Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
That Is
All Ye Know on Earth
Nice
review by Judith Shulevitz ("Modern Makeup").
But who is this historian-author Kathy Peiss? What an interesting idea for a
book. Is it readable prose? I mean, for 25 bucks I want to know first if she's
a credible researcher and secondly whether I'll stay awake for the read. I'm
being picky because I'm really thinking of buying the book--Shulevitz's review
compels me. So, red light/green light?
-- Kate Nolan
Judith
Shulevitz responds: Good question, and one I should have answered more clearly
in my review.
So here's the information
I should have provided: The book's a fine read, if not a rollicking one. The
research is excellent and Peiss' presentation subtle and nuanced. Peiss is a
history professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the author
of a book called Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in
Turn-of-the-Century New York , which I have not read but which is said by
more knowledgeable friends to be a substantial contribution to the history of
women in America. Should you buy Hope in a Jar ? Why not? You'll learn
lots of things you hadn't known, you'll think about makeup in a new way, and
you'll be spared the ranting about the evils of consumerism that so often
accompanies social histories of women, beauty, and fashion.
Thanks
for asking. Hope this helps.
For
Richer or for Poorer
Eric Alterman ("Diary") says that he and his spouse-equivalent aren't getting
married because their federal taxes would skyrocket. He might want to check his
arithmetic and reconsider. However lamentable the "marriage penalty" may be,
his examples vastly overstate its size.
For a two-earner couple
making $150,000 split evenly, Alterman claims a staggering marriage penalty of
$7,700. But that's not even close: The actual figures are $1,140 for a couple
with no children and $1,700 for a couple with two kids.
For two earners each making
$23,350, Alterman is serendipitously close to the mark when he asserts a
marriage penalty of $1,001 a year. The actual amounts are $84 for childless
couples and $883 for a couple with one child. (The jump in the penalty from
having a child is mainly due to the fact that a single parent making $23,750
gets a $500 earned-income tax credit, while a couple making $46,700 is
ineligible for that credit.) But one suspects this is not the example that
actually worries Alterman.
Finally, in the example
that's apparently nearest to Alterman's heart--two potential spouses making
$125,000 and $40,000--he says, "a year of marriage costs the same as a year of
day care." He must have found a bargain rate. The actual penalties in this case
are $774 for childless couples and $2,681 for couples with one kid. That latter
figure is certainly not nothing, but it's only 1.6 percent of the couple's
$165,000 total income.
By the
way, I've long been a hawk for eliminating the marriage penalty. But such a
step wouldn't mean Alterman and his potential spouse's taxes would go down
much. In the $125,000-$40,000 scenario, for instance, a deficit-neutral
solution would increase their taxes by $2,000 or so (compared with now) if they
remain single and cut their taxes by about $550 if they get married.
-- Robert S.
McIntyre Director, Citizens for Tax JusticeWashington, D.C.
The
Other White Meat
I enjoyed
Jacob Weisberg's article on dumb jocks ("The
Football Caucus"). The last thing we need is unrealistic and idealistic
people voting their consciences. We need people who can play the game and get
the pork.
-- Tom Swick
Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
