‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax Cut Vetoed

Re “President Vetoes Bill on ‘Marriage Penalty’ Tax,” Aug. 6:

Good going, President Clinton. There is no marriage penalty. Married persons with children get over $6,000 per child for public education. Government-provided child vaccine programs. Subsidized child care. Tax deductions for children and on and on. While I and the majority of single taxpayers foot the bill. I must pay higher taxes for increased costs to the justice system because married people cannot take the time to raise their children to obey the laws and respect their elders. The married taxpayers are only paying for a fraction of the government benefits they receive, while the young and old single people have to make up the difference.

If married persons get a special break, then I want my taxes reduced to reflect my true cost to our country.

TOM MARTIN

West Hollywood

*

How nice. Clinton took time out from his lovely vacation in “millionaire acres” Martha’s Vineyard to veto a marriage penalty tax cut. That money could have helped my wife and me put a new roof on our two-bedroom money pit. But I suppose that expenditures such as foreign aid, the insane war on drugs and corporate welfare really should take precedence over letting working people keep more of their hard-earned money.

Maybe my better half and I can apply to some government bureaucracy for a $400 bucket when the rainy season starts.

JAMES DAWSON

Tarzana

*

Even Clinton showed character by the veto of the Republicans’ attempt to give a special tax break to wealthy married couples. The so-called marriage penalty tax is a hoax. It is reported that 21 million married couples receive a marriage tax bonus and pay less than two single taxpayers with the same incomes. All we hear about is the supposed 25 million married couples who may pay more than they would if they filed as individuals. So the Republicans want to cause all married taxpayers to pay less. Won’t that be a nice gift for the 21 million who already pay less than single taxpayers?

What does the marital status of an individual have to do with an equitable tax system?

HOWARD BURNAUGH

Los Angeles