Permanently Extending Increased Standard Deduction, and 15-Percent Individual Income Tax Rate Bracket Expansion, For Married Taxpayers Filing Jointly
PERMANENTLY EXTENDING INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION, AND 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION, FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS -- (House of Representatives - April 28, 2004)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 607, I call up the bill (H.R. 4181) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the increased standard deduction, and the 15-percent individual income tax rate bracket expansion, for married taxpayers filing joint returns, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 4181 is as follows:
H.R. 4181
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to basic standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
"(2) BASIC STANDARD DEDUCTION.-For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is-
"(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of-
"(i) a joint return, or
"(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
"(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or
"© $3,000 in any other case.".
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-
(1) Section 63©(4) of such Code is amended by striking "(2)(D)" each place it occurs and inserting "(2)©".
(2) Section 63© of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (7).
© EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (8) of section 1(f ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket) is amended to read as follows:
"(8) ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET.-With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)--
"(A) the maximum taxable income in the 15 percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be 200 percent of the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and
"(B) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be ½ of the amounts determined under subparagraph (A).".
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such Code is amended by striking "PHASEOUT" and inserting "ELIMINATION".
© EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET.
Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amendments made by sections 301 and 302 of such Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in part A of House Report 108-470 is adopted.
The text of H.R. 4181, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4181
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INCREASED STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to basic standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
"(2) BASIC STANDARD DEDUCTION.-For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is-
"(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of-
"(i) a joint return, or
"(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
"(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or
"© $3,000 in any other case.".
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-
(1) Section 63©(4) of such Code is amended by striking "(2)(D)" each place it occurs and inserting "(2)©".
(2) Section 63© of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (7).
© EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (8) of section 1(f ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket) is amended to read as follows:
"(8) ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET.-With respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, in prescribing the tables under paragraph (1)--
"(A) the maximum taxable income in the 15 percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in such table) shall be 200 percent of the maximum taxable income in the 15-percent rate bracket in the table contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under this subsection), and
"(B) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table contained in subsection (d) shall be ½ of the amounts determined under subparagraph (A).".
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such Code is amended by striking "PHASEOUT" and inserting "ELIMINATION".
© EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET.
Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amendments made by title III of such Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
The previous speaker was very animated on the fact that we ought not to bring back the marriage penalty. Is it not wonderful that 435 people agree on that? That is not a dispute in this debate. All of us want to give relief. All of us want to make it permanent. Some of us believe, however, there is a free lunch and we want to pass it along to our children and grandchildren. To that extent, it will be a free lunch for us but not for them.
Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty bill that the House Republicans put on the floor today is divorced from the fiscal reality that confronts this Nation. Just think, in 3 ½ years the Republican Party has turned a projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years, according to President Bush that is what we had when he spoke to the joint session of Congress, and they have turned it into a deficit of $4 trillion in less than 4 years. This year alone the Federal Government is expected to run a record deficit of half a trillion dollars. That figure does not even include the $50- to $75 billion that virtually everyone agrees will be needed for our war efforts.
So what do our Republican friends propose here today? A tax bill that will cost an estimated $105 billion over the next decade. Now it is $200 billion, and then guess what, they take $100 billion back. That is called a shell game where I come from. Not one nickel of that 105 net is paid for, not one nickel. That is right, with a fiscal crisis looming House Republicans would drive us deeper into debt because, as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) said in March, "We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts."
They are for free, supply-side, free lunch. Somebody will pay, and it will be our children and grandchildren. My Republican friends do not but our children and grandchildren will surely do so.
Make no mistake, Democrats strongly support marriage penalty relief because married couples should not have to pay more in taxes than they would if unmarried.
[Time: 15:15]
That is fair. We are for that principle. Everybody is for that principle on this floor.
As a result, Members have a choice today. They can vote for the fiscally irresponsible Republican bill, or they can vote for the superior Democratic substitute, every penny of which is paid for and will give marriage relief to all Americans. The Democratic substitute is fiscally responsible, and it ensures the benefits of the bill are not nullified by the alternative minimum tax, that shell game of which I talked.
I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is not playing a shell game, but we have this AMT. It is a fancy phrase, but it simply means if an individual is below a certain degree of obligation, they make a certain income, we are going to take more. So what they say is, we are going to give you $200; but, guess what, we are taking $100 back. We do not do that.
That is why they talk about 205. But it is paid for, and as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) must admit, it does not add a single nickel to the deficit or the debt. Perhaps when he rises to speak, he will deny that. I hope not, because it is the fact.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute, vote for marriage penalty relief, and vote for fiscal responsibility. The failure to pay for tax cuts not only threatens our economic future but also is an immoral abdication of our responsibility to our children and future generations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I think my time has run.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) if the Speaker will let me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
Mr. HOYER. If my friend will yield, I was wondering who is in charge of this splurge of spending that the gentleman is concerned about?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask the gentleman to abide by the rules.
END