Marriage Penalty My Ass

[Adam]

Completely random, but I just watched Bush boasting about eliminating the so-called "marriage penalty" (and that phrase is a classic example of framing an issue in one's favor if I've ever heard one), so it's on my mind:

I think I'm going to start bitching and whining about the "single penalty" I have to pay on my taxes each year, since I now pay the same rate as married people, and can't claim a larger deduction for not being in a situation where I split all my expenses with someone.

[Dingfod]

Here (http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/marriagepenalty.html) is a pretty fair explanation of the marriage penalty.

Here is one example of the conflict. Suppose the Hatfield couple and the McCoy couple both earn $75,000. They should owe the same tax under the principle of equal tax treatment. And under the principle of marriage neutrality, their tax liability should be the same even if the Hatfields are a married couple earning $75,000 between them and the McCoys are two single people each earning $37,500.

But if the principle of progressivity is applied, the two Hatfields will owe more tax than the two McCoys. The two single McCoys—each considered a household with $37,500 of income—would be taxed at a lower rate than the Hatfields—considered one household with $75,000 of income. In addition, the combined standard deduction for the two single McCoys would be higher than the Hatfields' standard deduction for joint filers.
It's happened to me. There have been times my wife and I would've saved money overall by being single. A few years ago, I calculated with each of us taking a child and filing single we would've saved about $1200 in taxes on a nearly $20,000 tax bill.

[Adam]

It's happened to me. There have been times my wife and I would've saved money overall by being single. A few years ago, I calculated with each of us taking a child and filing single we would've saved about $1200 in taxes on a nearly $20,000 tax bill.

Oh, yeah, it happened to me every year back before I got divorced. I understand that, back in the bad old days before Bush saved us from the "marriage penalty", married people paid higher taxes than two single people with the same combined income would have. I happen to agree with the basic concept of a higher tax for couples, though, as they have a higher effective income that single people, given that they are able to share many expenses. Granted, this breaks down somewhat when couples live together without being married, and there's probably even a good argument to be made that my roommate and I ought to pay higher taxes than we would if we each lived alone, but I think the essential concept is valid, from a progressive perspective.

I'm not so much arguing anything seriously here, though, as I am bitching about how often I've heard the phrase "marriage penalty" over the last few years, and expressing admiration for a great piece of spin that's successfully entrenched the phrase in the collective vernacular.

[Dingfod]

Well, I've never really bitched about the marriage penalty, figuring pretty much like you have, that we did share expenses and we got to take an deduction for our children. For us, the contrast was much more marked before we bought a house and had a large mortgage interested deduction. It was only our combined incomes that allowed us to take this mortgage on, individually we wouldn't have qualified for but about half as much. When we were renting, we were paying a huge amount more than two people that were just living together.

I would like to see the government get completely out of our personal business and level the playing field. The agrarian age where we needed large families to run the farms and such is long since over. Family size and living arrangements are not the government's business, so they should neither encourage or discourage marriage, home ownership, or having children via the tax code. Sorry, that's just the way I see it. And this comes from a guy that is married, has a large mortgage, and children still at home. The hell with me and my situation, I'd be more than happy to pay more taxes if it was fair and equitable.

[dave_a]

There is defintely a marriage penalty, but it largely disappears when said couple has a couple children due to child tax credits.

One couple I know put off getting married until after she finished with her schooling because she was a single mom (kid from a previous relationship) and paid next to no taxes on account she was a single mother going to school.

He bought a house and listed her as a renter for taxes. They made out like bandits.

I think it is fairly well established that a stable, 2 person household is in the best interests of children so I don't think taxes ought to punish people for being married. Like I said though the child tax credit seems to offset it for the most part.

[Dingfod]

There is defintely a marriage penalty, but it largely disappears when said couple has a couple children due to child tax credits.Unless you don't qualify for the motherfuckers because you make $100 over the limit. Grrrr!

[Dingfod]

I know a couple that have been together for about 20 years that aren't ever going to get married unless the marriage penalty for disappears for them. Isn't there a Social Security marriage penalty too?

[Smilin]

I know a couple that have been together for about 20 years that aren't ever going to get married unless the marriage penalty for disappears for them. Isn't there a Social Security marriage penalty too?

Is there a penalty for being seperated?:fuming:

[Master Taran]

I know a couple that have been together for about 20 years that aren't ever going to get married unless the marriage penalty for disappears for them. Isn't there a Social Security marriage penalty too?

Is there a penalty for being seperated?:fuming:It's called child support. :whup:

[Smilin]

:lol:

but it is to provide for my kids which I have no problem with....

[ManM]

I happen to agree with the basic concept of a higher tax for couples, though, as they have a higher effective income that single people, given that they are able to share many expenses.
Wait, people should face higher taxes for living more efficiently? While we are at it, people who drive a Prius should pay higher taxes due to their lesser fuel consumption.

[Smilin]

Tax the fuck out of those bastards driving around in the SUV's......

:grumble:

[Master Taran]

:lol:

but it is to provide for my kids which I have no problem with....There is always alimoany. :D

[Smilin]

She won't be getting any of that....

I'm fine with the arrangement we have now.....I'm still paying all the bills and she doesn't interfere with the relationship I currently have with my children...

I continue to support her until she graduates college and gets a job which should be under 12 months...

I'm just so dammm happy to be alive and not pushing up daisies...yah know?

I do know what it's like to die...and there's nothing that we have except what we have currently....there is no heaven, no hell as far as I'm concerned.....

and I do believe it's time for a beer...

Care for one? I stopped and bought a 12-pack at lunchtime....

[Master Taran]

Care for one? I stopped and bought a 12-pack at lunchtime....:shakejack:

[Smilin]

EVEN Better!!

