An Analysis of H.R. 320, The "Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025": Tax Neutrality, Social Policy, and the Marriage Penalty Debate

Section 1: Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of H.R. 320, a bill introduced in the 119th U.S. Congress under the short title, the "Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025." The legislation proposes a targeted amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with the explicit goal of eliminating the federal income tax "marriage penalty." Its core mechanism is a structural change to the tax tables: for married couples filing a joint return, the income thresholds for each tax bracket would be set at exactly double the amounts applied to single filers.

The bill enters into a long-standing and technically complex policy debate surrounding the taxation of families in the United States. This debate is defined by a central conflict, often referred to as the "tax trilemma," which illuminates the mathematical impossibility of designing a tax system that simultaneously achieves three desirable goals: progressive tax rates, equal tax treatment for married couples with the same total income (couples neutrality), and a tax system that is unaffected by marital status (marriage neutrality).1 The existence of a "marriage penalty"—where a married couple pays more in tax than they would as two single individuals—and its counterpart, the "marriage bonus"—where they pay less—are direct consequences of this inherent tension.

Proponents of H.R. 320 frame the legislation as a necessary correction to an unfair system. The primary rationale rests on the principle of marriage neutrality, arguing that the tax code should not financially penalize individuals for entering into the institution of marriage.3 This argument is often coupled with a broader social and economic case that views stable marriage as a foundational good that reduces poverty, improves child welfare, and contributes to economic growth.4 By removing a perceived financial disincentive, the bill aims to support and promote marriage.

Conversely, a critical analysis of the bill reveals significant concerns regarding its distributional effects and unintended consequences. While the proposed mechanism would eliminate the marriage penalty for many dual-earner couples, it would simultaneously create or substantially expand a marriage bonus, particularly for households with a single earner or highly disparate incomes.6 This creates a powerful "second earner penalty," where the marginal tax rate on the income of the lower-earning spouse (predominantly women) increases sharply upon marriage, potentially disincentivizing workforce participation.2 Critics contend that this effect could reinforce traditional gender roles and exacerbate existing gender and racial inequities within the tax system, as data suggests marriage bonuses disproportionately benefit white, single-earner households.6

Ultimately, H.R. 320 represents a clear philosophical choice within the tax policy trilemma, prioritizing the principle of marriage neutrality above other competing goals. The bill's simple, easily communicated solution to a complex problem gives it political potency. However, its effects are far from simple, raising fundamental questions about economic efficiency, social equity, and whether the tax code should be used as an instrument of social policy to endorse a specific family structure. This report will dissect these complexities to provide a nuanced understanding of the legislation and its potential impacts.

Section 2: Legislative and Technical Analysis of H.R. 320

2.1 Bill Identification and Status

House Bill 320 (H.R. 320) was formally introduced in the United States House of Representatives on January 9, 2025, as part of the 119th Congress, which covers the years 2025-2026.7 The legislation's sole sponsor upon introduction was Representative W. Gregory Steube, a Republican representing Florida's 17th congressional district.9 Notably, the bill was introduced without any original cosponsors, indicating a focused, rather than broad-based, initial push for the legislation.9

Following standard legislative procedure, H.R. 320 was immediately referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.7 This referral is standard for any legislation that proposes to amend the U.S. tax code, as the Ways and Means Committee holds primary jurisdiction over all matters related to revenue, tariffs, and the Internal Revenue Code.11 As of the most recent available information, the bill's official status is "Introduced".9 This means it has been formally presented and assigned to a committee but has not yet undergone further legislative action, such as committee hearings, markup sessions, or a vote to report it to the full House floor.

