By Elissa Strauss April 4, 2014

Getty Images

You can add the IRS to the long list of institutions, including public schools and corporations, that still haven’t caught up with the reality that women work now too.

Forwarding the News

Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis each day.

Terms(Required)

I agree to the Forward's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Email(Required)

As Think Progress reports, married women who earn about the same as their husbands are hit with a big tax bill. And the more equal the spouses incomes are, the larger the penalty will be. These penalties happen across all income levels,

Compare this to how the IRS treats married couples where one spouse is the major breadwinner: they will never incur a penalty and almost always get a bonus.

The bias against dual-earner families is “a result of policies and presumptions dating back to the early 20th century that deliberately pushed married women to stay home,” USC law professor Edward McCaffery said in an oped on the New York Times’ “Room for Debate” last year. He suggested that this penalty works as a disincentive for poor people to get married and a disincentive for women from wealthier households to join the workforce. As for the middle class, the penalty functions as just another reason to feel squeezed between the I can’t afford to work (and pay someone else to watch my kids) and I can’t afford not to conundrum that many experience.

Good news. In the same “Room for Debate,” law professors Melissa Murray and Dennis J. Ventry say there is a solution that would make marrying tax-neutral:

Taxes could be assessed on everyone’s individual income rather than on aggregated family income. Under such a system (which prevails in other countries), marrying would be tax neutral and better reflect a modern, progressive society.

Of course making changes to the tax code is never easy, especially one that would reverse a long history of pro-marriage social engineering and lose money for the government at the same time. But a half-century of feminism has revealed that the family unit can do just fine outside of the male breadwinner model, and it is time our tax code supports that. With some cash money. I’m not tax expert or anything, but considering the sizeable tax breaks that the wealthy and large corporations still get, with the richest among us getting half of all savings from these breaks, I’ve got to imagine there is some wiggle room there.

The Forward is free to read, but it isn’t free to produce

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.

Readers like you make it all possible. We’re in the middle of our Passover Fundraising Drive, and we have a very ambitious goal of $127,000 by April 21.

This is a great time to support independent Jewish journalism you rely on. Make a Passover gift today!

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Make a Passover Gift Today!

$90 $180

$360

Other amount