Can someone explain how this ISN'T a marriage penalty?

[Milo_Bloom]

One of Obama's plans is to reduce the mortgage interest deduction for the wealthy.... Okay... I am fine with that, until I looked up the details.

"The rollback of the tax break wouldn't take effect until 2011, and would apply only to families earning more than $250,000 and individuals making $200,000 or more -- less than 4 percent of taxpayers in 2006."

http://www.inman.com/news/2009/02/27/obama-targets-homeowner-tax-breaks

My fiance and I were (after 11 years) planning on getting married this year, but this will bring it to a screetching halt, because we would be giving away thousands of extra dollars just to get married. (we co-own a business that does about 300K combined.. so if we get married, we make over 250.. individually we each make about 150).

Understand, although I am not thrilled with losing some of that deduction, I am not complaining about losing some of the deduction (because we all must make sacrifices to help the economy); HOWEVER, I believe it should be applied absolutely equitably! If it is individuals making 200K, the family income should be 400K OR if it is 250 per family, individuals should be capped at 125K

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Because married couples don't get benefits singles do, right?

Please -- I'm married and I'll concede I get a whole shitload of benefits from the government just because I fell in love with somone.

[Milo_Bloom]

4. What "benefits"?

There are some visitation rights and death benefits.. but if you have money you can contractually re-create a marriage for a few thousand dollars without incurring a penalty.


NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT PEOPLE WHO WISH TO GET MARRIED SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO SO BECAUSE THEIR ARE COSTLY ALTERNATIVES!!!!!

[bain_sidhe]

8. Social Security benefits, for one.

Each spouse of a married couple can choose whether to receive Social Security benefits based on their own earnings or based on their spouse's earnings. Now if both spouses make the same amount of money, over their lifetimes, that means nothing. But we all know that isn't true. Women almost always make less than men, in total lifetime earnings, at least, because they're more likely to take time out of the workforce. And this is a HUGE benefit if one spouse spent a *lot* of time out of the workforce.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Yeah, in most cases you would be correct.

I guess my situation is unique in that we draw equally, so we make equally.

But you are right that is a benefit I didn't consider that applies to most households.

[spooky3]

46. Estate tax and pension benefits. Details plus just a few more:

If I die the day after my pension benefits start and am not married, I forfeit EVERY CENT of the amount contributed by me and my employer; a spouse is entitled to a portion of this. This is not true for certain private sector plans, but it is true of my state's defined benefit plan which is exempt from the law that forbids this.

"Family" discounts at health clubs, etc., where their costs are just as high for two married couple members who participate as for two singles who do. There's simply no justification for this at all.

Health care benefits, where the employer pays for spouse and kids' coverage, to the extent that the employer may be paying $1000 per month for Married Employee X and his/her family but paying $300 per month for Unmarried Employee Y - where X and Y hold exactly the same job and people would be utterly outraged if either were given a higher salary rate simply on the basis of marital or family status - didn't that go out with the 60s?

And as for housing - many singles have to buy a house on their own. Not every single is 20 something and in a couple. Many are divorced, widowed, middle-aged, retired, etc. Holding the # of kids at home constant, a couple needs only one kitchen and probably the same # of bedrooms, baths, etc., as the typical single person, since those are used for an office, guests, etc. But the house costs the same whether you have one income or 10 buying it. It's much harder to afford things on one income and what if that one person loses a job? So giving a couple twice the benefits regarding housing is unfair to the typical single because it is not typical that two unmarried singles buy a house together. Yes, it happens, but it is far more common that the single person buys it alone or buys it for himself/herself and dependents.

[avaistheone1]

259. Very thoughtful and strong points people don't often think about.

:kick:

[Sherman A1]

2. Consider

rearranging your business from what sounds like a partnership into a corporation and I think you will be fine.

[Milo_Bloom]

3. It is a corporation

S-Corp and we each own 50%, so it acts as a pass through.

We also draw salary, etc.

[Sherman A1]

52. You may want to change from Sub S to

C type Corporation. I would consult with your tax person. You already know that the S type is taxed as a partnership. I think a simple rearrangement of your business type will be more than sufficient to keep the wedding on track.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Thanks.

