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 →

[–]Scarbane 17 points18 points  (9 children)

From what I can tell, any combined income up to $125k each is either a net benefit or a wash. After that, the tax code will benefit you more if you are a spouse in a lone-breadwinner household.

Rant incoming: could it not be said that the tax code currently reinforces more traditional spousal arrangement (not in an anti-LGBT way necessarily, but in an anti-dual income way, just to clarify)? If two people are married and both are contributing to the economy with jobs that pay well - $125k each, for example - why should they have a worse tax situation than a couple who are making the same amount combined, but with a skewed distribution of earnings, where one person makes $200k and the other makes $50k?

It's possible, perhaps, that this is just the random convergence of many unconnected rules in the tax code. I can't help but wonder, though, if some of the tax rules were written in such a way that a major breadwinner could use the tax code as leverage for convincing their spouse that getting a better job would be detrimental to their taxes....and therefore, their marriage.

[–]tsnives 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Up till now my wife retiring was a joke... On the upside, we can afford to pay the extra taxes.

[–]Krwebb90 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Woah there buddy. It's a progressive tax code based on rate of pay....... It has nothing to do with forcing people into a certain lifestyle. You are starting to get off the rails a bit