out of airline, bus and son, but I feel, too, that the widow or divorcee railroad timetables, attempted to get states with dependent children has received less PIT ______----- $45.6 45.8 $93.7 43.2 Corporation ______to decide on one time zone for the entire than her share of attention. 20.5 20.6 36.7 16.4 state. Prior to the enactment of the 1966 If you will refer to Tables #2 and #3, you Social insurance ______17.1 17.1 57.6 26.5 Excise ______------12.5 12.5 17. 5 8.1 act, Indiana counties were on Eastern Stand wm note that using the tax table (for those Estimate and gift ______2.1 2.1 5. 3 2. 5 ard time and Central Daylight Saving time, individuals not itemizing deductions and Customs ______--- 1.1 1.1 2. 7 1.6 Miscellaneous ______--_-- depending on the choice of authorities in meeting the minimum qualifications to file . 8 .8 4.1 1.9 each county. in their respective category) that the un TotaL ____ ------99.7 100.0 217.6 100.0 Michigan also has time confusion. So have married head of household is paying higher Arizona and Hawaii. taxes than a married couple. The amendment, pushed by Madden and If you will now refer to Table #3, you will INDIANA CALUMET REGION WINS Rep. Roger Zion [R., Ind.], permits any Sltate note that the head of household with two VICTORY ON AMENDMENT TO divided by a time zone boundary to exempt children pays significantly more in federal DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME ACT all of the state lying wLthin one time zone income tax than a married couple with two fromt he observance of advanced, or day children even though the married couple 1812. A letter !rom the Secretary of Trans Import Bank of the United States transmit ImmigrB~tion and Naturalization Service, portation, transmitting part II of the 1972 ting a report on the amount of Export Deprurtment of Justice, transml,tting copies National Highway Needs Report, pursuant to Import Bank loans, insurance, and guaran of orders suspending deportation, together section 3, Public Law 89-139, section 17, tees issued in November 1971, through Jan with a list of the persons involved, pursuant Public Law 90-495, and sections 105(b) (2) uary 31, 1972, in connection with U.S. ex to section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and 121, Public Law 91-605 (H. Doc. No. 92- ports to Yugoslavia, pursuant to the Export and Nationality Act, as amended; to the 266 (Pt. II)); to the Committee on Public Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to Committee on the Judiciary. Works and ordered to be printed with il the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1833. A letter from the Commissioner, lus,trations. 1823. A letter from the Assistant Secretary Immigraltion and Naturalization Service, 1813. A letter from the Acting Secretary of of the Interior, transmitting a proposed grant Depaa-tment of Justice, transmitting copies the Army, transmitting a report of Depart .agreement with the regents of the University of orders suspending deportation, together ment of the Army contracts for military con of Wisconsin for a research project entitled with a list of the persons involved, pursuant struction awarded without formal advertise "Effects of Altera.tions and Joint Fillings on to section 244(a) (2) of the Immigration ment, covering the period July 1 through the Mechanical Behavior of Rocks," pursuant and Nationality Act, as amended; to the December 31, 1971, pursuant to section 704 of to Public Law 89-672; to the Committee on Committee on the Judiciary. , Public Law 92-145; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 1834. A letter from the Secretary of Com Armed Services. 1824. A letter from the Secretary of Health, merce, transmitting a draft of proposed leg 1814. A letter from the General Counsel of Education, and Welfare, transmitting a draft islB~tion to amend section 7 of the Fisher the Department of Oe!ense, transmitting a of proposed legislation to amend the Public men's Protective Act of 1967; to the Com draft to proposed legislation to amend sec Health Service Act to increase the fiscal year mittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. tion 269(d) of title 10, United States Code, 1973 authorizations for project grants for 1835. A letter from the Secretary of Com to authorize the voluntary assignment of health services development and for project merce, transmitting a draft of proposed leg certain Reserve members who are entitled to grants and contracts for f.a.mlly planning islation to extend the provisions of the Com retired or retainer pay to the Ready Reserve, services; to the Committee on Interstate and mercial F1sheries Research and Development and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Commerce. Act of 1964, as amended; to the Committee Armed Services. 1825. A letter from the Assistant Secretary on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 1815. A letter from the Deputy Assistant of State for Congressional Relations, trans 1836. A letter from the Secretary of the Secretary of Defense (Installations and mitting a draft of proposed legislation to Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief Housing), transmitting notice of the loca provide certain benefits for American civil of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated tion, nature, and estimated cost of certain ian prisoners of war in Southeast Asia, for January 26, 1972, submitting a report, to facilities projects proposed to be undertaken Federal employees in a missing status, and gether with accompanying papers and an !or the Army National Guard, pursuant to for other purposes; to the Committee on illustration, on Manitowoc Harbor, Wis., re 10 U.S.C. 2233(a) (1); to the Committee-on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. quested by resolutions of the Committees on Armed Services. 