2.2 Core Legislative Mechanism

The official title of H.R. 320 is "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty in the income tax rate brackets," which precisely describes its function.10 The bill's operational component is a direct amendment to Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which specifies the tax rate tables for different filing statuses.7

The central provision of the bill is a straightforward structural change to the tax brackets for married couples. It mandates that for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024, the income thresholds for each marginal tax rate for individuals filing a "married filing jointly" return will be exactly twice the dollar amounts specified for an "unmarried individual".9 This mechanism is designed to achieve perfect marriage neutrality with respect to the tax brackets. For example, if the 12% tax bracket for a single individual ends at $47,150, under H.R. 320, the 12% bracket for a married couple filing jointly would end at $94,300. This ensures that a married couple's tax liability on their combined income, as determined by the bracket structure, would be identical to the sum of the taxes they would have paid as two single individuals earning the same respective incomes.8

In addition to adjusting the joint filing brackets, the bill also proposes to eliminate the separate and distinct federal income tax rate schedule for "married individuals filing separate federal income tax returns".9 Under current law, this filing status has brackets that are much narrower than the single filer brackets, creating a significant tax penalty. The bill's text suggests that for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, a married individual who chooses to file separately would use the same tax brackets as a single individual, thereby removing the current penalty associated with that filing status.10

The effective date for all proposed changes is stipulated for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.8 This means that if the bill were enacted, the first tax year to be affected would be 2025, with taxpayers seeing the impact when they file their returns in the spring of 2026.15

2.3 Political and Legislative Context

The technical details of H.R. 320 exist within a broader political context that is crucial for a complete understanding of the bill's intent and potential reception. Two aspects in particular—the bill's title and its simplistic approach to a complex problem—reveal much about its strategic positioning.

The bill's short title, the "Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025," is not a neutral policy descriptor but a deliberate political signifier.9 The phrase "Make X Great Again" is one of the most recognized, and polarizing, political slogans in modern American politics, inextricably linked to the campaigns and presidency of Donald Trump. By adopting this slogan, the legislation is immediately framed not just as a technical tax adjustment but as a component of a larger cultural and political agenda. This framing aligns the bill with a specific conservative ideology that often emphasizes the restoration of traditional social values, including the primacy of the nuclear family. This context is further reinforced by the sponsor's legislative record, which includes other bills focused on socially conservative issues.16 This titling strategy ensures that the debate surrounding H.R. 320 will transcend the technical merits of tax policy and become a symbolic battle within the nation's ongoing culture wars, likely galvanizing both strong support and fervent opposition along partisan and ideological lines.

Furthermore, the bill's core proposal—simply doubling the tax brackets for married couples—presents an elegant and easily communicable solution to a notoriously complex problem. The "marriage penalty" is not a singular phenomenon caused only by tax brackets. It is an emergent property of the entire tax system, arising from the interaction of progressive rates with a wide array of provisions, including the standard deduction, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Child Tax Credit (CTC), and caps on deductions like the one for State and Local Taxes (SALT).2 The surgical focus of H.R. 320 on only the bracket structure makes it easy to explain to the public and market as a clean and fair "fix." However, this simplicity is also a significant technical limitation. By ignoring the other drivers of marriage penalties, the bill fails to provide a comprehensive solution. For instance, it does not address the significant marriage penalties faced by many low-income families, which are often driven by the phase-out rules of the EITC.2 Nor does it address the penalty faced by some high-income couples in high-tax states, which is created by the $10,000 SALT deduction cap that is the same for both single filers and married couples.6 Therefore, the bill's simplicity serves as a political asset for messaging but represents a technical weakness in its capacity for holistic tax reform, solving one part of the problem while leaving other significant distortions unaddressed.

Section 3: The Foundational Rationale: Arguments for Eliminating the Marriage Penalty

The introduction of H.R. 320 is motivated by a set of interconnected arguments that champion the elimination of the marriage penalty on grounds of fairness, social good, and economic benefit. These arguments form the foundational rationale for the legislation.

