Comments on: The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems To Care http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/ Slicing Through Money's Mysteries Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:34:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Financial Samurai http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11924 Financial Samurai Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:07:38 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11924 All I know is that if two successful people who make much more than $250,000 a year get married, they are punished by the government b/c the government considers only one can be the main breadwinner. That's not right and yet more people aren't up in arms about this simply b/c not many people make $250K+. Which also means many people don't shoot for the stars. All I know is that if two successful people who make much more than $250,000 a year get married, they are punished by the government b/c the government considers only one can be the main breadwinner. That’s not right and yet more people aren’t up in arms about this simply b/c not many people make $250K+.

Which also means many people don’t shoot for the stars.
Financial Samurai´s last blog ..The Ultimate Solution For A Fair Income Tax Policy In AmericaMy ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Sunil from The Extra Money Blog http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11914 Sunil from The Extra Money Blog Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:50:07 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11914 There totally can be FS, and the tax burden also moves in direct correlation with that. The code does carry over with it older wisdom, and the justification seems to be to tax entities based on total income generated much like companies. Consider a family business where the husband, wife and 3 kids all work at the family restaurant. All generate money as one entity and live under the same roof. Because of our tax laws, each pays the proportion of tax levied to them, whether they file individually or as a joint family / business. Going back to the original discussion - yes, the Government taxes a married couple more (assuming they are both working and making good money), just like it would tax an individual or an entity on a progressive basis. Because there are synergies/savings derived from certain activities (i.e. living under one roof, cooking on one stove vs two), the tax effect is not directly proportional. The analysis really should be to compare the savings a married couple is able to keep vs. the incremental tax burden. This, compared to what would have been the case had the couple not married will yield more concrete and objective results. One will find that the results vary greatly depending on specific individual situations, and therefore it is difficult to make a general claim one way or another regarding how the tax code impacts individuals and families. There totally can be FS, and the tax burden also moves in direct correlation with that. The code does carry over with it older wisdom, and the justification seems to be to tax entities based on total income generated much like companies. Consider a family business where the husband, wife and 3 kids all work at the family restaurant. All generate money as one entity and live under the same roof. Because of our tax laws, each pays the proportion of tax levied to them, whether they file individually or as a joint family / business.

Going back to the original discussion – yes, the Government taxes a married couple more (assuming they are both working and making good money), just like it would tax an individual or an entity on a progressive basis. Because there are synergies/savings derived from certain activities (i.e. living under one roof, cooking on one stove vs two), the tax effect is not directly proportional. The analysis really should be to compare the savings a married couple is able to keep vs. the incremental tax burden. This, compared to what would have been the case had the couple not married will yield more concrete and objective results. One will find that the results vary greatly depending on specific individual situations, and therefore it is difficult to make a general claim one way or another regarding how the tax code impacts individuals and families.
Sunil from The Extra Money Blog´s last blog ..The Different Types of Entrepreneurs – Entrepreneurship DefinedMy ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Financial Samurai http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11913 Financial Samurai Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:38:17 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11913 Why does there have to ONE breadwinner is my question? That is an outdated way of thinking by us and the government who implement these tax policies. Why can't there be two equally successful, career oriented men and women? That's equality. Why does there have to ONE breadwinner is my question? That is an outdated way of thinking by us and the government who implement these tax policies.

