PDA

View Full Version : The marriage Penalty



Wild Cobra
12-07-2012, 05:14 AM
Government needs to get out of the marriage business. Have only individual tax returns. Not recognize marriage for anything outside of common assets should one die, and accept contractual agreements between consenting adults that treat them as married if desired.

Now I decided to bring this up primarily to bring up the "marriage penalty" in tax law. For numerous reasons, it is more advantages to not be married. Health care benefits are now being allowed for unmarried couples, making marriage even more irrelevant.

The entitlement system prefer single parents with children over married couples. The whole government system is geared to help unmarried people.

Now I brought into discussion in another thread the "marriage penalty." Nobody yet seems to understand what I speak of. Well, here it is. Before, when people ignorantly thought congress got rid of the marriage penalty, they didn't. Consider this. A couple with two children. Each parent makes $40k annual. To keep it simple, I will stick to only the standard deduction and exemptions. Earned income credits and other credits and deductions will skew things as well, but I just wish to keep it simple to illustrate a point, only showing Earned Income Credit. I will base this on the 2011 tax table, which most people will have access to.

A family of four, two income earners, $40k each, for $80k annual. They get a standard deduction of $11,600 and four exemptions of $14,800. Taxable income is $53,600 for a tax liability of $7,164.

Now if they file married/separate, and claim 1 and 3 exemptions, or 2 and 2, they pay more. $7,198 or $10,798. This isn't what I'm talking about, and under some instances, filing separate is probably an advantage.

Now...

If they divorce, or were never married to begin with. The woman normally files Head of Household with three exemptions, and the man normally files single with one exemption. The woman would get a standard deduction of $8,500 and $11,100 in exemptions, for a taxable income of $29,400 and a tax liability of $2,456. She gets an earned income credit of $198. The man gets a standard deduction of $5,800, and exemption of $3,700, taxable income of $30,500 for a tax liability of $4,154. Together, their liability is $6,412. This is $752 less for the couples tax liability. It can get better. If they each become the head of household for one child, their liability is $3,011 each, or $6,022 together. $1,142 less than filing married/joint.

Why is the government promoting that people with children not be married?

baseline bum
12-07-2012, 06:21 AM
tl;dr

http://i35.tinypic.com/330se1e.gif

DUNCANownsKOBE
12-07-2012, 09:37 AM
tl;dr

http://i35.tinypic.com/330se1e.gif

:lmao

ploto
12-07-2012, 09:44 AM
As to your scenario - if the people live together I do not see how they could both claim HoH (even splitting the kids) because you have to provide more than half the cost of maintaining the household. Technically, only one person can do this.

Latarian Milton
12-07-2012, 09:47 AM
at least the government won't take away half of a man's wealth like a bitch would when divorce is filed

Wild Cobra
12-07-2012, 07:16 PM
As to your scenario - if the people live together I do not see how they could both claim HoH (even splitting the kids) because you have to provide more than half the cost of maintaining the household. Technically, only one person can do this.
In rare cases, you can follow the rules and qualify. One example would likely be buying a duplex with two two bedroom units. Two legal addresses. Knock out the wall between them. Houses had also be turned into rooms for rent, divided into separate legal addresses.

I have a coworker, who is married and has two houses. The received the second house when his father died. There is no reason why they can't get divorced, and each take a house. This second house is in Bend, and they love skiing. Bend is a ski resort town. I'm sure there is a way they can make that happen, however, in such a case. Filing long form and using itemized deduction is probably more advantageous.

It would be rare for anyone to legitimately use such a tactic, but it can happen. When I started this argument, I was only considering the single Head of Household. I decided to run these numbers for splitting kids up too. Would you agree that a couple with two kids is better off for tax purposes not to be married? Would you agree the single HoH status in such cases shows there is a marriage penalty?

ploto
12-07-2012, 09:52 PM
Would you agree the single HoH status in such cases shows there is a marriage penalty?

I do not know the history, but I always guessed that HoH was created with the idea that it benefitted divorced or widowed women trying to raise their kids.

Of course, there are people who use it to their benefit. Isn't there someone on here who admitted that he is not married to his kids' mom so that she can claim HoH and also qualify for certain programs using only her income.

DMX7
12-07-2012, 10:53 PM
You're being too general. There are tax advantages for people who are married as well. Depends on the circumstances.

Wild Cobra
12-07-2012, 11:01 PM
You're being too general. There are tax advantages for people who are married as well. Depends on the circumstances.
How many people qualify? Care to elaborate on what benefit only applies to those married?

Isn't it best to have a tax system that doesn't discriminate at all?