Questions For the married couples out there.

[TurboSauce]

How is marriage beneficial to our society?
Why do many people prefer to co-habit than marry first?

[yoozef]

1. saves you on taxes
2. divorce is expensive

[Dattebayo]

Marriage is a religious rite, some people aren't religious.

I find it amazing that we supposedly have a separation of church and state in the US, and can apparently have a government binding contract based on it...

Also, you don't actually save taxes when married, that's just a myth.

[yoozef]

actually you do

[Dittoz7]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADncN9HIa4[/youtube]

[Dattebayo]

actually you do

No, you don't.

[yoozef]

actually you do

No, you don't.

if done right you do, esp if one person works and the other does not, for example if you sell your house you can keep up to 250k dollars tax free if single or 500k if married
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar ... 1000200739

[Dattebayo]

one person works and the other does not

[Bubba1]

actually you do

No, you don't.

Sounds like the argument clinic.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]

[MinisterofDOOM]

actually you do

No, you don't.

This is the part where one of you supports his argument or both of you shut up.

[yoozef]

(...)

This is the part where one of you supports his argument or both of you shut up.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar ... 1000200739

[Dattebayo]

This is the part where one of you supports his argument or both of you shut up.

It's a simple fact: two people paying taxes on two different incomes spend less on taxes then one entity (a married couple) because they are in a lower tax bracket. They don't call it a "marriage penalty" for nothing...

[IBCoupe]

This is the part where one of you supports his argument or both of you shut up.

It's a simple fact: two people paying taxes on two different incomes spend less on taxes then one entity (a married couple) because they are in a lower tax bracket. They don't call it a "marriage penalty" for nothing...

WRONG. It has nothing to do with the additional income putting you into a new tax bracket, and has everything to do with different rates for married people and single people. Sometimes it may look that way, but it's not for those reasons, and it most certainly isn't the case for the spouses of stay-at-home parents. I'll explain:

Originally, individual income was individual taxable income, even if you were married, unless you lived in a "community property" state, where State law dictated that an individual's income was not actually his/her income, but rather the income of his or her household. There's some Supreme Court history here - people would try to say that half their income was actually their wife's. The Supreme Court said that unless it was State law forcing you to do this, that smelled too much like tax avoidance (two people making $50,000/year, after all, send fewer dollars together than a single person making $100,000/year).

But, caving to the pressures of good policy and good politics, Truman in 1947 handed down joint filing, taking it out of the court's hands, and allowing any married couple to combine their incomes. The law is: if you're filing jointly, you add up your two incomes, and then divide that number by half, and pay twice the tax owed on that.

So: two spouses making $50,000 each saw no difference. The guy down the street who made $90,000 and was married to a woman who made $10,000 would pay exactly that same amount in taxes. This remains true today - no matter how you get to the $100,000 of taxable income, the tax paid will be the same.

What changed was that in 1969, Congress tried to fix what was perceived to be as an unfair SINGLE penalty. After Korea, there was a bit of a shortage of eligible bachelors, and single women couldn't find husbands, so they lobbied Congress to get the IRS off their backs. They'd love to pay the lower tax rates, but they couldn't find anybody to marry in order to do so.

So Congress lowered the individual tax rates, but they didn't lower the married tax rates accordingly. Thus the marriage penalty was born. It's not a problem of tax brackets, it's a problem of tax rates, and it's not really a problem unless the married couple brings home two roughly equal paychecks every week. Where there's a disparity in income, it STILL pays to be married. I just got married, and this year's going to be good for me, because my wife won't be working at her part-time job until next month, and won't be starting her full-time job until September or October. We're not going to be earning that much more money than last year, but we're going to be sending in much less.

I'll illustrate with today's tax rates:

- An individual making $50,000/year sends $11,127 to the IRS. Two unmarried individuals making $50,000 would send in $22,254.

- A married couple bringing in two $50,000 incomes would send in $23,528.50. There's your marriage penalty of just over $1000.

- An individual making $90,000/year and an individual making $10,000/year would send in a combined $26,422.

- A married couple with those identical incomes would still only send in $23,528.50. There's a penalty for not being married of almost $3,000.

And just as a note, for married couples wondering about this, outside of situations where one spouse has a great number of deductions (assuming you're going to itemize), I think it's safe for me to say: IT NEVER PAYS TO FILE SEPARATELY. The only reason people do that is not usually for the above exception; it's because they're getting divorced.

