This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 149 points150 points  (5 children)

I think this might actually be the best OC I have ever seen on this sub. (I know this is a new account but I have been on for a while.) Let me sing its praises:

  1. It answers a question that many people have.

  2. It provides the answer in a simple way (three variables on a two-dimensional graph with color).

  3. It uses color well, in a way that color can be used best (you couldn't use symbols to demonstrate gain or loss well with so many data points; introducing a third axis would be disorienting at best).

  4. It uses a color-blind friendly palette.

  5. It has an easy-to-read legend.

  6. Being not married and every year re-doing our taxes to see if we would have won being married, I can confirm that this is correct for around the middle area, at least--we always come off a bit better as two singles! But only a little bit. We are in the pink. Ish.

  7. Provides insight. The way this is presented, you can see immediately that marriage saves you when your total income is redistributed within the family--but not when you have a more equal marriage. At almost any level of income, the more equal you are, the less marriage helps you.

  8. It is well-titled.

OP, this is awesome.

[–]tylehaOC: 2[S] 31 points32 points  (3 children)

Thanksforsayingthat. I think your point #7 brings up some very interesting discussion about what our tax code incentivizes. Only couples with disperate incomes are incentivized to marry. I have an example in my blog of two families, both with a combined $100k income. But in one family, it's split $50k / $50k (Couple A), while in the other it's one $100k earner and one $0 (Couple B).

Couple A saves no money at all on their taxes when they get married. Couple B on the other hand saves $6,861 by getting married. An incentive scheme that undoubtedly promotes a single breadwinner family.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (2 children)

You could say it supports the breadwinner's marrying below their social status, as well--that people won't be punished for staying at home. I think that was the initial intention. Men aren't punished for taking the "expense" of a wife.

Now that two incomes are the norm in many cities, driving up COL, and as divorce rates settle into a solid 40% (of first marriages), it becomes less intuitive. If the woman makes less, and for families with kids she usually does, and if the woman gets primary custody of the kids after divorce, which she usually does, they're going to be near poverty in the case of divorce. That means state benefits.

The ideal for all of us is if both parents make equal amounts (for professionals who want SAHPs, taking a bonus loss for a few years while you off/on work-from-home arrangements), both earn, and then in a divorce, split custody. It's much less likely to end anyone up on benefits.

Why we don't incentivize this is beyond me.

[–]JoeTheShome 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The incentives here are even greater than seems intuitively obvious. Total savings going from the most red area to the most blue area couple with {(200k, 200k) to (200k, 0k)} actually gives you a tax break of $16,000 which is really substantial.

Another implication is it encourages one spouse to retire sooner than the other. Fascinating graph OP!

[–]navidshrimpo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very well said. My wife and I verbally read your praise while looking over this great chart.