1826. A le,tter from the General Counsel, Public Works, U.S. Senate and House of 1816. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Department of Transportation, traru:.mitting Representatives, adopted January 7 and 19 Secretary of Defense (Installations and an environmental impact statement on the June 1963. No authorizaltion by Congress is Housing), transmitting reports of military previously transmitted draft of proposed recommended as the desired improvement construction projects placed under contract legislation to amend the Interstate Com has been approved for accomplishment by in fiscal year 1971 in which the current work merce Act, as amended, and acts amenda the Chief of Engineers under the provisions ing estimate exceeded the amount author tory and supplemental thereto to provide for of section 107 of the River and Harbor Act ized by Congress for that project by more increased reliance on competition in the of 1960; to the Committee on Public Works. than 25 percent, and reports of individual establishment of carrier rates, charges, and 1837. A letter from the Chairman, u.s. projects in which the project scope was re practices, to liberalize entry and exit in the Tariff Commission, transmitting the 21st re duced in order to permit contract award several modes of surface transportation, and port of the Commission on the operation of within the authorization amount, both re for other purposes, pursuant to section 102 the trade agreements program, pursuant to ports pursuant to section 603 (d) of Public (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy section 402 (b) of the Trade Expansion Act Law 91-511; to the Committee on Armed Act; to the Committee on Interstate and of 1962; to the Committee on Ways and Services. Foreign Cormnerce. Means. 1827. A letter from the Chairman, Federal 1817. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, RECEIVED FROM THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL transmitting the lOth annual report on the Power Commission, transmitting a copy of administration of the Welfare and Pension the publication entitled "The Gas Supplies 1838. A letter from the Comptroller Gen Plans Disclosure Act, for the year 1971, pur of Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Com eral of the United States, transmitting a re suant to section 14 (b) of the act; to the panies, 1970"; to the Committee on Inter port on an inquiry into conditions and need Committee on Education and Labor. state and Foreign Commerce. for improvements at the Arctic Test Center, 1818. A letter from the Commissioner of 1828. A letter from the Director, Admin Fort Greely, Alaska, Department of the Army; Education, Department of Health, Education, Istrative Office or the u.s. Courts, trans to the Committee on Government Operations. and Welfare, transmitting his second annual mitting his annual report for fiscal year 1971, 1839. A lette1· from the Comptroller Gen report on the condition of education in the pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 604(a) (4), together eral of the United States, transmitting a re United States and the activities of the Of with reports of the proceedings of the meet port that the determination of nonprofit fice of Education, covering fiscal year 1971, ings of the Judicial Conference of the United organizations' eligibility for reduced postage pursuant to section 412 of Public Law 90- States held during 1971; to the Committee rates should be improved; to the Committee 247, as amended, including his report on ad on the Judiciary. on Government Operations. visory councils and a catalog of Federal edu 1829. A letter from the Commissioner, Im 1840. A letter from the Comptroller General cation assistance programs, pursuant to sec migration and Naturalization Service, De of the United States, transmitting a list of tions 438 and 413 of the same act, respec partment of Justice, transmitting reports reports issued or released by the General Ac tively; to the Committee on Education and concerning visa petitions approved accord counting Office during March 1972, pursuant Labor. ing certain beneficiaries third and sixth to section 234 of the Legislative Reorganiza 1819. A letter from the Chairman, National preference classification, .pursuant to section tion Act of 1970; to the Committee on Gov Adviscxry Council on Education Professions 204(d) of the Immigration and Nationality ernment Operations. Development, transmitting a report of the Act, as amended; to the Committee on the Council entf.tled "People for the People's Col Judiciary. lege-Community-Junior College Staff De 1830. A letter from the Commissioner, Im REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUB velopment Priorities for the '70's", pursuant migration and Naturalization Service, De to Public Law 90-35; to the Committee on partment of Justice, transmitting copies of LIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Education and Labor. orders entered in the cases of certain aliens Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of 1820. A letter from the Chairman, National found admissible to the United States, pur committees were delivered to the Clerk Advisory Council on the Education of Dis suant to section 212 {a) (28) (I) (11) of the advantaged Children, transmitting the eighth Immigration and Nationality Act; to the for printing and reference to the proper annual report of the Council, for the year Committee on the Judiciary. calendar, as follows: 1972; to the Committee on Education and 1831. A letter from the Commissioner, Im Mr. CELLER: OOinmittee on the Judiciary. Laborr. migration and Naturalization Service, De H.R. 7378. A bill to establish a Commission on 