It’s time to eliminate marriage penalties in the U.S. tax code

It’s time to eliminate marriage penalties in the U.S. tax code

Marriage penalties in the U.S. tax code discourage family formation and upward mobility for low-income Americans.

It’s time to eliminate marriage penalties in the U.S. tax code

This article was originally published at Institute for Family Studies.

The U.S. individual income tax structure and the safety-net assistance system exact financial penalties on married couples, which worsen when children are in the family. The effect of these penalties is the opposite of what public policy should be. Research has established that society benefits immensely from stable and healthy marriages. This article focuses on U.S. Tax Code and restoring the income tax to its primary purpose while eliminating marriage penalties (it is excerpted from section 1 of a two-part policy brief on how to eliminate marriage penalties from the tax code and safety-net programs).

Remove Safety-Net Programs from the U.S. Tax Code

Of the federal and state agencies that run more than 80 federal programs intended to help low-income individuals and families, perhaps the worst administrator is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that runs several safety-net programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that provided $64 billion in cash assistance to 23 million tax filers in 2024.

While many policymakers view the income tax system as an efficient way to dispense safety-net benefits, IRS performance leaves much to be desired.  A recent Wall Street Journal article listed the EITC with the second-highest improper payment rate—more than five times the average improper payment rate. The Journal’s article did not reveal anything new. The IRS also runs the program with the highest improper payment rate, the American Opportunity Tax Credit.

When it comes to marriage penalties, the income tax structure is a bad fit for distributing money to needy households. While there are tax filing statuses for married couples, heads of household, and single individuals, there is no option for unmarried couples. Consider an unmarried couple with two children. One partner can claim both children as head of household while the other files as a single person. Or they can split the children as heads of household. Either way, they will be treated differently than if they were married. 

Congress could create a new tax filing status to accommodate unmarried couples. However, it may be more trouble than it is worth. Unmarried couples run the gamut in financial and relational commitments, and using tax law to address the various situations is complicated and may be perceived as too intrusive for those who just want to pay their tax liability.

Besides, the IRS is set up for annual returns and refunds, not monthly payments. EITC recipients must wait until the following tax year for their benefits. Monthly payments would give assistance when needed, allow families to properly budget, and would be a more effective way to encourage employment, one of the goals of the program. 

The EITC had an advance payment feature that was repealed in 2010 due to poor participation and administrative problems. The system relied on employers making the monthly payments to their employees and then being reimbursed by the IRS, but the Government Accountability Office found IRS procedures to be ineffective with noncompliance rates of 80 percent. Although repealing the advance payment feature eliminated this extreme noncompliance rate, the IRS continues to struggle with taxpayer noncompliance with the EITC program.

Make Income Taxes Neutral to Marital Status

Removing safety-net programs from the tax system would allow Congress to focus on making the income tax marital status neutral. In 2017, Congress was successful in eliminating marriage penalties for single individuals who want to marry, provided they have no children and do not qualify for refundable tax credits.

However, marriage penalties remain for the rest of tax filers. For example, suppose a mom earns $20,000, a dad earns $30,000, and they have two children. Table 1 shows the simple tax liability before tax credits for tax year 2025 assuming that, as an unmarried couple, each parent claims one child and the standard deduction. The tax liability before tax credits is $750 if they live together unmarried but $2,000 if they are married, which means a marriage penalty of $1,250.  Even if one parent claims both children, there would still be a penalty.

The example in Table 1 is just one wage combination for a couple with two children. The Georgia Center for Opportunity ran 40,401 wage combinations for this couple if each partner claims one child on their taxes and found that 81% had a marriage penalty. The figure below shows the distribution of the penalties (in red), neutral outcomes (in gray), and the bonuses (in blue). 

One option Congress might consider to eliminate income tax marriage penalties is the flat tax, which treats all taxpayers the same regardless of marital status. The reason can be easily shown using mathematics because the flat tax follows the distributive law of multiplication (see full policy brief for more). 

Conclusion

The U.S. Tax Code is ill-suited for running safety-net programs without marriage penalties. Furthermore, the IRS has an awful record of improper payments and noncompliance when it comes to running its safety-net programs. Therefore, an important step to eliminate marriage penalties is to take those programs away from the IRS and give them to an agency that knows how to run safety-net programs.

Download the full policy brief for an explanation of how these other agencies can eliminate all marriage penalties in safety-net programs.

Image Credits: Canva, Georgia Center for Opportunity

What the Release of California Prisoners Shows About Recidivism Rates

What the Release of California Prisoners Shows About Recidivism Rates

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

What the Release of California Prisoners Shows About Recidivism Rates

Joshua Crawford on the Conway and Larson Show
Originally aired May 15, 2025

In this radio interview, host Leland Conway and Joshua Crawford discuss the implications of prisoner releases in California. They cover:

 

  • Impact on recidivism rates and whether releases have led to increased reoffending.
  • The broader effects of the releases on community safety.
  • Lessons that can be learned from California’s approach when it comes to crafting effective criminal justice policies.