I am going to give him a call.

I remember there was a very specific reason we didn't go with a C corp when we formed the corp, but I don't remember what it was, but that reason may be outweighed by other items now.

[Sherman A1]

87. Forming a C type was more expensive when I had a small biz

years ago and when you are starting out pennies count. Sounds like with your present numbers that might not be a huge problem. Again, it's best to get the tax guy involved and help you make the decision. That's what you pay them to do.

[joeglow3]

275. A corp is subject to double taxation

Once at the corporate level and once again when the earnings are distributed. Probably not your best option.

[Ilsa]

5. Would your taxes be lower if you filed married, but Separately?

I know, it is stll more than if you were single.

[prolesunited]

6. Congratulations on your success

I only wish I had your woes.

[Milo_Bloom]

9. It's not a "woe"

And keep in mind I am saying that I am happy to pay more because of it.

My problem is the inequity of the situation.

Why should I pay more taxes if I choose to get married vs less taxes if we just live together?

[NoSheep]

76. I'm childless, yet my tax dollars pay for education. Why should I care?

Do I have to tell you why?

[Lorien]

251. Snap!

:thumbsup:

[Lorien]

250. Because if you choose to get married you'll be sharing assets

do you honestly believe that you would be as comfortable on a single income? Marriage is a commitment to share in the financial burdens. Think of it not as a "tax increase", think of it as taking a bit of the tax burden off of those of us who have NO ONE to share expenses and investments with.

[Milo_Bloom]

304. We already share all of that.

Everything is held jointly.

[crimsonblue]

279. If you get married, only one of you needs health insurance...

Most health plans let spouses and dependents be written onto the plan. This benefit alone will negate any small tax increase. Being married is traditionally cheaper, plus legally it is a lot easier to manage. One more benefit- if you commit a crime, your wife can't testify against you. :P

[Milo_Bloom]

302. This isn't true.

Most health plans allow domestic partners to be written into the plans...

However, DEPENDENTS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PRIMARIES.

If two people both work, they are FAR better off to each have their own individual coverage than to be added to a different person's plan.

(Our cost would be over $1400/mon as a dependent and only $900 per month individually)

[GOTV]

287. Married but childless couples with 2 incomes SHOULD pay more ...

... because it's cheaper for them to live since they can have 1 phone bill, 1 cable bill, 1 electric bill, 1 mortgage, 1 gas bill, etc.

It's more efficient financially to live together than to live apart.

[Milo_Bloom]

303. So it is okay for two singles living together to get a benefit?

[GOTV]

326. Yes, it's not ideal, but it's OK ...

(this reply cut and pasted from the wrong place to here where it belongs)


... there's a limit to how many special cases we can codify in the tax law.

The tax law understands (or did before all this marriage penalty BS) that there are financial advantages to living together and so expects more from dual income married people than from single people at teh same effective income.

The reality is that some people live together without being married and some people get married but still live separately, we all know that but, those special cases were too small to legislate for. Maybe that's not true anymore and we need some way to get the proper tax rate from people taking the financial advantage of living together without triggering the tax rate by getting married. I'm not sure how you'd do that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. For reals

$300 more on every $10,000 over $250,000. Boo hoosky's. Poor baby will bank $193,500 rather than $195,000 on a $300,000 taxable income.

And poor people will get health care and transportation infrastructure in return.

What a rip off!

:sarcasm:

[4lbs]

21. Yes, that's what people that make a little more than $250K don't seem to realize.

That only the amount OVER $250K will be taxed at the higher pre-Bush rate.

Somehow, they think the ENTIRE amount will be taxed at the higher rate, which is not the case.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Could you miss the point a little more????

This has NOTHING to do with the tax increase itself... it is about it being applied inequitably.

If two people living together would pay one tax rate and then the EXACT same two people would be taxed DIFFERENTLY b/c they decide to get married... that is inequitable.

It's bad policy, it's bad politically, because it IS a marriage penalty.

[Two Americas]

89. two very well off people

Listen buddy there are thousands of things that are applied inequitably to poor people all of the time. We call it the "breathing penalty."