3.1 The Principle of Marriage Neutrality

At the core of the case for H.R. 320 is the principle of "marriage neutrality." This principle holds that, as a matter of tax fairness, an individual's or a couple's tax liability should not be altered by their decision to marry.3 The current tax system is seen as violating this principle by imposing a "penalty" on many couples. This penalty typically arises when two individuals with relatively similar incomes marry; their combined income can push them into a higher marginal tax bracket than they would have faced as two separate single filers, resulting in a higher total tax bill.8 Proponents of the bill argue that this is fundamentally inequitable. From their perspective, the government should not be using the tax code to financially penalize a foundational social institution.3 The primary objective of H.R. 320 is to rectify this perceived injustice and create a more equitable system where marital status, in and of itself, does not lead to a higher tax burden.13

3.2 Marriage as a Social and Economic Good

Beyond the abstract principle of tax fairness, the rationale for H.R. 320 is deeply rooted in the belief that marriage is a social and economic good that public policy should encourage, or at the very least, not discourage. A significant body of research and advocacy, particularly from conservative and pro-family perspectives, posits that stable marriage is a cornerstone of a healthy society.5

This viewpoint emphasizes the role of marriage in poverty alleviation and child welfare. Data consistently shows that married households have significantly lower rates of poverty compared to other household structures.5 Furthermore, a large body of sociological evidence suggests that children raised by their stably married parents tend to experience better outcomes across a range of measures, including economic well-being, educational attainment, and social development.4 From this perspective, any public policy that creates a financial disincentive to marry is seen as actively harmful, undermining an institution that is critical for upward mobility and the well-being of children.4

This argument extends to the macroeconomic level. Some analyses link the decline in marriage rates and two-parent households over the past several decades to slower overall economic growth. One report from The Heritage Foundation, for example, suggests that the decline in intact families may have resulted in a substantial reduction in annual U.S. GDP, amounting to trillions of dollars.18 By removing a financial barrier to marriage, proponents believe that legislation like H.R. 320 can contribute to stronger families, which in turn fosters a more prosperous and stable society.

3.3 Economic Incentives and Tax Relief

The economic case for H.R. 320 also includes more direct arguments about tax relief and incentives. By reducing the tax burden on married couples, the bill would increase their disposable income.17 Proponents argue that this additional income would not simply be idle; it could be used for consumption, savings, or investment, all of which can stimulate broader economic activity. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation of a previous marriage penalty relief bill suggested such tax cuts could lead to job creation, an increased personal savings rate, and lower interest rates.3

Additionally, proponents of a broad-based approach like that in H.R. 320 argue that it avoids creating other, more pernicious penalties. For instance, some targeted relief measures could inadvertently create a "homemaker penalty," where a single-earner family is treated less favorably for tax purposes than a dual-earner family with the same total income.3 The argument is that the tax code should remain neutral regarding a family's decision to have one spouse focus on caregiving and work within the home. By simply doubling the brackets, H.R. 320 ensures that a single-earner married couple is treated at least as favorably as, and in most cases more favorably than, two single individuals, thereby avoiding any such penalty.3

A crucial element in the public discourse surrounding this issue is the conflation of two distinct types of marriage penalties. The most severe and financially devastating marriage penalties often occur not within the progressive income tax system, but within the structure of means-tested welfare programs. For low-income individuals, particularly single mothers, marriage to a working partner can increase household income just enough to trigger a "benefit cliff," leading to the abrupt loss of essential benefits like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing assistance.5 The net effect can be a catastrophic loss of resources, with some analyses showing penalties reaching tens of thousands of dollars annually, making marriage economically irrational for those affected.19 These stories are powerful and create a compelling moral case for reform. However, H.R. 320's mechanism—adjusting the income tax brackets—does not directly address this problem. The marriage penalty within the tax brackets primarily affects middle- and high-income dual-earner couples who have a significant federal income tax liability.2 Low-income families often owe little to no federal income tax and are far more impacted by the phase-out rules of refundable credits like the EITC and the loss of welfare benefits. This creates a significant disconnect: the political rhetoric in favor of eliminating the marriage penalty often leverages the moral weight of the harm done to the poor by the welfare system to justify a tax-code solution that primarily benefits middle- and upper-income households.

Section 4: The Policy Trilemma and Critiques of H.R. 320

While the rationale for H.R. 320 is straightforward, the legislation is subject to significant criticism rooted in the fundamental trade-offs of tax policy, as well as concerns about its effects on economic behavior, gender equity, and the distribution of tax burdens.

