<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Allen Quist for CongressBrad Biers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/author/brad/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com</link>
	<description>Minnesota 1st Congressional District</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:35:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Heritage Foundation picks up on Marriage Penalty</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/02/heritage-foundation-picks-up-on-marriage-penalty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/02/heritage-foundation-picks-up-on-marriage-penalty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Biers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Campaign news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation features the marriage penalty embedded in the Senate-passed health care bill in the January 20 issue of WebMemo. Allen Quist originally published his findings on the bill's marriage penalty in early December. <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/02/heritage-foundation-picks-up-on-marriage-penalty/">Read more.</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation features the marriage penalty embedded in the Senate-passed health care bill in the <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2767.pdf" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2767.pdf?referer=');">January 20 issue of WebMemo</a>. Allen Quist originally published his findings on the bill&#8217;s marriage penalty in early December <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/">here</a>.</p>
<p>From The Heritage Foundation:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage</strong></p>
<p><em>Robert Rector</em></p>
<p>One bizarre feature of the Senate-passed health care bill is its pervasive bias against marriage. Under the bill, couples would face massive financial penalties if they marry or remain married. Conversely, couples who cohabit without marriage are given highly preferential financial treatment. If the Senate bill becomes law, saying “I do” would cost some couples over $10,000 per year.</p>
<p>Most people feel that marriage is a healthful institution that society should encourage and strengthen. Inexplicably, the Senate health care bill takes the opposite approach.  At nearly all age and income levels, the bill profoundly discriminates against married couples, providing far less support to a husband and wife than to a cohabiting couple with the same income. If the bill is enacted, married couples across America will be taxed to provide discriminatory benefits to couples who cohabit, divorce, or never marry.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2767.pdf" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2767.pdf?referer=');">Continue reading Rector&#8217;s article.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/02/heritage-foundation-picks-up-on-marriage-penalty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quist research used in Washington Times editorial</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/01/quist-research-used-in-washington-times-editorial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/01/quist-research-used-in-washington-times-editorial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Biers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health care reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage penalty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=182</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Washington Times recently featured Allen Quist's health care bill research in an editorial titled "Obamacare's marriage penalty". The Washington Times writes, in part: "What is even worse is that the subsidies are suddenly and completely cut off once somebody reaches 400 percent of the official poverty-level income ($63,360 in 2016). The arithmetic is complicated, but what it means is that ..." <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/01/quist-research-used-in-washington-times-editorial/">Continue reading.</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Washington Times recently featured Allen Quist&#8217;s health care bill research in an editorial titled <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obamacares-marriage-penalty/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obamacares-marriage-penalty/?referer=');">Obamacare&#8217;s marriage penalty</a>. The Washington Times writes, in part:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230; what is even worse is that the subsidies are suddenly and completely cut off once somebody reaches 400 percent of the official poverty-level income ($63,360 in 2016). The arithmetic is complicated, but what it means is that two unmarried persons earning $32,000 each ($64,000 total) would pay a maximum combined $5,684 in premiums, but if they got married, they would pay about $15,000. That is an astonishing penalty of 164 percent. It is almost impossible to imagine a policy that could be any more anti-family than that.</p>
<p>Again, that was for middle-income earners receiving government subsidies in lieu of employer tax breaks for insurance. Now consider a high-earning couple. The Senate bill imposes a payroll tax increase on individuals who make more than $200,000. For married couples, though, the tax increase kicks in at $250,000. So, if you live together without matrimony, you can earn up to $400,000 combined without the higher tax &#8211; $150,000 more than you can earn together if you are married. At a maximum of $1,350, this marriage penalty through taxation isn&#8217;t anywhere near as damaging as the $9,316 knockout punch via lost subsidies for the $64,000 couple described above, but it&#8217;s still nothing to take lightly.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obamacares-marriage-penalty/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obamacares-marriage-penalty/?referer=');">Read the full editorial here.</a> You can also read Quist&#8217;s original research publication <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2010/01/quist-research-used-in-washington-times-editorial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marriage Penalty Picked up by Republican Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/marriage-penalty-picked-up-by-republican-ranking-member-of-the-house-ways-and-means-committee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/marriage-penalty-picked-up-by-republican-ranking-member-of-the-house-ways-and-means-committee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Biers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Press releases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>The Democrats’ New Marriage Penalty: PelosiCare Punishes Married Couples, Favors Singles</b>