The assumption here is that the two of you are maintaining separate households on $150,000 a year each, and that you will be maintaining one household on a combined income of $300,000.

What? You are already sharing a household?

Why are we being force to subsidize you shacking up??? Stop playing "roomies" and get your ass married and start paying your fair share, you slacker.

Don't think of it as a "marriage penalty." Think of it as a "self-centered, arrogant, clueless person penalty."

What do you do, by the way? I want to boycott your business.

[Milo_Bloom]

130. YES we are already sharing a household.

And have been for about 10 years.

And, no, I am not going to pay a penalty for entering into a state sponsored contract.

[sohndrsmith]

209. it has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with income.

Or am I missing something?

There are lots of people who get married who make less that 50K collectively - or even 30K... they don't receive a "marriage penalty" - if they made more than a quarter of a mil, they would be taxed at the same rate of the Clinton years. It's not a penalty, I don't think. It's certainly not about marriage... (?)

What kills me is that those who have been hit hardest for years are the ones who will never see such high incomes - and it's not just a hit to their retirement funds, 401ks or investments - they're losing jobs, homes, cars, everything.

The higher tax rate for the wealthier Americans is called for in a crisis when everyone needs do contribute. Those who've lost everything or have no reserves can't contribute more than they do already, and - you're right - it's not fun to be taxed more than you want to be. But it is for the greater good and personally, I would love to have such a tax problem....$50 is a huge deal for me. If my income was $250K - I would gladly do without that and more and it really wouldn't alter my life significantly.

I do think, however, that not all $250K incomes are created equally... and I'm not sure about the details, but I don't think that a small business owner, for example, who may gross 250 but who's overhead (in these difficult times, especially) may have him breaking even - shouldn't be carrying the same tax burden that someone without such circumstances might be better qualified for. I'm not sure how it all gets worked out, but I hope such things are taken into account because all income is not created equally, even if the gross dollar signs are the same.

I made enough last year (barely) to qualify for the "rebate" but my expenses were just as much so that disqualified me - I didn't realize it worked that way. Hey, at least I made enough to actually file a tax return (and ended up paying a decent sum in taxes to boot).

I just don't see this as a marriage issue. It's about income. If, by chance, marriage is involved - so be it. But it would only be a marriage penalty (I think) if everyone automatically had a plus-$250K income upon marriage... then it would be a marriage penalty. That's definitely not a given. If it were, there'd be a lot more people wanting to get married (and staying married perhaps) than there are now...

[Milo_Bloom]

241. In this case, it is about both.

Okay, very basically... here is a tax calculator where you can run the numbers.

http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/index.html#

Run the 3 following scenarios SIngle person making 150 per year married couple making 300K per year and married filing seperately making 150 per year.

Here are the results

Single, making 150: Tax owed 33,472
Married, making 300: Tax Owed 72,207
Married, filing sep: Tax owed 36,104


As you add in deductions, which start phasing out for couples at 250, but not singles, the discrepency becomes greater and greater.

My question is why should person A and person C be treated differently? Shouldn't they both owe 36,104? Why does the single person get a $2,700 tax break?

Keep in mind I AM single, so I am wondering why a society who supposedly prizes marriages has provisions in the tax code that discourage it at higher income levels?

[GOTV]

288. Because it's more expensive to live alone. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

297. What if a single person has a roommate?

[GOTV]

321. If they are living with a roommate as they would financially with a spouse ....

.... sharing everything, they should pay taxes like a married couple. That's not the way the tax law is currently written and I can understand the difficulty of crafting a law that catches those people while not catching people who share an address but nothing else.

Triggering the married tax rate on marriage seems like a reasonable compromise. If more and more people start living together as married without getting married, this tax loophole might have to be examined.

[Milo_Bloom]

329. Or just treat everyone equally

But why do that?

[GOTV]

322. Handled above n/t

[NoSheep]

75. No shit. I'm thinking WHAT THE FUCK is this person complaining about?

[Numba6]

170. "the rich are different from you & me," said F.Scott...

