Singles and Taxes: Singles Need Tax Cuts, Too

Ah, spring. The season when worker bees begin to buzz about itemizing, everything is coming up the color of Benjamin Franklins, and those old bears in Washington get their paws on the national honey pot. On the anniversary of our country's most dreaded day, April 15, otherwise known as Bloodsuckers Day, Pocket Drainage Day, or, in some corners, Tax Day, President Obama vowed to simplify the tax code, reverse George Wallet Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and re-line the pained pockets of working stiffs with something jinglier than campaign slogans.

On the whole, I approve of what our president has done with his newfound power. I haven't agreed with every single one of his decisions, but I have supported many of them. Besides, what I like most about Obama is that he puts his money where his mouth is. From day one in office, he has wasted no time trying to make good on his promises, tackling the issues that past presidents wouldn't touch and refusing to back down in the face of partisan interests. The Wall Street bail-outs may have sparked questions about his populism, but does anyone honestly believe good ol' boy McCain wouldn't have doled out double the financial aid? Obama, on the other hand, continues to do far more for the average taxpayer than the previous Republican administration ever did, passing the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Federal Additional Compensation Program, the Cobra Health Insurance Stimulus, and many other acts, orders, and memorandums that benefit the labor force.

However, as much as Obama has championed the marginalized--the poor, the disabled, the women and children, the ethnic minorities, the nontraditional partnerships--he has yet to elevate this nation's largest "minority," singles, to equal footing with all other American citizens guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since Obama is an advocate of the underdog, I doubt this is an intentional oversight. Most likely the president suffers from the same singlist delusions that cloud the minds of Americans from the moment they learn that all fairy tales end with "they lived happily ever after."

As singles, we have a duty to ourselves and future unmarried generations to uncloud his mind, don't you think? I propose that we write to President Obama and remind him that his intended tax overhaul should provide relief for singles, too. That we have paid through our noses to bankroll marrieds for too many years. That we are a large and powerful voting segment that has been ignored for too long. That we aren't a threat to American values but those who would see them fulfilled in the lives of all Americans.

This is a copy of the letter I plan to send to the president:


Dear President Obama:

Over the past three months, I have been impressed by the actions you have taken to help make the American Dream accessible to the average citizen. I applaud your initiatives to ensure that everyone who contributes to our great society is entitled to a roof overhead, food on the table, health care, an education, a clean environment, and a government that is accountable to the governed. Due to your efforts, the workplace is becoming a more hospitable environment for those on whose backs it is built--the workers. Now you have vowed to restore more power to the people by providing us with tax relief while tightening the belt on an upper class that has exploited us for too long.

While these plans are commendable, I have one concern. Though you champion justice and equality for all, there is a very large "minority" that is consistently excluded from its piece of the American pie--unmarried adults. At any given time, singles comprise approximately 50% of the U.S. population. In fact, the average adult will spend more of his or her life single than married. Despite these facts, singles are subject to many legalized forms of discrimination. It has been estimated that those who marry are entitled to over a thousand federal rights and benefits. What is seldom mentioned is that these rights and benefits come at the expense of single individuals, who must bankroll them. To make matters worse, singles are denied the basic protections against discrimination that are afforded to all other minorities.

This compounded inequity disadvantages singles at every turn. For instance, a single, childless man cannot give his Social Security benefits to anyone even when he has paid as much into the system as a married man who leaves his benefits to his wife...and...if he is not hired or promoted because an employer prefers a "family man," he has no legal recourse. A single mother cannot leave her house to her only, single daughter without an expensive will and heavy taxation...and...if her single daughter applies to rent a house, there is nothing to stop the landlord from choosing a married couple because he assumes they are more "stable." If a single woman is seriously injured, no one is allowed medical leave to care for her...and...she cannot get insurance because her single brother's family plan can refuse to add any adult other than a spouse.

Perhaps the most grievous injustice perpetuated against singles is written into our income tax code, which specifies that a single individual in any bracket is taxed at a higher rate than his or her married counterpart. For example, a single taxpayer who earned $60,000 in 2008 is taxed at 25%, but a married couple filing jointly who earned $60,000 combined owes only 15%. Over a 30-year career, the couple would amass $157,500 more than the single worker. That is grossly unfair! Single parents stand to lose the most since the Child Tax Credit phases out at a much lower level of income for them than it does for married couples. Our tax code also penalizes singles more heavily than marrieds when selling property, willing or inheriting an estate, or providing health care to anyone other than a spouse.

