3 ms·

It's been explained to me that in the United States you pay less taxes when you are married, thereby resulting in a higher marriage rate than otherwise. I'm sur

It's been explained to me that in the United States you pay less taxes when you are married, thereby resulting in a higher marriage rate than otherwise. I'm surprised this hasn't been contested - doesn't it seem discriminatory to those who don't want to institutionalise their relationship? I don't know any other country that has this tax aspect. edit many seem to presume there are not alternatives to marriage: a de facto partnership should offer the same legal protections/restrictions without the concept of a couple registry needing to get involved.

benjohnson 7y ago
It also works in reverse if one of married people is a high earner - the lower earner could usually have qualified for many government programs otherwise.
jxramos 7y ago
That right, there's three or so tax filing statuses with different rates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filing_status https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filing_status. Presumably that favoritism in rates assumed an investment by the country in the children that naturally follow the union of a man and woman that are majoritatively fecund by a wide margin populationally speaking. Despite there being marriages that are inherently or voluntarily infertile when does the presumption no longer match reality is an interesting question. Put another way when is the married subpopulation not the primary group to which children are born.
- cagenut 7y ago
  are we (u.s.) not already there? if not it has to be very close.
metalliqaz 7y ago
For a long time, the tax system actually punished couples for getting married. The reason is because it assumed that when married, the wife was a dependent on the husband. It was old fashioned. When modern couples got married but both continued to work in their careers, the taxes were actually a bit higher on their incomes (mostly on high earners but also on middle class). This is described by my conservative family as "anti-marriage" tax policy. However it could better be described as "pro-family" because if the couple has a child and the wife stops working to take care of the kid(s), then the tax situation becomes favorable in order to benefit the children. It's old fashioned, but it made sense. With the changes to the tax code in the Trump era, I don't know if the situation still holds, I haven't looked closely at it.
yardie 7y ago
This is one of those statements that it's truthfulness is dependent on circumstances. With income taxes you can file separately or jointly. How you want to file is determined by the amount of reductions you can use.
zdragnar 7y ago
Many countries outside the US do so; the term for it is "income splitting": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_splitting > doesn't it seem discriminatory to those who don't want to institutionalise their relationship? That is not a protected class of people anywhere that I am aware of, and there are plenty of justifications for a government only recognizing formalized relationships. If the government were to recognize informal relationships, then fraudulently claiming a deceased person's benefits or inheritance of estate (especially in absence of a will) would be as simple as claiming to have been a secret girl / boyfriend of the deceased.
cheeseomlit 7y ago
Marriage should be encouraged and taxes are a good way to do that. Children born out of wedlock and/or raised by single parents are generally much more disadvantaged and less well-adjusted than their peers being raised by functional nuclear families
- telesilla 7y ago
  >Children born out of wedlock and/or raised by single parents This statement is a bit old-fashioned I think? Most of my friends with children/long-term relationships never married because where I come from there is no benefit to do so, a legal status is offered in kind (de facto partnership). Marriage has become something quaint and mostly considered a waste of money when house prices etc are demanding down-payments instead. I see none of my friend's kids suffering because there is no marriage certificate in the house. This may vary by country, I'm sure.
  - cheeseomlit 7y ago
    Of course, it's more about having parents with a stable relationship raising their kids together than it is having some certificate from the government. It's just one of those societal carrots/sticks that encourages those kinds of relationships
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      There is a reason that the villain is always the "wicked stepmother/father" in fairy tales. If you punish single parents (widow(ers), divorcees) economically, and encourage remarrying, you could increase the rate of abuse.

benjohnson 7y ago

It also works in reverse if one of married people is a high earner - the lower earner could usually have qualified for many government programs otherwise.

jxramos 7y ago

That right, there's three or so tax filing statuses with different rates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filing_status https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filing_status. Presumably that favoritism in rates assumed an investment by the country in the children that naturally follow the union of a man and woman that are majoritatively fecund by a wide margin populationally speaking. Despite there being marriages that are inherently or voluntarily infertile when does the presumption no longer match reality is an interesting question. Put another way when is the married subpopulation not the primary group to which children are born.

cagenut 7y ago
are we (u.s.) not already there? if not it has to be very close.

metalliqaz 7y ago

For a long time, the tax system actually punished couples for getting married. The reason is because it assumed that when married, the wife was a dependent on the husband. It was old fashioned. When modern couples got married but both continued to work in their careers, the taxes were actually a bit higher on their incomes (mostly on high earners but also on middle class). This is described by my conservative family as "anti-marriage" tax policy. However it could better be described as "pro-family" because if the couple has a child and the wife stops working to take care of the kid(s), then the tax situation becomes favorable in order to benefit the children. It's old fashioned, but it made sense. With the changes to the tax code in the Trump era, I don't know if the situation still holds, I haven't looked closely at it.

yardie 7y ago

This is one of those statements that it's truthfulness is dependent on circumstances. With income taxes you can file separately or jointly. How you want to file is determined by the amount of reductions you can use.

zdragnar 7y ago

Many countries outside the US do so; the term for it is "income splitting": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_splitting > doesn't it seem discriminatory to those who don't want to institutionalise their relationship? That is not a protected class of people anywhere that I am aware of, and there are plenty of justifications for a government only recognizing formalized relationships. If the government were to recognize informal relationships, then fraudulently claiming a deceased person's benefits or inheritance of estate (especially in absence of a will) would be as simple as claiming to have been a secret girl / boyfriend of the deceased.

cheeseomlit 7y ago

Marriage should be encouraged and taxes are a good way to do that. Children born out of wedlock and/or raised by single parents are generally much more disadvantaged and less well-adjusted than their peers being raised by functional nuclear families

telesilla 7y ago
>Children born out of wedlock and/or raised by single parents This statement is a bit old-fashioned I think? Most of my friends with children/long-term relationships never married because where I come from there is no benefit to do so, a legal status is offered in kind (de facto partnership). Marriage has become something quaint and mostly considered a waste of money when house prices etc are demanding down-payments instead. I see none of my friend's kids suffering because there is no marriage certificate in the house. This may vary by country, I'm sure.
- cheeseomlit 7y ago
  Of course, it's more about having parents with a stable relationship raising their kids together than it is having some certificate from the government. It's just one of those societal carrots/sticks that encourages those kinds of relationships
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    There is a reason that the villain is always the "wicked stepmother/father" in fairy tales. If you punish single parents (widow(ers), divorcees) economically, and encourage remarrying, you could increase the rate of abuse.