"yeah, they're fuckin' whiny assholes," said Ernie

[noiretextatique]

7. eom

[nichomachus]

11. Well, you could just continue to live together without marriage

But there are penalties for that too. So, it's your choice.

I have the worst of both worlds. I'm in a same sex marriage. So, I'm single for the feds, but married for the state and not only does that create a nightmare at tax time, we get screwed worse than married couples -- and get no federal benefits -- although we do have many of the obligations of married couples, like being responsible for each other's debts.

You have it easy.

[Aloha Spirit]

12. Unfortunately, sometimes couples who are both high earners are looking at

higher taxes than if they were single... but in this case, the mortgage interest deduction will go from 33% to 28%, right?... you'd have to have a huge mortgage for that to be several thousand dollars extra out of your pockets.
I would ask your accountant before making a decision...
As far as not being fair... if you were to file single or head of household with that income, I don't think you'd qualify for the 33% anyway...

[Milo_Bloom]

29. Head of household is one of the worst things you can file as.

We went over this with our accountant several years ago.


Here is what I don't understand. If couples making over 250K is the limit... why is it not singles making over 125K???

Why do single people get to earn up to 200K??

[dkf]

165. Probably because 125k isn't good for PR.

Its ripe for misrepresentation from the Repubs.

[kiva]

13. Perhaps it's to level the field a bit.

On the surface it may seem unfair but consider those who live alone or singles with kids. Housing costs? A handful of married couples have two residents, but the vast majority live in one home; single people don't get a 'half-off' of rent or house payments because they are a one-income entity. Utilities may be slightly higher with two than with one, but many (power, water, phone) have a base rate no matter how little you use. Car insurance, homeowners/rental insurance generally give major breaks for couples rather than two singles. Honestly, a couple doesn't pay twice the living expenses of one person with a similar lifestyle, let alone a single parent with children--consider how much it would cost you or your fiance to live separately (note: or maybe you do, I apologize if I'm assuming). Now should this be a consideration of the government when it comes to taxes? Don't know, but it's an interesting question.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Just get married and pay your fucking taxes

Jesus Christ. We're trying to have a society here.

[ecstatic]

20. lol. harsh! nt

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Uhh... no.

We were thinking of doing it b/c we had a kid.. but this pretty much put an end to that discussion.

[annabanana]

64. I sure hope neither of you gets deathly ill. .

Who will make the medical decisions?. . child care decisions?

[Milo_Bloom]

70. We have contracts in place for that.

[Exilednight]

110. Bad news for your contract. If you become terminally ill, your child's mother has no right ........

to make that decision. By law it will automatically fall to your closest living relative.

Child care is different, but only if your name is on the birth certificate.

[Milo_Bloom]

120. Not according to our lawyer.

[fartiste]

179. umm, medical power of attorney? living will? n/t

[Exilednight]

202. A medical power of attorney only holds up if ............

your next of kin can not be notified in a timely matter.

A living will is the only real option, but you need to make sure that all your Is are dotted, and Ts crossed. Something else to think about, a living will also takes all the decisions out of the hands of your significant other. You've made the decision, not your life partner.

If your something in your life has changed, then you better be sure to update your living will.

Also, in several states a living will only takes over when your next of kin can not be notified in a timely matter. This particular law changes from state to state, and in some cases county by county or city by city. If you're on vacation in a different state that doesn't recognize a living will as a legal status of a predetermined decision and you have to go on life support, then all the preparation in the world is all of not.

[fartiste]

204. thank you for the clarification n/t

[Zuiderelle]

277. Your contracts mean jackshit compared to marriage. I know, my partner and I have all those contracts

And my blood relatives can contest any of them and get them thrown out.

I understand why you think it's a marriage penalty, but YOU HAVE THE OPTION to marry or not. Weigh the pros and cons and make a decision. Marriage is a contract that comes with a crapload of federal benefits. I wish I had the option of deciding whether the marriage "penalty" was worse than not being able to protect my family is.

[Milo_Bloom]

308. It is a choice you ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to make.

I worked very hard to defeat prop 8, so don't think I take this lightly.

With our contracts, we had our parents sign off on them as well... It was done all very neat and tidy.