It is clear that any truly egalitarian revision of tax legislation must take into account that a rapidly growing constituency of citizens--about half the U.S. population--are denied their rightful earnings simply because they did not have the good fortune to find suitable marriage partners. If these individuals were, say, Hispanic or Muslim or women or wheelchair-bound, it would be unconscionable to demand more taxes from them, yet it is somehow acceptable because they are not married. To add insult to injury, singles, especially women, parents, and people of color, are already far more likely to live in poverty. Without the reinforcement of a second income, they need help, not further deprivation.

Going it alone is not easy. Singles contend with tremendous social pressure to marry, the financial hardship of stretching one income in an economy designed for two, and the personal fallout of loneliness and lack of support. Still, there are many reasons why they do not marry. Many would like to but are not able to find appropriate partners. Some have familial obligations or physical conditions that prevent it. Others are dedicated to work, education, or volunteer causes. Still others, aware that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce, wisely recognize that they are not ready or able to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary for a successful long-term relationship. And, of course, many singles have previously been married but are now divorced due to abuse, infidelity, addictions, or other chronic problems that made their relationships unhealthy.

Research shows that happy marital relationships benefit couples, and if the government wants to encourage marriage, it should do so by funding pre-marital and marital counseling as well as relationship skills education in the schools. But it is wrong to treat people who cannot or choose not to marry as second-class citizens who must bear additional financial burdens because of their "failure" while rewarding those who do with all kinds of incentives which are not even proven to influence marital choices, much less ensure that those choices are careful, healthy, or lasting.

The family unit is an important building block of society, and tax deductions and other aid should certainly be provided for minor children, who rely on parental support. But in a nation in which everyone over 18 assumes the rights and responsibilities of an American citizen, there is no reason why anyone should be given a tax break to support another able-bodied adult. If a childless couple can afford for the wife or husband to stay home and take care of the house on one income, that is their decision, but single taxpayers should not have to part with more of their hard-earned cash to supply them this luxury. Higher tax rates for singles are especially unjustifiable when one considers that a couple with two incomes can split many of the costs of living while singles have only themselves to rely on. The "singles penalty" has the effect of kicking people who are already down.

I know that the subject of discrimination is close to your heart. As you reform the nation's unwieldy tax code, please remember that it is never morally acceptable to discriminate against anyone--not by race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or marital status. The solution to this inequity is to stop treating single workers as though they are less valuable or less entitled to their share of the American Dream. We must eliminate marital status as a determinant of tax bracket. Everyone who earns a specified amount should be taxed at the same rate, single or married. If someone chooses to support another able-bodied adult on his or her income, that should be a private choice, not one that the unmarried public has to fund. Also, we must eliminate marital status as a determinant of the Child Tax Credit. Everyone who earns a specified income should be eligible for the same amount of credit per child. We should not privilege the children of married couples over the children of single parents. Further, we must lift taxes on health insurance benefits for unmarried recipients. Every childless individual, single or married, should be entitled to the same untaxed health benefit, to be used for whomever he or she sees fit. Finally, we must end the tax distinction between singles and marrieds for purposes of selling, willing, and inheriting property. All taxpayers, single or married, should be allowed the same tax exclusions on home sales. All taxpayers, single or married, should be able to leave an estate to one other individual without incurring a tax penalty. All taxpayers, single or married, should be exempt from property tax increases on a home they have inherited.

Please help us abolish the last form of legalized discrimination, recently coined as singlism, starting with revisions to a tax code that unfairly favors one half of Americans over the other. One of today's most hotly debated topics is that of same-sex marriage. But nontraditional families are not just same-sex or unmarried couples. We are single parents raising our children.We are brothers and sisters or lifelong friends sharing our homes. We are adult children living with parents or grandparents. And, yes, some of us live alone. It is high time we are all entrusted with the same rewards and responsibilities, no matter who we love or who we live with. Please be the first president to help us truly live up to our proclamation of liberty and justice for all.

Sincerely,
[Name]


Anyone who wants to personalize the above letter is free to do so. Please edit it however you wish, leave it as it is, or use it to inspire a completely original letter and send it to President Obama. Then pass it on to your single friends and family (or anyone you know who cares about civil rights) and ask them to do the same. I encourage everyone who is single to unite against marital status discrimination and stand up for our right to fair taxation.