4.1 The "Impossible Trinity": The Tax Policy Trilemma

The central challenge in designing a system for taxing families is a concept known as the "tax policy trilemma." It is a mathematical certainty that no tax system can simultaneously satisfy all three of the following widely held principles of fairness 1:

1. Progressive Rates: The tax rate increases as income increases. Higher earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes.
2. Marriage Neutrality: The total tax bill of two individuals does not change when they get married. There is neither a penalty nor a bonus for marriage.
3. Couples Neutrality: Married couples with the same total income pay the same amount of tax, regardless of how that income is split between the spouses.

Any tax system must sacrifice at least one of these principles. The current U.S. system attempts to maintain progressivity and a degree of couples neutrality (through joint filing), which forces it to sacrifice marriage neutrality, resulting in both marriage penalties and bonuses.

H.R. 320 makes an explicit choice within this trilemma. By structuring the joint filing brackets to be exactly double the single brackets, it achieves perfect marriage neutrality with respect to the bracket structure. However, in doing so, it must give up on other principles. It creates a massive "singles penalty," where two unmarried individuals cohabitating with a combined income of $160,000 would pay significantly more tax than a married couple with the same total income. Furthermore, it fully embraces the violation of neutrality between different types of married couples. By maximizing the benefit of income splitting, it ensures that a single-earner married couple pays far less in tax than a dual-earner married couple with the same total income would if they were taxed as individuals. This choice to prioritize marriage neutrality over other goals is the foundation for most of the critiques leveled against the bill.

4.2 The Second Earner Penalty and Gender Inequity

A major criticism of H.R. 320 is that while it eliminates the "marriage penalty," it does so by dramatically increasing the "marriage bonus," which in turn creates a powerful "second earner penalty".6 A marriage bonus occurs when a couple, typically with disparate incomes, pays less in tax after marrying. Under a system like the one proposed in H.R. 320, when one spouse has a high income, the very first dollar earned by the second, lower-earning spouse is effectively added on top of the first spouse's income and is therefore taxed at that high marginal rate.

This creates a strong economic disincentive for the second earner—historically and predominantly women in heterosexual couples—to enter or remain in the paid workforce.2 For example, a woman who would face a 12% marginal tax rate as a single individual might face a 24% or 32% marginal rate on her earnings immediately upon marrying a high-earning partner. Empirical research suggests this effect is significant and leads to reduced labor force participation among married women.6 A study of Sweden's switch to individual filing in 1971, for instance, found that female employment increased by 10 percent.6

Critics argue that this has detrimental economic and social consequences. It can magnify within-couple economic inequality, reduce a woman's financial independence and security, and make it more difficult to leave an undesirable or abusive relationship.6 By creating a tax structure that financially rewards households where one spouse (usually the wife) earns significantly less or stays out of the workforce altogether, the policy can be seen as reinforcing traditional gender roles and running counter to broader societal goals of gender equity and women's economic empowerment.6

4.3 Distributional and Racial Equity Concerns

The distributional effects of H.R. 320 are another major point of contention. While the bill is framed as relief for all married couples, critics argue that its benefits would be skewed toward higher-income households. The largest marriage bonuses—and therefore the largest tax cuts under this proposal—accrue to couples with the most disparate incomes, which often correlates with higher overall household income (e.g., a doctor married to a stay-at-home parent).6 The middle-income, dual-earner couples who are most likely to face a penalty under the current system would see that penalty eliminated, but their benefit would be smaller than the massive bonus received by high-income, single-earner families. This makes the policy potentially regressive, functioning as a tax giveaway to households that are already materially better-off.6

Furthermore, these distributional effects may have a racial dimension. An analysis by the Roosevelt Institute suggests that, due to systemic factors affecting income patterns and marriage rates, Black couples are more likely to be comprised of two earners with similar incomes and are therefore more likely to face a marriage penalty under the current system. Conversely, white couples are more likely to have disparate incomes and receive a marriage bonus.6 By dramatically increasing the size and scope of the marriage bonus, a policy like H.R. 320 could disproportionately benefit white households, thereby exacerbating existing racial inequities in the tax code.6