It’s been well-documented how PelosiCare would harm seniors and taxpayers. But what has not been discussed is how the bill would punish married couples. <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/marriage-penalty-picked-up-by-republican-ranking-member-of-the-house-ways-and-means-committee/">Click here to read more.</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Democrats’ New Marriage Penalty: PelosiCare Punishes Married Couples, Favors Singles</strong></p>
<p>It’s been well-documented how PelosiCare would harm seniors and taxpayers.  But what has not been discussed is how the bill would punish married couples. Consider this:</p>
<p>The House Democrats’ health bill (H.R. 3962) would set the maximum health insurance premium amounts that low and moderate income individuals and married couples could pay each year.  These families and individuals would be eligible to receive so-called “affordability credits,” which would cover the difference between the actual cost of health coverage and the cap on premiums.  Sounds good, right?</p>
<p>Well, not if you are a married couple.</p>
<p><a href="http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/?referer=');">House Committee on Ways &amp; Means Republicans</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/marriage-penalty-picked-up-by-republican-ranking-member-of-the-house-ways-and-means-committee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media spotlight: Family News in Focus interviews Allen on marriage penalty</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/media-spotlight-fnif-interview/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/media-spotlight-fnif-interview/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Biers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Campaign news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Allen Quist was interviewed for the feature story today on <i>Family News in Focus</i> (James Dobson's radio show) about the marriage penalty embedded in the Health Care bill. Allen originally published his research on the marriage penalty on December 3. News of the findings is beginning to spread among conservative groups and media outlets nationwide. <b><a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/media-spotlight-fnif-interview/">Click here to listen.</a></b>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allen Quist was interviewed for the feature story today on <span style="font-style: italic;">Family News in Focus</span> (James Dobson&#8217;s radio show) about the marriage penalty embedded in the Health Care bill:</p>
<div style="text-align: center; padding-bottom:1em;"><strong><a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/fnif/A000011655.cfm" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.citizenlink.org/fnif/A000011655.cfm?referer=');">Listen to the interview</a></strong> (1:32)</div>
<p>Citizen Link published <a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000011651.cfm" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.citizenlink.org/content/A000011651.cfm?referer=');">this article</a> with additional details to supplement the radio interview.</p>
<p>Allen originally published his research on the marriage penalty <a href="../2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/">here</a> on December 3. News of the findings is beginning to spread among conservative groups and media outlets nationwide.</p>
<p>Southern Minnesota needs a Congressman that understands just how damaging this health care bill would be if implemented. Please <a href="../get-involved/donate/">consider a donation</a> or <a href="../get-involved/">volunteer for an hour</a> or more to help Allen Quist restore the American Dream in Minnesota&#8217;s First District.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Follow the campaign online</span><br />
Get connected with the Quist campaign by <a href="http://www.facebook.com/quistforcongress" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.facebook.com/quistforcongress?referer=');">becoming a Facebook fan</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/quist4congress" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/twitter.com/quist4congress?referer=');">following us on Twitter</a>, and subscribing to our <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/QUISTforCONGRESS" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.youtube.com/user/QUISTforCONGRESS?referer=');">YouTube channel</a> and <a href="../feed/">RSS feed</a>. Share with your friends, too!</p>
<div id="_mcePaste" style="overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 36px; width: 1px; height: 1px;">
<h1>Marriage Penalty Hidden in Health Care Reform</h1>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/media-spotlight-fnif-interview/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Press Release: Marriage Penalty in health care bills</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Biers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press releases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PRESS RELEASE ALLEN QUIST FOR CONGRESS December 3, 2009 Contact: Brad Biers 651-261-2182 Marriage Penalty in the U.S. House and Senate Health Care Bills (Mankato, MN) &#8211; “The House and Senate Health Care bills contain a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class.” Allen Quist said today. Following is the complete statement by Allen [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PRESS RELEASE<br />
ALLEN QUIST FOR CONGRESS<br />
December 3, 2009<br />
Contact: Brad Biers 651-261-2182</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">
<h2>Marriage Penalty in the U.S. House and Senate Health Care Bills</h2>
<p>(Mankato, MN) &#8211; “The House and Senate Health Care bills contain a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class.” Allen Quist said today.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Following is the complete statement by Allen Quist on the marriage penalty: </span></p>
<p>“There is a huge middle class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following: How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts below). But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).</p>