But, and here's the kicker: if you're thinking that you don't want to be married because of the tax consequences, chances are, you really didn't want to be married in the first place.

[IBCoupe]

And just because I saw a hint of it in Datte's post (perhaps unintentionally), I want to also take this opportunity to say: making more money and getting put into a new "tax bracket" never means that you end up with less money in your pocket than if you hadn't made the additional cash.

[IBCoupe]

How is marriage beneficial to our society?
Why do many people prefer to co-habit than marry first?

So I realize that I posted without addressing the OP.

First, I don't know that it is. There's all kinds of argument about stability, likelihood to create children that will survive to be productive members of society (or, if nothing else, increased likelihood of creating children that will survive).

Cohabitation seems to me to be a test-drive. You don't want to buy a car before you've had the opportunity to at least sit in it for a little while, right? Get a glimpse of what the next X number of years will be like?

[Razi]

First, I don't know that it is. There's all kinds of argument about stability, likelihood to create children that will survive to be productive members of society (or, if nothing else, increased likelihood of creating children that will survive).

That's pretty much why people want couples to marry if they are going to have children, it's seen as a promise that there will be someone there to take care of the children.

[IBCoupe]

Which is an argument that has some merit, but I wonder if the presence of child support laws don't promise that it will be the case anyways.

[Razi]

Yeah, maybe from that perspective, but from a purely cultural perspective we'd prefer people to have children after marriage than outside of it, because that household seems more stable to us.

[IBCoupe]

Absolutely. Though, I bet there's a random study out there on the wide open internets saying exactly the opposite.

[Dattebayo]

WRONG.

I just wanted to thank you for the caps lock.

[Razi]

Absolutely. Though, I bet there's a random study out there on the wide open internets saying exactly the opposite.

Lawl.

Tarbo, if you wanna learn more about marriage, take a class on cultural anthropology. :P

[IBCoupe]

WRONG.

I just wanted to thank you for the caps lock.

No problem. I was having a Kevin Spacey moment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRVUOGUm ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[themadscientist]

Get her on contract while she still thinks you're cool, guys. When she realizes what a tool you are it's too late; she's trapped!

[breadbox]

Two main reasons people I know got married.

1. Actually like each other enough to attempt the commitment. My friend just separated of his wife of less than two years, she stepped out on him and he changed the locks.

2. Insurance.

[Jesda]

I don't know why people get married. I don't know why people like football either.

[themadscientist]

I'm happily married. You have to have a certain personality and relationship for it to work. It's not for everyone and some people just shouldn't do it. I don't think they are cheating themselves out of much. The commitment part of marriage is in the mind and independent of a piece of paper stating the same.

Being areligious, marriage is more of a legal trapping to me and a public statement and celebration of my commitment to my wife. I would love her just as much and be just as dedicated to our partnership in life without a fancy ceremony.

[Red coupe]

WRONG.

I just wanted to thank you for the caps lock.

I just wanted to thank you for being confidently wrong again.

[Dattebayo]

I just wanted to thank you for being confidently wrong again.

I didn't see him say anything to prove I was, only that I was wrong about the tax bracket detail.

And it has already been said that it's not the same for everyone. And my bosses accountant always has assured me that most people pay more when they are married.

[Jesda]

There really isn't a real core purpose to marriage (HOLD ON A MINUTE AND HEAR ME OUT BEFORE YOU GET ALL BUTTHURT AND ACT LIKE I HATE YOUR WIFE). Its a tradition and a social habit that's been passed on since what seems like forever. In this society it has a legal and economic role, brought on by government that involves itself in encouraging and enforcing the religious affairs of adults.

There was also a point in time, in some regions, where legal marriage was promoted by government and by religious groups to encourage "good hygiene." That's code for "keeping the darkies from penetrating our pure white women." But that was a while ago.

The modern iteration of marriage isn't bad, and arguably those who function well in a monogamous, legally committed relationship are healthier and more prosperous than those who don't, but the tradition itself doesn't have any inherent value. Its just that -- a tradition -- like thanksgiving or Christmas. We (by we I mean others) do it because it feels right based on our concept of what life should be about.

So there's my serious answer. You can all go back to picking on Dave now.

[Jesda]

Oh wait, this question was for married couples. Ignore what I said.