Why can’t there be two equally successful, career oriented men and women? That’s equality.
Financial Samurai´s last blog ..The Ultimate Solution For A Fair Income Tax Policy In AmericaMy ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Sunil from The Extra Money Blog http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11910 Sunil from The Extra Money Blog Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:27:29 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11910 very interesting discussion. as a CPA that charitably does tax returns for all tom, dicks and harry's in my family, i agree that the intent is to benefit the average married couple. average is the key word here - so think average household income in the USA. moreover, the conventional thinking that one individual works as the breadwinner while the other takes care of raising kids and cleaning the bathrooms at home has carried over in modern day tax law. for higher earning families, the tax code certainly works the other way around and provides no incentive to grow financially. the same goes for a single unmarried individual. very interesting discussion. as a CPA that charitably does tax returns for all tom, dicks and harry’s in my family, i agree that the intent is to benefit the average married couple. average is the key word here – so think average household income in the USA. moreover, the conventional thinking that one individual works as the breadwinner while the other takes care of raising kids and cleaning the bathrooms at home has carried over in modern day tax law. for higher earning families, the tax code certainly works the other way around and provides no incentive to grow financially. the same goes for a single unmarried individual.
Sunil from The Extra Money Blog´s last blog ..The Different Types of Entrepreneurs – Entrepreneurship DefinedMy ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Financial Samurai http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11878 Financial Samurai Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:57:24 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11878 George, but let me ask you, should married people, no matter what the income be treated THE SAME as any other married couple? You have to ask yourself WHY the government isn't making 1+1 = 2, and instead 1+1=1 as in the case with the mortgage deduction. It's important for people to be aware of the government's action to discriminate against women and men. George, but let me ask you, should married people, no matter what the income be treated THE SAME as any other married couple?

You have to ask yourself WHY the government isn’t making 1+1 = 2, and instead 1+1=1 as in the case with the mortgage deduction. It’s important for people to be aware of the government’s action to discriminate against women and men.

]]> By: George http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11876 George Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:26:23 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11876 If my wife had a $500k annual income, then I wouldn't bother working... We waited until the marriage penalty went away before getting married on Sep 11, 2001. (the date was set in advance and I'm not going to let any selfish terrorists screw up a good thing!). Normal people (rather than the upper 2% of income earners) do not need to be hit with the marriage penalty. I'm contemplating a strategic divorce should the marriage penalty be reinstated for us normal people. The marriage penalty just doesn't foster a family atmosphere. If my wife had a $500k annual income, then I wouldn’t bother working…

We waited until the marriage penalty went away before getting married on Sep 11, 2001. (the date was set in advance and I’m not going to let any selfish terrorists screw up a good thing!). Normal people (rather than the upper 2% of income earners) do not need to be hit with the marriage penalty.

I’m contemplating a strategic divorce should the marriage penalty be reinstated for us normal people. The marriage penalty just doesn’t foster a family atmosphere.

]]> By: Financial Samurai http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-11857 Financial Samurai Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:01:24 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-11857 Let's hope that the government does. We need to find a better way! Let’s hope that the government does. We need to find a better way!
Financial Samurai´s last blog ..The Ultimate Solution For A Fair Income Tax Policy In AmericaMy ComLuv Profile

]]> By: DH http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-7357 DH Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:18:24 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-7357 Yes, this marriage penalty for high-income earners really pisses me off and is the reason why I didn't formally get married. We already pay a disproportional amount of the nation's taxes. The government needs to fix this, but won't. Yes, this marriage penalty for high-income earners really pisses me off and is the reason why I didn’t formally get married. We already pay a disproportional amount of the nation’s taxes. The government needs to fix this, but won’t.

]]> By: Saturday Round-Up Olympic Hockey Edition http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5385 Saturday Round-Up Olympic Hockey Edition Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:06:00 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5385 [...] Financial Samurai presents The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems to Care [...] [...] Financial Samurai presents The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems to Care [...]

]]> By: sewa mobil http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5333 sewa mobil Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:01:31 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5333 Nice information, this really useful for me. There is nothing to argue about. Keep posting stuff like this i really like it. Thanks. Nice information, this really useful for me. There is nothing to argue about.
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it. Thanks.

]]> By: Mike Hunt http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5284 Mike Hunt Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:33:18 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5284 I agree with Kevin above. The tax law penalizes two high earners who are married. There is no sexism here, if the woman makes big bucks and the man stays at home then it's the same result as the man making big bucks and the wife staying at home. I make $260K a year and the wife doesn't work, filing married jointly is a great deal for us! I tell my wife that with the effort required making $260K a year, I need her support to help me back at home- it's a good deal all around and I'd gladly switch places when she lands a similar job. If you can't change the system, learn to work around it! -Mike I agree with Kevin above.

The tax law penalizes two high earners who are married. There is no sexism here, if the woman makes big bucks and the man stays at home then it’s the same result as the man making big bucks and the wife staying at home.