Do you think married couples are unfairly privileged over singles in the U.S. tax code? If you are single, has tax discrimination impacted your standard of living as opposed to that of the married couples you know? How do you think we could reform the tax code to make it more equitable? Can you think of other forms of economic discrimination that singles face?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singles Are 93 Million Votes Strong: Who Cares?

Here it is again--Election Day. I hope that you all have registered to vote and will be turning out at the polls en masse to raise your voices for the singles community. But if you're wondering who is raising a voice for us, you're not alone.

We've been a hot topic in Gallup polls, CNN headlines, and, yes, movies. But as singles advocate Dr. Bella DePaulo noted before the primaries and again a few days ago, this hasn't translated into more than a cursory nod from the candidates, not even from Barack Obama, the choice of 60% of single voters.

I'm going to pick on Obama for a minute simply because he is the favored candidate among the majority of singles. If you visit his web site and view the drop-down menu under "People," you will see 23 special-interest demographics. One of them must be "Singles," right? Nope. There are "Arab Americans," "Rural Americans," even "Sportsmen." But no "Singles."

Now point your mouse to "Issues" and select "Civil Rights." I quote: "Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails women’s and racial minorities' ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression." Where are the words "or marital status"? Nowhere to be found.

How about "Economy"? Surely this is a subject of consequence to singles...But no. The headline reads, "Barack Obama will provide a tax cut for working families." In fairness to him, the following paragraph clarifies that individuals will also be eligible for a tax break. But then why not make the headline more inclusive, replacing "working families" with "workers"?

Hop over to "Healthcare," an issue that disproportionately affects single people. It starts out the right way, referring to what Obama will do for "all Americans," but once he's talking numbers, it's all about families again: "The Obama plan will lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family..." Nice to know, but what about for a typical individual? Do we not exist until we have a spouse and kids?

Given this singlism, it's no wonder that Obama's campaign devotes an entire section to "Family" but none to "Singles."

Again, I'm picking on Obama because he's the candidate who's supposed to support the underdogs of this country. A glance at McCain's site will prove that he's just as family-focused, but then, that's a core value of the Republican platform, so it should come as no surprise. And I'm not contending that neither of the candidates should support families; the family unit has always been central to human life, though a smaller, more constricted unit has replaced the historical norm in the U.S. However, we singles represent an enormous swath of the population and should also be recognized as an important constituent group with needs and concerns of our own.

Despite that singles still have a long way to go on the road to equality, I still urge you to make your statement at the polls today. Singletude has already endorsed a candidate, the one whose policies I believe will help singles the most, even if they're not specifically intended to do so. Here's how the candidates stack up on major issues that affect singles:



Civil Rights

Obama--Will work to end employment discrimination, though nothing is specifically promised for singles.

McCain--Civil rights? What's that?


Economy

Obama--Proposes a tax cut of $500 per individual and reinstatement of higher taxes on those earning more than $250,000. Wants to dispense with taxes for 10 million low-income Americans and seniors who take home less than $50,000 a year. Will tax record oil company profits and redistribute them to consumers. Vows to pump $50 billion into job growth and health, education, housing, and heating. Will reform the mortgage industry to prevent another housing bubble and subsequent crisis. Supports "fair trade," not free trade, which has shipped millions of American jobs overseas, unions, an increased minimum wage, and tax relief for small businesses and start-ups. Suggests flexible work schedules, although he also wants to expand more specifically family-friendly (presumably "marrieds-friendly") programs. Wants to invest in green, clean energy jobs.

McCain--Vows to somehow strengthen the dollar, for which he apparently has a magic, secret formula. Does not propose tax cuts for the middle class unless you have dependents. Does propose even more tax relief for high-income earners and corporations but not specifically for small businesses or start-ups. Wants the American public to essentially bail out delinquent homeowners. Supports even further deregulation of free trade, which has shipped millions of American jobs overseas. Suggests flexible work schedules, although he also wants to expand more specifically family-friendly (presumably "marrieds-friendly") programs. Wants to invest in green, clean energy jobs but also in traditional, "dirty" fuels and dangerous nuclear power. Will work for various tax breaks on gasoline but will lower the priority on ethanol.