Listen to the Interview

Georgia ranks 14th on new school choice index—but that’s not a win yet

Georgia ranks 14th on new school choice index—but that’s not a win yet

Georgia's school choice ranking reveals opportunities to do more to help families.

Georgia ranks 14th on new school choice index—but that’s not a win yet

When it comes to providing educational opportunities for families, Georgia ranks 14th out of 50 on a new 50-state index measuring families’ access to school choice nationwide.  

At first glance, that doesn’t seem like such a bad position, but when you dig deeper, the picture becomes less flattering. Georgia is still lagging behind and we have our work cut out for us to ensure that every family has access to a great education.

Where Does Georgia Stand?

Georgia scored four out of a possible 100 on the EdChoice Friedman Index, which weighs three major factors:

  • Access to School Choice: Only 15% of Georgia’s K-12 students are eligible for school choice programs, far below what it takes to establish broad, equitable access.

  • Flexibility in Educational Funding: While Georgia has made strides through its Promise Scholarship Program (an education savings account or “ESA”), current funding systems and program designs limit how well families can use educational funds to meet their unique needs.

  • Funding Parity: Choice students in Georgia receive just 45% of the funding allocated to their public school peers. For example, public school students receive $13,810 per pupil, while choice students average $6,264 in funding. 

These metrics paint a clear picture of why Georgia’s score is so low. More significantly, it’s a reminder of the limitations facing families who are seeking to access the best education for their children.

Georgia scores 4 out of 10 on EdChoice's Friedman Index on school choice

Image Credit: EdChoice, 2025 Friedman Index

Georgia’s Neighbor to the South Earns the Top Score

To notch a perfect score of 100, states must have several policies in place. First, universal school choice is a must. That means all students, regardless of income or zip code, have access to a great education.

A second requirement is that all educational funds allocated to students must be fully usable for any educational expenses—anything from tuition to textbooks to needed therapies or tutoring.

Lastly, funding per choice student must be equal to the amount provided to public school students. 

So far, no state has achieved these standards, but Florida has come the closest with a score of 77 out of 100.  Florida allows for all students to access school choice and receive 77% of the funding that public school students receive. Additionally, all students may use these funds flexibly.

Closing in on Florida are Arkansas (60), as well as Alabama and Arizona (each scoring 59). 

While these states are leading the way, the Friedman Index is a reminder that the majority of the country still has a long way to go on education choice and opportunity. The idea of a “school choice” revolution has sparked widespread conversation, but in reality, even higher-ranking states like Georgia have only begun to tap into the full potential of school choice and its benefits for families and communities.

Educational Opportunity Matters Most for Georgia’s Low-Income Communities

The limitations of Georgia’s school choice programs disproportionately affect children from low-income communities. For these families, access to the right education isn’t just a luxury—it’s a pathway to life-changing opportunities, such as improved academic performance, higher graduation rates, and better chances of long-term employment and financial stability.

Data consistently shows that providing families with education options leads to better outcomes for kids. For example, numerous studies indicate that students in choice programs are more likely to become proficient in core subjects like reading and math, areas that often determine future academic and career success.

One recent leap forward is the Georgia Promise Scholarship, a state-funded initiative designed to give families financial support to choose the best learning environment for their child. The program opens to families this year, providing scholarships of $6,500 a year that families can use for private school tuition, tutoring, special needs programs, homeschooling, or other customized options outside the traditional public school system.

While this program is an encouraging start, it’s not enough to rank Georgia among the nation’s top states for school choice. Currently, too few students have access to the program, and funding levels fall short of what’s needed to enable meaningful choice for all families.

The Friedman Index Gives Georgia a Roadmap, Not Just a Score

The factors that make up the Friedman Index give Georgia lawmakers clear steps to increasing education opportunity for all students:

  • Expand Access to School Choice: Every family throughout Georgia should have access to educational opportunities that meet their child’s needs, regardless of income or location. This includes significantly increasing the percentage of students eligible for choice programs, particularly the Georgia Promise Scholarship.

  • Increase Funding for Choice Students: Georgia must make substantial investments to bring funding for choice students closer to parity with public school funding. Providing families with adequate resources will make educational choice a real possibility—not just an option in name only.

  • Focus on Students, Not Systems: It’s time for Georgia to reframe its education policies around the needs of students. Our goal shouldn’t be to improve Georgia’s ranking on an index, but to provide real hope and opportunity for the students who need it the most.