Don't mind if I do.....:lol:

[Adam]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman! Why did this get bumped?

Wait, people should face higher taxes for living more efficiently? While we are at it, people who drive a Prius should pay higher taxes due to their lesser fuel consumption.

I think what I was getting at three and a half years go when I wrote that ( :tmwink: ) was that tax deductions are supposed to excuse a person from paying taxes on the portion of their income that they absolutely need to live. If you're sharing expenses with someone, you need a lesser portion of your income to live so, in theory, it's fair that those who share expenses are allowed to claim smaller deductions. I don't really care to get into the sort of incentives it creates in practice, atm.

[Smilin]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman! Why did this get bumped?

Out of work, bored out of my mind, trying to stir lively conversation....:D

[godfry n. glad]

It all depends upon where you fall on the income scale.

I pull down about $35,000 a year, gross. My wife did, too. Our taxes separately would have been higher separately, even though we had no children.

However, now that she's gone, and I'm living with a woman who pulls down in the $80,000 range, our tax burden is much better being individuals, rather than a married couple.

And, yes....There is a social security penalty for marrieds. I'm not quite sure how it works, but I think it's that a married couple can get only one social security check, while individuals can collect two, for a greater net payments for the two individuals.

[Smilin]

It all depends upon where you fall on the income scale.

I pull down about $35,000 a year, gross. My wife did, too. Our taxes separately would have been higher separately, even though we had no children.

However, now that she's gone, and I'm living with a woman who pulls down in the $80,000 range, our tax burden is much better being individuals, rather than a married couple.

And, yes....There is a social security penalty for marrieds. I'm not quite sure how it works, but I think it's that a married couple can get only one social security check, while individuals can collect two, for a greater net payments for the two individuals.

Care to adopt a 42 year old son? LOL:D

[godfry n. glad]

It all depends upon where you fall on the income scale.

I pull down about $35,000 a year, gross. My wife did, too. Our taxes separately would have been higher separately, even though we had no children.

However, now that she's gone, and I'm living with a woman who pulls down in the $80,000 range, our tax burden is much better being individuals, rather than a married couple.

And, yes....There is a social security penalty for marrieds. I'm not quite sure how it works, but I think it's that a married couple can get only one social security check, while individuals can collect two, for a greater net payments for the two individuals.

Care to adopt a 42 year old son? LOL:D

Sorry, Smilin...I've assiduously avoided that.

My SO has two sons and they're still working on college. She currently hates her job and is trying desperately to launch her two offspring into adulthood and out of the nest. A major step takes place next week, when unson #2 starts his first real job as a long-haul trucker. Unson #1 is in college, working on his engineering degree. Once she's out from under assuring that her children can be self-supporting, she's off to do things she wants to do....most likely at lots less income.

We don't need another son, sorry.

[California Tanker]

While we are at it, people who drive a Prius should pay higher taxes due to their lesser fuel consumption.

It's been considered. They've figured out that as people drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, revenues from fuel taxes will drop.

Hybrids could pay more gas tax / U.S. to study tariffs on miles driven, not gallons purchased (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/20/MNGA4CBJH81.DTL)

NTM

[beyelzu]

It all depends upon where you fall on the income scale.

I pull down about $35,000 a year, gross. My wife did, too. Our taxes separately would have been higher separately, even though we had no children.

However, now that she's gone, and I'm living with a woman who pulls down in the $80,000 range, our tax burden is much better being individuals, rather than a married couple.

And, yes....There is a social security penalty for marrieds. I'm not quite sure how it works, but I think it's that a married couple can get only one social security check, while individuals can collect two, for a greater net payments for the two individuals.

Care to adopt a 42 year old son? LOL:D

Sorry, Smilin...I've assiduously avoided that.

My SO has two sons and they're still working on college. She currently hates her job and is trying desperately to launch her two offspring into adulthood and out of the nest. A major step takes place next week, when unson #2 starts his first real job as a long-haul trucker. Unson #1 is in college, working on his engineering degree. Once she's out from under assuring that her children can be self-supporting, she's off to do things she wants to do....most likely at lots less income.

We don't need another son, sorry.

But you would make an exception for me, right godfry??

[godfry n. glad]

Even acknowledging how exceptional you are, bub....

:hahano:

no.

Besides, neither of us has an exceptionally strong hold on our present jobs.

[Angakuk]

And, yes....There is a social security penalty for marrieds. I'm not quite sure how it works, but I think it's that a married couple can get only one social security check, while individuals can collect two, for a greater net payments for the two individuals.

As described here (http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/aug398.html).

Because of the way the benefit formula is structured, a two-earner couple will receive less benefits than a single-earner couple. The problem arises mainly from what is known as the "duel entitlement" rule. Under this provision of the Social Security law, retired couples do not receive two benefit checks even if both spouses worked and would be entitled to benefits based on their own earnings history. Basically, the couple receive one benefit based on whichever spouse had the higher lifetime income. Thus, as in the case of the income tax marriage penalty, a two-earner couple would increase their income by getting divorced.

There is also this. (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/5B7956EA-BE9D-4062-8E842805F2E55AE3/118/304/145/QNA/)

When it comes to taxing Social Security, the marriage penalty is very much alive and well. Older married couples that have modest incomes and receive Social Security benefits must pay tax on their benefits if their “base amount” is more than $32,000. (The “base amount” is the married couple’s combined adjusted gross income, as reported on their tax return, plus interest from tax-exempt investments, plus 50% of their combined Social Security benefits.) In contrast, each partner in an unmarried couple pays taxes on Social Security benefits only if his or her “base amount” is more than $25,000. That would mean that, as a couple, their base amount could be as high as $50,000 before they had to pay taxes on Social Security benefits.