3 ms·

>no practical upside There's tax incentives and you become each other's medical proxy, among other things. >high financial cost The paperwork is cheap. Weddi

>no practical upside There's tax incentives and you become each other's medical proxy, among other things. >high financial cost The paperwork is cheap. Weddings are as expensive as you make them. >absurd legal risk That's true, divorces are expensive.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
If you're speaking about the United States's the (relatively small) tax gains, they only become advantageous for a marriage between a stay at a non-earning stay at home spouse and a high-earning breadwinner. Any other paring creates a tax penalty.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  How so? It’s a progressive bracket both ways? Wouldn’t you want your spouse to earn more income, regardless of 30% tax?
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    You're forgetting about FICA/Social Security which can be as high as 12.4% of AGI for every dollar earned below $150k or thereabouts. A stay-at-home spouse doesn't pay social security but nonetheless benefits from it (and in certain states, can do so tax free) upon retirement or death of the breadwinner. That's not a discount available to an individual taxpayer or a double-income household. Filing as married allows for higher tax exemptions, in many cases around double the individual tax exemptions. For a high earning breadwinner this is as much as twice the "normal" buffer of untaxed income for investment before incurring a phase-out. If both spouses were high earning there wouldn't be much of a difference between the average exemption per spouse and the exemption provided to an individual taxpayer. Sometimes it's even less than if each spouse had filed seperately.
dijit 5y ago
> There's tax incentives That’s not universal, it’s not the case in Sweden for instance as far as I can make out. But, the rest of what you said is true. Though it’s unlikely that both partners who want to get married would want to forego a wedding ceremony.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

If you're speaking about the United States's the (relatively small) tax gains, they only become advantageous for a marriage between a stay at a non-earning stay at home spouse and a high-earning breadwinner. Any other paring creates a tax penalty.

throwoutway 5y ago
How so? It’s a progressive bracket both ways? Wouldn’t you want your spouse to earn more income, regardless of 30% tax?
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  You're forgetting about FICA/Social Security which can be as high as 12.4% of AGI for every dollar earned below $150k or thereabouts. A stay-at-home spouse doesn't pay social security but nonetheless benefits from it (and in certain states, can do so tax free) upon retirement or death of the breadwinner. That's not a discount available to an individual taxpayer or a double-income household. Filing as married allows for higher tax exemptions, in many cases around double the individual tax exemptions. For a high earning breadwinner this is as much as twice the "normal" buffer of untaxed income for investment before incurring a phase-out. If both spouses were high earning there wouldn't be much of a difference between the average exemption per spouse and the exemption provided to an individual taxpayer. Sometimes it's even less than if each spouse had filed seperately.

dijit 5y ago

> There's tax incentives That’s not universal, it’s not the case in Sweden for instance as far as I can make out. But, the rest of what you said is true. Though it’s unlikely that both partners who want to get married would want to forego a wedding ceremony.