Image Credits: Canva, EdChoice

What the Release of California Prisoners Shows About Recidivism Rates

How to Fix Food Stamps? Wall Street Journal Looks to GCO’s Research for Answers

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

How to Fix Food Stamps? Wall Street Journal Looks to GCO’s Research for Answers

In “The Case for Fixing Food Stamps,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board considers the federal budget debate on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

They reference research published jointly by GCO and the American Enterprise Institute, which suggests how Congress can work more effectively with states to administer SNAP and get rid of program flaws that discourage work and upward mobility.

“But the food stamp dysfunction runs deeper. States manage the program but the feds pick up 100% of the benefits tab, which means states have an incentive to draw down more federal dollars. No wonder the program’s improper payment figure is north of 10%, according to Agriculture Department data.

Multiple policy analysts have proposals giving states a stake in the program, and President Trump’s 2018 budget included a version of the idea. Congress can ask states to pick up 10% of the benefits tab the first year, then 15% and perhaps eventually 25%. EPIC, the think tank, estimates the feds could save $250 billion over 10 years by phasing in a state share to 50%.

Governors of both parties won’t like a policy change that asks more of them. But states showed in the 1990s, after the federal welfare reform, that they could manage case loads and help people find their footing back into the private economy.

SNAP could use further reform because it discourages additional hours of work as recipients earn more income and lose benefits.”

Read the full article here.

 

From classrooms to careers: Georgia laws that passed (and didn’t) in 2025

From classrooms to careers: Georgia laws that passed (and didn’t) in 2025

Georgia lawmakers passed bills affecting schooling, work, and family opportunities in 2025.

From classrooms to careers: Georgia laws that passed (and didn’t) in 2025

Georgia lawmakers wrapped up the 2025 legislative session with some big decisions that affect our state’s families, students, and workers.

Several new laws were passed to improve education, job opportunities, and access to childcare — while a few important changes didn’t quite make it through.

“The 2025 session included some key victories to improve public school classrooms, expand school choice options, and improve workforce opportunities,” said Buzz Brockway, vice president of policy for GCO. “While there were some disappointments on bills that didn’t make it across the finish line, we are pleased with the progress lawmakers made this year in promoting an agenda to allow all Georgians to flourish.”

What Passed: New Georgia Laws in 2025

These bills passed out of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and are headed to the governor for signing. 

House Bill 340: Less phone distraction, more student engagement

K-8 classrooms now face stricter limits on student cell phone use during school hours. The goal of this policy is to cut down on distractions and help kids stay engaged in the classroom.

Senate Bill 82: More support for charter schools

With this legislation, local boards of education must reconsider denied charter petitions and provide detailed explanations for their decisions. To incentivize approvals, schools receiving charters are eligible for grants of $250,000 a year for three years to help them get started.

House Bill 307 and Senate Bill 93: Helping kids read better

Two bills aimed to boost reading skills among Georgia students. HB 307 updates dyslexia screening and interventions and improves statewide coordination to help at-risk students earlier. SB 93 makes sure future teachers are trained in proven methods to teach reading. State-approved educator preparation programs must align their core curricula with the science of reading—a move that aims to enhance literacy instruction by prioritizing evidence-based methods.

House Bill 136: Bigger tax break for child care

Families can now get a larger credit on their state taxes (up to 40% of the federal tax credit) for expenses related to child and dependent care. By allowing Georgia families to subtract more child care expenses from their annual taxes, this measure eases the financial burden on working families across the states.

House Bill 579: Simplifying licensing for businesses and trades

HB 579 makes it simpler and faster to get professional, business, or trade licenses in Georgia, reducing paperwork, red tape, and other barriers getting in the way of people looking for steady work.

Senate Bill 63: Free college prep tests for homeschoolers

SB 63 mandates that homeschool students in Georgia must have free access to take AP, SAT, and PSAT exams at their local public schools. Improving access to testing for  all students helps level the playing field for college readiness.

​​What Didn’t Pass (But Could Still Come Back) 

Despite these successes, some significant bills were left on the table when the legislative session abruptly adjourned early.

Senate Bill 207: Second chance for job-seekers with a criminal record 

This measure would have helped people with past criminal records get job licenses more easily.  A simpler, fairer process gives returning citizens better opportunities to rejoin  the workforce and build stable livelihoods and futures. However, due to legislative discord, the bill didn’t get a final vote. 

House Resolution 884: Making Georgia’s welfare programs work better 

This proposal sought to create a task force to streamline safety net and workforce development systems in Georgia. It was shelved due to disagreements, but it’s on the radar for next year’s session. Connecting welfare and workforce programs should be an immediate priority because it’s one of Georgia’s best opportunities to remove barriers to work and upward mobility for more people. 

Image Credit: Canva

preload imagepreload image