1821. A letter from the Administrator, partment of Justice, transmitting copies of Revision of the Judicial Circuits of the Agency for International Development, De orders entered in cases in which the au United States; with an amendment (Rept. partment of State, transmitting a report of thority contained in section 212(d) (3) of Im No. 92-967). Referred to the Committee o! allocations by country and international or migration and Nationality Act was exercised the Whole House on the State of the Union. ganization for programs adm1nistered by AID in behalf of certain aliens, together with a Mr. !CHORD: Committee on Internal Se during fiscal year 1972, pursuant to section list of the persons involved, pursuant to curity. Annual report of the Committee on 653 of the Foreign Assistance Act; to the section 212(d) (6) of the act; to the Com Internal Security for the Year 1971 (Rept. No. Committee on Foreign Affairs. mittee on the Judiciary. 92-968). Referred to the Committee of the 1822. A letter from the Secretary, Export- 1832. A letter from the Commissioner, Whole House on the State of the Union. April 10, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 11885 PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed 362. Also, memorial of the Legislature of Services. the State of Arizona, requesting the Con Under clause· 4 of rule XXII, public 350. Also, memorial of the House of Rep gress to propose an amendment to the Con bills and resolutions were introduced and resentatives of the State of Georgia, rela stitution of the United States permitting severally referred as follows: tive to returning certain moneys to Donald each State to enact a residency law relating By Mr. CORMAN {for himself and Mr. W. Morriston of Homerville, Ga.; to the to public welfare assistance; to the Commit CONABLE); Committee on Armed Services. tee on the Judiciary. H.R. 14254. A b111 to amend the Internal 351. Also, memorial of the Legislature of 363. Also, memorial of the Senate of the Revenue Code of 1954 to repeal the capital the State of Colorado, relative to farm labor Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relative to gain throwback rules applicable to trusts; to housing; to the Committee on Education and the establishment of a "National Hunting the Committee on Ways and Means. Labor. and Fishing Day"; to the Committee on the By Mr. GARMATZ: 352. Also, memorial of the Senate of the Judiciary. H.R. 14255. A bill to provide for the estab Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relative to 364. Also, memorial of the Legislature of llshment of the Thaddeus Kosciuszko Home unemployment in Massachusetts; to the the State of Oklahoma, relative to Federal National Historic Site in the State of Penn Committee on Education and Labor. judicial power in regard to transportation sylvania, and for other purposes; to the Com 353. Also, memorial of the Legislature of of students; to the Committee on the Judi mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. the State of Idaho, relative to the treatment ciary. By Mrs. GRIFFITHS: of Basques by the Spanish Government; to 365. Also, memorial of the Legislature of H.R. 14256. A b111 to amend the Social Se the Committee on Foreign Affairs. the State of Hawaii, relative to reform of curity Act to provide that every citizen and 354. Also, memorial of the Legislature of public welfare financial assistance programs; resident of the United States shall have a the State of South Carolina, relative the to the Committee on Ways and Means. social security number: to the Committee on United Nations Convention on Genocide; to Ways and Means. the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. HARVEY: 355. Also, memori SENATE-Monday, April 10, 1972 The Senate met at 11 a.m. and was that in all our work begun, continued, GAMBRELL, a Senator from the State of called to order by Hon. DAVID H. GAM and ended in Thee, we may advance the Georgia, to perform the duties of the Chair welfare of all the people and glorify during my absence. BRELL, a Senator from the State of ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Georgia. Thy holy name. President pro tempore. In the Redeemer's name, we pray. PRAYER Amen. Mr. GAMBRELL thereupon took the chair as Acting President pro tempore. The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following DESIGNATION OF THE ACTING prayer: PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE THE JOURNAL 0 God, who by Thy spirit dost lead men The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask to desire a better world, to seek for will please read a communication to the unanimous consent that the reading of truth, to rejoice in beauty, and to long Senate from the President pro tempore the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, for perfection, illuminate and inspire all (Mr. ELLENDER). April 7, 1972, be dispensed with. thinkers, all statesmen, and all leaders, The second assistant legislative clerk The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem that in all their labors they may be read the follov.ing letter. pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. guided by whatsoever is true and pure U.S. SENATE, and lovely that Thy kingdom may come PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, on earth. WAIVER OF THE CALL OF THE Washington, D.C., April 10, 1972. CALENDAR Direct us, 0 Lord, in this Chamber in To the Senate: all our doings with Thy gracious favor, Being temporarily absent from the Senate Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask and further us with Thy continual help; on official duties, I appoint Hon. DAvm H. unanimous consent that the call of the
HOUSE of REPRESE.NTATIVE.S-Monday, April 10, 1972 the House Met at 12 O'clock Noon
