Why should legally married people get an advantageous tax filing status? discriminatoryAgainst menWhoDontWant2settle

Because single parent households are a drag on the economy. When you get the hot woman who comes into your life pregnant, she has to raise it on her own. She won't be able to work as much, so she will pay less in taxes. Statistically, the kid will be less productive as well. They'll also be more likely to need govt. assistance. By paying more in taxes, you are paying the rest of us back for what would otherwise be a civically questionable lifestyle.

Is it really advantageous? I hear this all the time, but when I looked up the income brackets, it's pretty marginal at best... it seems like it would only be an advantage if one partner made significantly more income and as a result of combining with a lower income, was taxed at a lower bracket. But from what I looked up, it seems like the cost of a wedding offsets any advantage for about a decade or so.

If I'm wrong, can you clarify? Not being sarcastic here, I'm interested.

Billy Bob wrote:

Is it really advantageous? I hear this all the time, but when I looked up the income brackets, it's pretty marginal at best... it seems like it would only be an advantage if one partner made significantly more income and as a result of combining with a lower income, was taxed at a lower bracket. But from what I looked up, it seems like the cost of a wedding offsets any advantage for about a decade or so.

If I'm wrong, can you clarify? Not being sarcastic here, I'm interested.

One can get married cheap--does not require $20K. Wall Street Journal reported on a study showing that the more money spent on a wedding the higher risk of divorce.

As for the OP: well find a woman who does not want to get married (and good luck with that unless you are an older person and even then...)

Billy Bob wrote:

Is it really advantageous? I hear this all the time, but when I looked up the income brackets, it's pretty marginal at best... it seems like it would only be an advantage if one partner made significantly more income and as a result of combining with a lower income, was taxed at a lower bracket. But from what I looked up, it seems like the cost of a wedding offsets any advantage for about a decade or so.

If I'm wrong, can you clarify? Not being sarcastic here, I'm interested.

You are not wrong. Indeed, for most married people they are actually paying MORE in taxes than if they were single.

Further, for those who complain about tax breaks for having kids, here again the tax break actually works the opposite way from how you think it does. Four people making $25k each pay far less in taxes (in total) than one married household of four with a total income of $100k.

It's not only income taxes, but property tax, and inheritance.

Single should be accepted as = wrote:

Why should legally married people get an advantageous tax filing status? discriminatoryAgainst menWhoDontWant2settle

This is discriminatory for men like me who have yet to get married because we are waiting for a hot woman to come into our lives, if ever, & do not want to settle

It's fckin' bullshit

Aside from producing future tax payers, studies have shown that the best predictor of a child's success is having a mother and father in the home. It is in the government's best interest that families stay together and produce children, so logically the tax system supports it.

No You are not wrong wrote:

Four people making $25k each pay far less in taxes (in total) than one married household of four with a total income of $100k.

What misleading nonsense. At least two of the married household of four have no income, so one or both of the others is in a higher bracket than the 25k earners, even if they're not married. And their money goes farther because kids are cheaper to provide for than adults. You're basically pointing out that rich people pay more tax than poor people.

Married people pay more tax unless one doesn't work or earns a lot less, in which case there may be a benefit.

Bad Wigins wrote:

No You are not wrong wrote:

Four people making $25k each pay far less in taxes (in total) than one married household of four with a total income of $100k.

What misleading nonsense. At least two of the married household of four have no income, so one or both of the others is in a higher bracket than the 25k earners, even if they're not married. And their money goes farther because kids are cheaper to provide for than adults. You're basically pointing out that rich people pay more tax than poor people.

But you don't have kids, do you?

Single should be accepted as = wrote:

Why should legally married people get an advantageous tax filing status? discriminatoryAgainst menWhoDontWant2settle

Married couples with no kids don't get any advantage -- trust me, I know.

webby wrote:

Married people pay more tax unless one doesn't work or earns a lot less, in which case there may be a benefit.

True. Look up "marriage tax" or "marriage penalty"

Bad Wigins wrote:

No You are not wrong wrote:

Four people making $25k each pay far less in taxes (in total) than one married household of four with a total income of $100k.

What misleading nonsense. At least two of the married household of four have no income, so one or both of the others is in a higher bracket than the 25k earners, even if they're not married. And their money goes farther because kids are cheaper to provide for than adults. You're basically pointing out that rich people pay more tax than poor people.

What childish nonsense. It shouldn't matter which of the four people have what income. The simple fact remains that four people making $100k in total are taxed more if they are a family of four than if they are four single people.

Glad I could help clear that up for your simple mind.

Tinfoil Hat wrote:

Single should be accepted as = wrote:

Why should legally married people get an advantageous tax filing status? discriminatoryAgainst menWhoDontWant2settle

Married couples with no kids don't get any advantage -- trust me, I know.

Yup - sig other and I briefly debated getting married. Then we had my tax guy do the math. Nope....Would have cost each of us a LOT of money each year. Marriage is a tax benefit if the parties have unequal incomes. If both people make close to the same, then you get a tax increase instead. And the higher your income, the higher the taxes.

darkwave wrote:

And the higher your income, the higher the taxes.

When did this start happening?

When I got married, my wife and I were both First Lieutenants in the Air Force, so our salaries were almost identical. Our tax burden as a married couple was far greater than it would have been had we not married and simply lived together.

Your assumption that marriage always give tax advantages is wrong.

Terrible laws wrote:

It's not only income taxes, but property tax, and inheritance.

How does marriage affect property tax?

Most people pay less. Their are people that pay more but they tend to be the exception (A couple of 300k earners who get married get stuck with an extra 20k in taxes) rather than the rule.

In your example the people pay pretty much the same amount in taxes

Family of 4 (2 kids under 16) with 100k of income (note that as income goes up the SS burdern can drop but lets ignore that).

7.8k federal

One person making 25k

1778 fed *4 = 7112

I wouldn't call 700 bucks far less.

And the person making 50k/yr pays 5.8k so 2 of them pay a ton more than that married couple. With the marginal rate system the numbers change around quite a bit as income changes.

Believe it or not the tax code is actually pretty fair. There are few exceptions (i.e. the super rich who pay 24% on their LTGC versus the working rich who pay ~40%) and specific cases but in general it works out pretty well.

As elephino point out whether there is a tax advantage for being married depends on the circumstances.

Initially the idea of a married tax bracket was to help married men who supported a wife who didn't work.

The complaint was that a married guy paid the same taxes as a single guy but his income was divided in two.

So his tack bracket should really be at half his income (half for him, half for his wife).

It was advantageous to be single, as the married man paid the same taxes plus supported a wife.

So they tried to even it out with a married tax schedule.

But that doesn't help out so much when the husband and wife both make the same or make a lot.

There is no clear tax advantage for married people.

It depends.

Just like all of the other tax loopholes.

Some get an advantage and some lose out.

Single people are losers, both in a social and a Darwinian context. That's why they should pay more taxes.