4.4 The Efficacy of Tax-Based Social Engineering

A central premise of H.R. 320 and its underlying rationale is that removing a tax penalty will encourage or support the institution of marriage. However, this claim is a subject of considerable debate among economists and policy analysts. A significant body of economic research has found that tax penalties and bonuses have little to no statistically significant effect on the ultimate decision to marry or divorce.2 While extreme penalties or bonuses might affect the timing of a marriage by a few months, the fundamental decision is driven by far more powerful social, cultural, personal, and romantic factors than potential tax liability. If the policy is unlikely to achieve its stated social goal of increasing marriage rates, its justification rests almost entirely on the principle of tax fairness. As the trilemma demonstrates, however, "fairness" in this context is not a single, objective standard but a matter of choosing between competing values.

The structure of H.R. 320 is not merely a technical tax adjustment; it is a policy that financially rewards and implicitly endorses a specific household structure: the single-earner (or primary-earner) married couple. The fundamental debate in family taxation is whether the taxable unit should be the individual or the household. A system of mandatory individual filing, for example, would be perfectly marriage-neutral and would eliminate the second-earner penalty, thereby promoting individual economic autonomy and gender equity. H.R. 320 moves in precisely the opposite direction. By fully embracing and expanding the "income splitting" concept inherent in joint filing, it treats the married household as a single, indivisible economic entity. The largest financial benefit of this system flows to the household where one spouse earns all or most of the income. In effect, the system uses the tax code to subsidize the choice for one spouse to remain out of the paid labor force. This transforms the legislation from a simple tax cut into a tool of social policy with a clear ideological viewpoint on family structure and gender roles.

Section 5: Stakeholder Impact and Broader Implications

The abstract principles and critiques of H.R. 320 translate into tangible financial consequences for different types of households and have broader implications for the future of U.S. tax policy.

5.1 Impact on Taxpayer Archetypes

To make the effects of the bill concrete, it is useful to compare the tax liabilities of different household archetypes under current law and under the proposed changes of H.R. 320. The following table provides an illustrative comparison using hypothetical 2025 tax brackets and assuming the standard deduction.

Table 1: Illustrative Tax Liability Comparison (2025 Tax Year)

Household Scenario	Combined Income	Tax Liability (Current Law)	Tax Liability (Under H.R. 320)	Change in Tax	Policy Effect Illustrated
Scenario A: Two unmarried individuals, each earning $80,000	$160,000	~$28,500 (sum of two single filings)	N/A	N/A	Baseline
Scenario B: Married couple, each earning $80,000	$160,000	~$29,000	~$28,500	~$500 Decrease	Marriage Penalty Eliminated
Scenario C: Married couple, one earns $160,000, one earns $0	$160,000	~$23,000	~$23,000	No Significant Change	Marriage Bonus Maintained
Scenario D: Married couple, one earns $250,000, one earns $0	$250,000	~$42,000	~$39,000	~$3,000 Decrease	Marriage Bonus Magnified
Comparison: Scenario A vs. Scenario B (under H.R. 320)	$160,000	~$28,500	~$28,500	N/A	"Singles Penalty" Neutralized

Note: Tax liability figures are illustrative estimates based on projected 2025 tax brackets and standard deductions. Actual liability would vary.

As the table demonstrates:

• Scenario B shows a classic marriage penalty under current law, where two individuals with equal incomes pay slightly more after marrying. H.R. 320 eliminates this penalty, aligning their tax bill with that of two single filers.
• Scenario C & D illustrate the marriage bonus. For a single-earner couple, the benefit of income splitting already provides a significant tax reduction compared to a single person earning the same amount. H.R. 320 magnifies this bonus, especially at higher income levels where bracket-widening has a larger effect.
• The comparison between an unmarried cohabitating couple (Scenario A) and a married couple (Scenario B) under H.R. 320 shows that the bill neutralizes the tax difference for dual-earner couples but creates a large gap between the unmarried couple and the single-earner married couple (Scenario C), effectively creating a penalty for remaining single or for having two earners.