Health Care

Obama--Promises to institute a national health care plan for the uninsured. (Those who are already insured can opt to keep their current insurance.) The health care plan is called "affordable," and tax credits towards its purchase or purchase of an approved private plan are guaranteed to those who need them, although we are not given any concrete numbers. Intends to fund the plan by streamlining bureaucracy in the health care system, increasing preventive care, and allowing the Bush tax cuts for the upper class to expire. Supports the elimination of many current insurance practices that disadvantage consumers such as preexisting condition exclusions, premium inflation, blockage of generic and overseas drug distributors, denial of mental health coverage, and much more. Wants to make health care more affordable for employers.

McCain--Promises a heath care tax credit of $2,500 per individual. However, this is not enough to cover the cost of insurance for the average person over 45 as well as for residents of 13 states in which the average policy costs at least $500 more. Will encourage consumers to buy insurance across state lines, but critics argue that this will lead to a monopoly of cheap, low-quality policies. Hopes to make insurance more "portable," which some claim will abolish the employer-based system. Agrees with some but not all of Obama's industry reforms.


The Iraq War

Obama--Claims he will immediately phase out our presence in Iraq.

McCain--Prepared to hunker down in Iraq for the long haul. Promises "victory."


Poverty

Obama--Committed to improving the job outlook for low-income Americans (including "perks" that really shouldn't be perks like sick leave and retirement plans) and investing in affordable housing.

McCain--Poverty? What's that?


Women

Obama--Encourages research on women's health issues, tougher laws prohibiting violence against women, female entrepreneurship, and accessible birth control.

McCain--Women? What're they?


Anti-singles Action

McCain would also take actions that would actually work against singles, such as strengthening the institution of marriage to "preserve the traditional family," which smart singles who have read their history books will know is anything but traditional. As usual, I will repeat that I have no objection whatsoever against marriage and, in fact, think it's a healthy, admirable commitment. What I object to is how our government rewards marriage at the expense of singles.



If any of you are still undecided, I hope the above comparison has helped to persuade you in one direction or the other depending on which issues are important to you as a single. Change won't happen overnight, but if we speak up for ourselves louder and louder at every election, someone is bound to hear.


Do you think that singles are largely ignored by politicians? If so, do you have any examples of this? Which candidate do you think is more supportive of issues that singles value?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Singles, Go Vote!

Today is Super Tuesday, the day that 24 states hold primaries or caucuses. If you live in one of these states and are registered to vote, get out there and support your favorite candidate!

Singles, we are a large demographic (up to 50% of the U.S. population by some estimates), and we have the power to tip this vote in the direction of a nominee who will work to implement policies that will be singles-friendly.

So many of us singles are without health care because we don't have a national plan in place. So many of us have watched the wealthy get wealthier due to tax cuts that favored them while we continued to struggle. So many of us can't afford to get a college education or, if we scrimp and save to get one, are saddled with debt we can't pay because tuition is out of control and starting salaries have been depressed by outsourcing, insurance inflation, and the tyranny of big business. So many of us are crammed into tight quarters with roommates or parents who shouldn't have to support us anymore because the cost of housing has soared. It's time for us singles to send a clear message that we're also American citizens, and we deserve an economy that makes the American dream possible for us, too!

The following is a list of all the states holding primaries today and the times polls close in each. Unless otherwise noted, both major parties are holding the vote today:

Alabama--7:00pm
Alaska--6:00pm
Arizona--7:00pm
Arkansas--7:30pm
California--8:00pm
Colorado--7:00pm
Connecticut--8:00pm
Delaware--8:00pm
Georgia--7:00pm
Idaho--7:00pm
Illinois--7:00pm
Kansas (Democratic only)--7:00pm
Massachusetts--8:00pm
Minnesota--7:59pm
Missouri--7:00pm
Montana (Republican only)--8:00pm
New Jersey--8:00pm
New Mexico (Democratic only)--7:00pm
New York--9:00pm
North Dakota--8:00pm
Oklahoma--7:00pm
Tennessee--8:00pm
Utah--8:00pm
West Virginia (Republican only)--closed

If you're wondering, Singletude endorses Senator Barack Obama. But you need to vote for whoever you believe will change our lives for the better.

You still have time! Go vote!

If you want to endorse your candidate, put on your speechwriting hat and feel free to leave a comment!


Fun Link of the Day