I’m not the one coming up with the thought that married women filing jointly pay more taxes than a single woman in a comparable job - that’s what the article is saying…

As for my return setting off red flags - I don’t know if it did or didn’t - but that wasn’t the point.

The point was that we don’t know what each individuals tax situation is like. Just comparing take home pay wouldn’t reveal things like deductions, or withholding - things of that nature.

So just because you (or Nate) might know of a single woman who pays more in taxes than a married woman - doesn’t mean the whole point is invalid.

I also don’t think that Mitt Romney, by promoting a plan to reduce taxes for working parents is going to spur stay at home moms into saying “Hey - if i goto work now - I can keep more of my money - now it’s worthwhile so I’ll plop my kids in daycare and go get a job.”

My opinion is that some couples both work because they feel like that cannot afford not to both work. Some of them both work because they feel the need to - for personal and professional reasons (not necessarily financial).

Generally, when a mother decides to stay home with the kids - it’s not because it’s not financially worth it for her to go out and work.

I think that if Gov. Romney were to propose a plan reducing taxes where both parents work - it would be to acknowledge the reality of the situation - there are some families in America where both Mom & Dad need to work - they cannot afford one of them to stay home.

This - and this is the main point of the article - would combat the whole “Democrats care for women - because they want equality in pay” meme currently going on.

I have to agree with Nate. I worked for an H & R Block competitor and although I’m no tax law expert, the tax return filing you filed probably shot off red flags at the IRS. I sure hope you are not audited. The majority of Married filed Jointly folks have a much higher overall deduction than Singles. I admire your suggestion as part of me wants parents who both have to work to have less fiscal burden. The other side of me advises caution in how you create fiscal motivation. If a homemaker can now make more money with a new policy aimed at her, then her motivation is to leave her kids and go work and pay for day care. This may have the adverse affect of promoting more working mothers than promoting a conservative situation for American families.

Now for mothers that have to work, I’d hope we can focus on ways to decrease the hardship on their families so both parents do not have to be employed. Policies that promote continuing education for the primary bread winner, better health insurance policies and tax reduction on families are a good start. We can be creative in new policies that are good for our families, but we should bear in mind the ramification of the outcomes of those policies.

Well, from my experience, the single women you knew - could at least claim one or two deductions (one for head of household - and I believe one for herself).

The point, really, is the amount of tax they owe at the end of the year. My wife and I both mistakingly claimed head of household, and all six family members on our withholding - and we ended up owing the Feds quite a bit come tax time.

We don’t know the specifics of each persons tax liabilities, it’s entirely possible that the married woman could have had a mortgage payment - which you can deduct the interest - while the single woman rented. Their might have been other differences in their tax statuses beyond that too.

The basic principle still stands though - a married woman is going to end up paying more taxes (in general) because her salary is going to be tacked onto her husbands (for tax purposes) - which means the total salary for the household will be greater - and thanks to our regressive tax code - the more money you make, the more taxes you pay.

Of course this scenario could change drastically depending on their lives’ situations, but saying that all married women receive less pay is not exactly true.

Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband’s, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job.

I think that if Mitt could fashion a plan to change the tax code so that married women who are working - can keep more of their pay - it would be a HUGE winning issue.

In fact, they could contrast it with Hillary’s desire to raise women’s pay by saying “what’s the use of raising your pay if the government is only going to take it through taxes?”.

I think that also promoting flex time, and flexible hiring practices (and work practices) would dovetail nicely with the “strong families” leg of his three legged stool. Because let’s face it - not all American families can afford for one of the parents to stay home with the kids - by acknowledging that - and coming up with a plan to help alleviate some of that problem - he could attract a lot of supporters.

If you’ll please excuse me, I have to take out the trash change diapers and oil - call roof repair get a loan ask for tax extension pick up kids get ready for work argue about jury duty oh yeah, and go to war.?!