5.2 The Future of Joint Filing

The intense debate and inherent trade-offs associated with H.R. 320 and the joint filing system naturally lead to a discussion of the primary policy alternative: a move to mandatory individual filing for all taxpayers, regardless of marital status.2

Under a system of mandatory individual filing, each person would file their own tax return based on their own income. This approach would achieve perfect marriage neutrality by making marital status irrelevant to the calculation of tax liability. It would also completely eliminate the "second earner penalty," as each spouse's income would be subject to its own progressive rate schedule from the first dollar. Proponents argue this would be a simpler, more equitable system that promotes gender equality and individual economic autonomy.6

However, this alternative comes with its own significant trade-off: it would completely violate the principle of couples neutrality. A married couple where one spouse earns $200,000 and the other earns $0 would pay substantially more in taxes than a couple where each spouse earns $100,000. This is often criticized as a "homemaker penalty," as it would effectively raise taxes on single-earner families.3 The political challenge of such a change would be immense, as it would create millions of "losers"—primarily single-earner households that currently benefit from the marriage bonus—who would see a significant tax increase. The choice between the H.R. 320 approach (maximizing income splitting) and mandatory individual filing represents the two opposing philosophical poles in the debate over family taxation.

The passage of a bill like H.R. 320 could have long-term consequences that make future, more equitable tax reform politically untenable. This is due to a phenomenon in public policy sometimes described as a "ratchet effect," where it is far easier for the government to grant a new benefit than it is to take an existing one away. H.R. 320 would create a new, tangible tax cut—or significantly enlarge an existing one—for millions of households, particularly those with a single primary earner. This group would quickly become a powerful political constituency with a vested financial interest in maintaining the joint filing system as modified by the bill. Any future proposal to move toward individual filing or another system that would reduce their marriage bonus would inevitably be framed by opponents as a massive "tax hike" on these families. This would make such a reform effort politically toxic, regardless of its merits in terms of economic efficiency or broader social equity. Consequently, the passage of H.R. 320 could permanently entrench a tax system that critics argue is inefficient and inequitable, effectively locking in its associated gender and racial disparities by creating a formidable political bloc that would fiercely oppose its repeal.

Section 6: Concluding Analysis and Forward Outlook

6.1 Synthesis of Competing Values

The "Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025" is more than a simple proposal for tax relief; it is a legislative embodiment of a specific set of policy priorities. The debate it engenders is not a straightforward matter of right versus wrong but a clash of legitimate yet competing values that lie at the heart of fiscal and social policy. H.R. 320 makes a clear and unapologetic choice in these debates. It prioritizes the principle of marriage neutrality over the goals of gender equity in the workforce and couples neutrality. It elevates the household, rather than the individual, as the fundamental unit of taxation. It favors a broad, structural change that creates large bonuses for some over targeted relief aimed at those most penalized by the current system. The bill's framework implicitly endorses a social model that financially rewards single-earner families, a stance that stands in direct opposition to policies designed to maximize female labor force participation and individual economic autonomy.

6.2 Political Viability and Legislative Prospects

As a standalone piece of legislation, the immediate prospects for H.R. 320 are uncertain. The bill was introduced with a single sponsor and referred to the influential House Ways and Means Committee, where its fate will be determined.9 While it has garnered significant public interest, appearing on lists of "most-viewed bills" on congressional tracking websites, this online attention does not automatically translate into legislative momentum.20

However, the core concept of the bill—a simple, easily messaged tax cut that eliminates the marriage penalty—is politically popular. This makes its provisions a prime candidate for inclusion in a larger, comprehensive tax and budget package. The Republican majority on the Ways and Means Committee has referenced a desire to pass a major tax bill, sometimes referred to as the "One Big Beautiful Bill," and the principles of H.R. 320 could easily be incorporated into such a vehicle.12 Therefore, the ultimate legislative success of the ideas within H.R. 320 is likely tied not to its progress as a standalone bill, but to the broader tax and budget priorities of the House majority and the committee's leadership.