[Zuiderelle]

310. And if you didn't have such obliging parents it still wouldn't be an option.

Not to mention any other blood relative. Did you have all of them sign?

It's nice that you have the choices you have.

[Milo_Bloom]

312. Yes, I freely admit I am very lucky.

We didn't have too many blood relatives, so it was easy. Also everything we own is owned jointly so it passes upon death.

[Zuiderelle]

313. Glad you know how lucky you are. I hope you understand why so few sympathize with you over the few

hundred dollars you would have to pay for this marriage "penalty." I would love to be able to benefit from being married and filing with my spouse. I would love to at least have the choice.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

69. Don't get married...

Seriously. If your commitment to each other is such that you'd consider even for a moment not getting married because of the tax consequences, you have absolutely no business getting married.

And take the kid out back and shoot him in the head. The costs of raising a child far outweigh any tax benefits.

[Milo_Bloom]

71. Give up the sanctimonious crap.

Either you are committed to each other or you aren't. Entering a contract codified by the state doesn't and shouldn't change the way you feel about each other. If you have enter into a state sponsored contract to let the other person know how you feel, well, I feel kinda sorry for you.

Most marriages don't last as long as our non-marriage.

You know what the number one thing people fight about in a marriage? MONEY.

Maybe if more people stopped and CONSIDERED tax consequences more relationships would survive.

[NoSheep]

84. So your problem is...?

[Milo_Bloom]

115. Inequitable treatment

Society expects people to get married.

However, they have set the tax code to, in some cases, punish people who choose to do so.

[cemaphonic]

91. "Maybe if more people stopped and CONSIDERED tax consequences more relationships would survive"

I rarely do this, but ... lol.

Post of the day.

Seriously though - I have a hippie uncle (in some ways anyway - certainly much more affluent than most hippies) who finally got married after nearly 20 years of living with his wife. They finally got married on the advice of their accountant, so it's not as if there aren't financial (as well as some of the others that people have listed) benefits to marriage as well, although it probably does depend on where you live, and what your income sources are.

[Milo_Bloom]

119. It does cut both ways.

A few years ago when we got our accountant, he laughed when we told him that he would decide whether we got married or not.

We told him to run our taxes both ways and see how it worked out. There was a large and clear difference (getting married would cost us 7K PER YEAR b/c of the AMT). If the situation were different or we lived in a different state, we probably would have had a different answer.

A lot of that extra money went to democratic candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

96. Are you fucking serious?

"Either you're committed or you're not"

Clearly, you're not. If you're going to let paying a little extra in taxes every year determine the course of your life.

What if your spouse gets sick. Dump her right? Not worth the extra expense?

You are a contemptible human being.

[Milo_Bloom]

116. Yes, very serious.

"Clearly, you're not. If you're going to let paying a little extra in taxes every year determine the course of your life."

Whether we get married or not doesn't change the "course of my life".

The only reason we considered it was because our parents wanted us to "get married" because of the kid. Being "married' means very little to us, since it doesn't actually MEAN anything. However, we were willing to do it for our parents, provided there weren't serious consequences from it.

In our case (and this isn't all cases) it would cost us thousands of dollars a year.


The only contempt I see is the contempt you have for people who can be committed to one another without going through a state sponsored contract.

[GinaMaria]

125. Don't get married for anyone else but yourselves

You have already figured out what works and doesn't work for your relationship. Others need to bud out, even parents. Some people place a higher value on money and others place a higher value on emotions/feelings. Nothing wrong with either one. We need the diversity in thinking to create a balance between the two, imho.

Only get married because you really want to. Just live your life the way that works best for you. We should all have the freedom to do that. We'd all be a lot happier and healthier.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

149. Horsecrap....

I know plenty of people who have been together for decades without being married -- they're called gay. I have other friends in committed relationships for years who haven't been married because they don't believe in it. And I respect them for their committment.

I don't know which is worse, your wanting to get married because Mommy and Daddy want you to, or your not wanting to get married because it might have to part with a tiny slice of your net worth.

Jesus, you're pathetic.

[Milo_Bloom]

153. Pathetic is you trying to justify your anger.

Why don't you just admit you misread the post and get on with your life instead of trying to find something to be angry about?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

160. If I gave a shit about you...

I might be angry.