<p><strong>“Health insurance premium costs for two adults with equal incomes if the Pelosi bill was in effect now:</strong></p>
<div style="padding-left: 20px;">
<table class="figs" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<th>Combined yearly income</th>
<th>Combined premium cost if single</th>
<th>Combined premium cost if married</th>
<th>Change</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$60,000</td>
<td>$1,320</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>+$10,680</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$70,000</td>
<td>$1,960</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>+$10,040</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$80,000</td>
<td>$2,880</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>+$9,120</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$90,000</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Sources:  The numbers on the chart are based on (a) a chart provided by The Committees on Ways &amp; Means, Energy &amp; Commerce, and Education &amp; Labor, October 29, 2009, see next chart; (b) the current Federal Poverty Levels; see final chart below; and (c) the estimate that two adults would pay $12,000 annually for individual health insurance with average benefits if their income exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.</span></span></div>
<p>“Once the income of Americans exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, there are no limits on the premiums they can be charged, and their premiums are no longer subsidized. The poverty level is much higher for two people living unmarried as compared to the same two people being married. That is why citizens in many cases will pay far more for insurance if they are married. Why should married people be subjected to financial discrimination?</p>
<p>“This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360. A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger.</p>
<p>“The Senate bill also creates a marriage penalty, in this case by imposing a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but it also applies to married couples making $250,000 each year. This marriage tax on the affluent, however, is just the tip of the marriage penalty iceberg in the Senate bill.</p>
<p>“The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance. Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance—a penalty of $9,183 for getting married (based on tables <a href="http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx?referer=');">available here</a>).</p>
<p>“This substantial marriage penalty applies to persons on individual insurance, but, as the Heritage Foundation’s Bob Moffit said: ‘if an employer has a health care benefits package that is 12 to 13 percent of payroll, and they can solve their problem by paying an 8 percent payroll tax [into the Exchange], I think they’re going to do it,’ (New York Times, 9-30-09). And Howard Dean said that, ‘small business won’t need to buy health care for its employees any more’ (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, 11-29-09).</p>
<p>“Businesses will shed their employees and health care dollars into the Exchange, but the dollars that are paid back out will be directed only to those who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Those above the Poverty Level will receive none of their previous insurance benefits from businesses. For that reason the new system is income redistribution on steroids.</p>
<p>“ ‘Household’ is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried. The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so.</p>
<p>“The bills additionally contain De Facto salary caps. How much would a married couple pay for private insurance under the House bill if their income was $58,000 per year?  The answer is $2,088. But what if their income increased by $1,000? Their annual premium would then be about $12,000. The economic penalty for going off the subsidized system is so severe that it will be difficult for people to increase their earnings beyond 400% of Poverty Level. The Senate bill works essentially the same way.</p>
<p>“Senior citizens and small businesses have already been identified as big losers in the health care bills. Married citizens in the middle class need to be added to the list.”</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">Official summary of premium limits and subsidy levels in the House bill*</span></p>
<div style="padding-left: 20px;">
<table class="figs" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<th>Income</th>
<th>premium limit as % of income</th>
<th>% paid by individuals</th>
<th>Caps on out of pocket costs</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Under 133 &#8211; 150% FPL</td>
<td>1.5 – 3%</td>
<td>3%</td>
<td>$500/$1000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>150 &#8211; 200% FPL</td>
<td>3 – 5.5%</td>
<td>7%</td>
<td>$1,000/$2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>200 &#8211; 250% FPL</td>
<td>5.5 – 8%</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>$2,000/$4,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>250 &#8211; 300% FPL</td>
<td>8 – 10%</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>$4,000/$8,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>300 &#8211; 350% FPL</td>
<td>10 – 11%</td>
<td>28%</td>
<td>$4,500/$9,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>350 &#8211; 400% FPL</td>
<td>11 – 12%</td>
<td>30%</td>
<td>$5,000/$10,000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p><strong>Federal Poverty Levels now in use:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Single person = $10,830</li>
<li>Two person household = $14,570</li>
<li>Three person household = $18,310</li>
<li>Family of four = $22,050</li>
</ul>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>400% of Federal Poverty Level:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Single person = $43,320</li>
<li>Two person household = $58,280</li>
<li>Three person household = $73,240</li>
<li>Family of four = $88,200</li>
</ul>
<p><em> *  Chart provided by The House Committees on Ways &amp; Means, Energy &amp; Commerce, and Education &amp; Labor, October 29, 2009.</em></p>
<p><em><br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Media advisory:</strong> Allen Quist bio and high resolution photograph available on the <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/about-allen/">About Allen</a> page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