6.3 Final Assessment

In conclusion, H.R. 320, the "Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025," is a significant piece of legislation, less for its immediate likelihood of passage and more for what it crystallizes about the contemporary tensions in U.S. fiscal and social policy. It presents a deceptively simple solution to the complex problem of the marriage penalty, but in doing so, it forces a confrontation with the unavoidable trade-offs inherent in family taxation. The bill's title and its substantive effect reveal an intent to use the tax code not just for revenue collection, but as a tool to promote a particular vision of the American family. While its stated goal is the elimination of a penalty, its most profound and lasting effect may be the dramatic expansion of a bonus, with complex and potentially problematic consequences for economic incentives, gender equity, and the long-term structure of the U.S. tax system. The debate over H.R. 320 is, ultimately, a debate over the fundamental purpose of the tax code itself.

Works cited

1. Beyond the Marriage Tax Trilemma - Chicago Unbound, accessed August 25, 2025, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2654&context=law_and_economics
2. Marriage Penalties and Bonuses under the TCJA | Tax Foundation, accessed August 25, 2025, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-marriage-penalty/
3. [2000-07-14] Senate Begins Debate to Repeal the Marriage Tax ..., accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/senate-begins-debate-to-repeal-the-marriage-tax-penalty
4. Marriage Penalties in Means-Tested Tax and Transfer Programs: Issues and Options - The Administration for Children and Families, accessed August 25, 2025, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/hmrf_marriagepenalties_paper_final50812_6_19.pdf
5. How the marriage penalty tax hurts the poor - Georgia Center For Opportunity, accessed August 25, 2025, https://foropportunity.org/the-marriage-penalty-a-barrier-for-the-poor/
6. It's Time to End Joint Tax Filing - Roosevelt Institute, accessed August 25, 2025, https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/its-time-to-end-joint-tax-filing/
7. HR320 | US Congress 2025-2026 | Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025 | TrackBill, accessed August 25, 2025, https://trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-house-bill-320-make-marriage-great-again-act-of-2025/2593630/
8. H.R. 320: Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025 (119th Congress) Bill Summary, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.quiverquant.com/bills/119/hr-320
9. H.R.320 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/320
10. All Info - H.R.320 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/320/all-info
11. Committees - H.R.320 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/320/committees
12. House Ways and Means Committee, accessed August 25, 2025, https://waysandmeans.house.gov/
13. US HR320 | BillTrack50, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1773304
14. www.congress.gov, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/320#:~:text=Make%20Marriage%20Great%20Again%20Act%20of%202025,-This%20bill%20modifies&text=Further%2C%20the%20bill%20eliminates%20the,beginning%20after%20December%2031%2C%202024.
15. Trump News: President Reveals Plans to Meet Putin, Zelensky - Newsweek, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-india-tariffs-russia-oil-sanctions-oval-office-announcement-live-updates-2109596
16. US Representative Greg Steube | BillTrack50, accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.billtrack50.com/legislatordetail/5956
17. Make Marriage Great Again Act of 2025 - Codify Legal Publishing, accessed August 25, 2025, https://codifylegalpublishing.com/blog-article/codify-analysis-of-make-marriage-great-again-act-of-2025-us-119th-congress
18. Understanding Marriage Penalties in Welfare and Their Impact on Society - House Oversight Committee, accessed August 25, 2025, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Rector-Written-Testimony.pdf
19. How Welfare Programs Discourage Marriage: The Case of Pre-K ..., accessed August 25, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfare-programs-discourage-marriage-the-case-pre-k-education-subsidies
20. Congress.gov New, Tip, and Top – August 2025, Part 2 | In Custodia Legis, accessed August 25, 2025, https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2025/08/congress-gov-new-tip-and-top-august-2025-part-2/
21. Thriving Families CA Foundation: Monday Morning Update for the week of August 18, 2025 - Constant Contact, accessed August 25, 2025, https://conta.cc/3Ho68kt
22. Page 320 – Congressional Website - Ways and Means, accessed August 25, 2025, https://waysandmeans.house.gov/page/320/