As it is, I find your lame existence more amusing than anything.

I find it amusing that you come on a liberal website, pissing and moaning about having to pay more taxes on your $1.5 million gross income.

Were you really expecting sympathy?

[Milo_Bloom]

163. You sure do swear a lot for someone who isn't angry.

Now, let's further get some things straight with you..

I don't want "sympathy"... nor did I ever ask for it. My personal "problem" is solved. We ain't getting married.

However, it is time for people to stop lying about their not being a marriage penalty, because it exists and Obama is going to make it worse by writing it clear as day into his plan.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

173. I'm fucking blissed out is what I am....

nt

[Milo_Bloom]

184. That explains the swearing.

[GOTV]

290. Paying your progressive share of taxes is not a penalty.

Why should a single person of the same income, who cannot split any of their bills, pay the same taxes as a married couple who can split everything?

When I moved in with my mate, I couldn't believe the extra money we suddenly had.

So I didn't run around screaming "mine! mine! mine!" at tax time.

[Milo_Bloom]

295. How is it not a penalty?

when the exact same two people have to pay more for doing nothing than changing the state recognized title of their relationship, that is a penalty.

[GOTV]

323. Duties are not penalties. You should pay your share according to your ability to pay ....

... it's not cool that you can realize the financial efficiencies of living together and claim that the increase in taxes is somehow a penalty. You would have others, single people, poorer people, pay that instead even though it would hurt them more than for you to share your increased disposable income with your country.

[pipi_k]

167. I seriously doubt that marriages are breaking up over

tax consequences.

Rather, the money issues they fight about have to do with the how, when, and why money is spent. Money means many different things to many different people. Some are savers, some are spenders, some are a little of both, etc. As long as there isn't any real poverty, money issues spring from the attitudes of the marriage partners themselves...not from outside sources.


I do have a suggestion for you though...if I understand you correctly, you and your fiance would be penalized for getting married because your incomes go above a certain level?

Why not have one of you give up working that many hours or get a different job or whatever, to bring the income level down to where there would be no penalty?

If that's the problem, I mean...

[NoSheep]

78. Here. Here's a cheese sandwich.n/t

[mockmonkey]

97. That is....

the funniest thing I have read on here in weeks.:rofl:

[Yavin4]

220. Post of the Year

Congratulations. I'm still laughing as I type this. :rofl:

[dana_b]

314. LOLOL

:rofl: thank you for the belly laugh!

[Exilednight]

109. I don't have kids, so I should be exempt from paying for your kids education. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

117. Why would that be?

We didn't have kids until last year and have paid all our property taxes (which go mostly to education) without complaint.

Again, keep in mind I am not objecting to the actual increase... I am objecting ONLY to the fact that it is being implimented inequitably.

[Exilednight]

118. I could also argue that ..........

there is an implimented inequality to paying for someone else's child's education.

[janx]

38. Are we still nominating for DUZY awards?

:rofl:

This deserves a nomination!

[mix]

60. well said

eom

[Emit]

67. LOL!!

funny! :toast:

[DevonRex]

15. So together you make $300,000 taxable income annually? Go fly a kite.

And you've been engaged for 11 years? Who does that?

[4lbs]

23. 11 years? In some states, they would be considered "common law" married after 7 years.

n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

24. No, that isn't the way it works.

To become common law married you have to hold yourself out as a married couple.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Only 11 states allow common law marriages.

[DevonRex]

30. Yep. And I no more feel sorry for them than I do my sister and her husband

who ALSO complain about how high their taxes are. But they just happen to be REPUBLICANS so they have an excuse. They're stupid.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Great attitude.

How DARE you make money. "Go fly a kite"

As for "who does that". We did that. Heck, we had a kid too.

[DevonRex]

28. Look, you've got people on this board who have lost almost everything.

And you're complaining about paying more taxes when your taxable income is over $300,000???

And it just so happens that THIS year is when you planned to get married, after being engaged for 11 years?

I'm not buying it.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. I really don't care what you buy or don't buy.