I make $260K a year and the wife doesn’t work, filing married jointly is a great deal for us!

I tell my wife that with the effort required making $260K a year, I need her support to help me back at home- it’s a good deal all around and I’d gladly switch places when she lands a similar job.

If you can’t change the system, learn to work around it!

-Mike

]]> By: OutOfYourRut’s First Ever Friday Personal Finance Round Up « OutOfYourRut.com http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5255 OutOfYourRut’s First Ever Friday Personal Finance Round Up « OutOfYourRut.com Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:43:06 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5255 [...] were ever possible. And I guess it must be because it’s what he does in all of his posts. In The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems To Care, he offers his own view from out-of-the-box on why the so-called “marriage penalty” still [...] [...] were ever possible. And I guess it must be because it’s what he does in all of his posts. In The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems To Care, he offers his own view from out-of-the-box on why the so-called “marriage penalty” still [...]

]]> By: admin http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5187 admin Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:58:31 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5187 David M - You bring up valid points. If their finances are not completely apples to apples, with no changes of deductions, it is hard to compare. However, I don't think anything changed for the most part with these 5 friends. None sold their house, and lost their deductions on their income. The term "marriage penalty tax" exists for a reason. And the reason is that the government is against the union of marriage, and is against two successful working spouses. .-= admin´s last blog ..<a href="http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/10/the-best-super-bowl-commercials-for-2010/" rel="nofollow">The Best Super Bowl Commercials for 2010</a> =-. David M – You bring up valid points. If their finances are not completely apples to apples, with no changes of deductions, it is hard to compare. However, I don’t think anything changed for the most part with these 5 friends. None sold their house, and lost their deductions on their income.

The term “marriage penalty tax” exists for a reason. And the reason is that the government is against the union of marriage, and is against two successful working spouses.
admin´s last blog ..The Best Super Bowl Commercials for 2010 My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Geek http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5185 Geek Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:17:33 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5185 <a href="#comment-5181" rel="nofollow">@Kevin@OutOfYourRut </a> Maybe not a new one, but keeping an old one around is pretty easy. It's not like a lot of people are going to be subject to it in a disadvantageous way, so its largely ignored. I can't imagine us seeing this law disappear... 1. You each have to earn 68k or so before this comes into effect. (or one person earns 100 and another earns the rest. Whatever). What % of the population earns more than 134k per household?... maybe 10%? 15? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States 2. You have to be married in the eyes of the federal govt (I live in Washington :) no state tax) Thus Same Sex couples aren't subject to it, so another 10% of the population escapes 3. You have to earn roughly equal amounts. If one person outearns another by a LOT there's still an advantage to getting married. Likewise households with 1 earner. How many 2-CEO households are out there? No idea on % here.. maybe half? So 90% of 10%, and then perhaps half of that. I don't see this law disappearing ! @Kevin@OutOfYourRut
Maybe not a new one, but keeping an old one around is pretty easy. It’s not like a lot of people are going to be subject to it in a disadvantageous way, so its largely ignored.

I can’t imagine us seeing this law disappear…

1. You each have to earn 68k or so before this comes into effect. (or one person earns 100 and another earns the rest. Whatever).
What % of the population earns more than 134k per household?… maybe 10%? 15?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
2. You have to be married in the eyes of the federal govt (I live in Washington :) no state tax)
Thus Same Sex couples aren’t subject to it, so another 10% of the population escapes
3. You have to earn roughly equal amounts. If one person outearns another by a LOT there’s still an advantage to getting married. Likewise households with 1 earner. How many 2-CEO households are out there?
No idea on % here.. maybe half?

So 90% of 10%, and then perhaps half of that.
I don’t see this law disappearing !

]]> By: Sunday Link Rodeo 19 – Special Monday Edition http://www.financialsamurai.com/2010/02/22/the-marriage-penalty-tax-and-sexist-government/comment-page-1/#comment-5184 Sunday Link Rodeo 19 – Special Monday Edition Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:49 +0000 http://www.financialsamurai.com/?p=2087#comment-5184 [...] The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems To Care from @financialsamura [...] [...] The Government Is Sexist And Nobody Seems To Care from @financialsamura [...]

]]>