For the 20th time, I am not complaining about the increase... I am complaining about the inequitable implimentation of it. If you want to hit families making 250 or more.. fine, but apply it to singles making 125 or more.

The REASON we were going to get married this year is our son was born last year.

[prolesunited]

77. And you are getting extra deductions

just for procreating. Should I start a thread on how I'm getting screwed cause I don't have any kids to deduct? The tax system is clearly weighted on those who don't have children.

[dana_b]

315. or if you rent

although I KNOW that conversation has been beaten to death around here.

[Numba6]

159. "yeah, it's not the money it's the PRINCIPLE! Give me back my nickel!"

How many times have we heard some rich asshole bitch about pennies when they buy their hummer?

[CreekDog]

17. you're right

i guess life isn't fair now. :cry:

[asphalt.jungle]

18. the business does about 300k and you have 0 expenses?

what kind of business is that?

[Milo_Bloom]

33. The 300K is the net profit

Gross rev is about 1.5M

[NoSheep]

79. Congratulations! Now get a clue.

[ecstatic]

19. I get what you're saying... an individual making 200k is doing far

better than an entire family making 250k... although both are still RICH! lol

[Lucky Luciano]

252. $200K per year is not rich.

Hell - I make about that much (or made until I got laid off) and in Manhattan, I have a middle class lifestyle. I get to take an interesting vacation when I have time off and eat at a nice restaurant on the weekends, but that is the only perk. I live in a 600 sq ft one bedroom with outrageous rent. If I lived in Eugene, OR like my brothers, I could have the same lifestyle on $90K per year. My brother's rent in Eugene is the same as my parking fees (The car is going to go though - recession and all).

[Born_A_Truman]

22. Example given: $700 more (split it $350/each) and get married!

Taxpayers would still be allowed to claim itemized deductions, but beginning in 2011, only at a maximum rate of 28 percent, instead of the higher 33 percent and 35 percent tax rates in place for top income brackets.

In other words, a household that's in the top tax bracket claiming $10,000 in itemized deductions would have only $2,800 knocked off their tax bill (28 percent), instead of $3,500 now (35 percent) -- a difference of $700.

According to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, only about 3.4 percent of the 106.7 million personal tax returns filed in 2006 were subject to the 33 percent and 35 percent tax rates.

Some critics have said the current system favors the wealthy, because itemized deductions are worth less to families in lower tax brackets.


~~~~~~
When I married my husband it was the last year each of us could claim "head of household" as my youngest and his only child were 18 when we married. Add to losing that tax status and combine our
income: his teaching salary and my income, and we got slammed that first year. It wasn't a marriage penalty as much as it was going from HOH to married/jointly. It would have been equally as hard if we hadn't married as we would both have had to file single.

I never mind paying taxes. As a single mother years ago I was on AFDC and had Medical and had two cancer surgeries. I like to think I've repaid California many times over and hopefully helped another in need as I was once.

[windbreeze]

36. You deserve kudos...

I believe this is the first time I have EVER heard anyone say something so gracious, in regards to paying taxes, and being thankful for doing so....IF we could all look at things this way, what a neat world this would be......wb

[Born_A_Truman]

45. Thank you windbreeze

How could I not be grateful to others whose tax dollars paid to save my life and support me and my two girls and then resent it when I was able to pay it back? This was 32 years ago and I haven't forgotten. I never will.

[kirby]

32. Hasn't the AMT already limited your deduction?

Many times the AMT reduces the itemized deductions anyhow.

I think we also need to realize that home ownership, while important, is the bubble that got us into this mess. By limiting deductions, maybe speculation can be lessened.

Gotta love all the class warfare on this board. You are a brave person to post any sort of financial details here. Doing so seems to entitle everyone to bash your income, lifestyle, etc.

[Milo_Bloom]

35. That was why we hadn't gotten married before...

Combined we hit the AMT in CA and would have owed an additional 7-10K per year from 2003-> present.

There actually was a magic number we could hit we were better off stopping doing business (It was something like if we made $247,000 combined we were better off than if we made $260 b/c of the AMT, which always baffled me.

Because we had a kid last year, we were considering taking that hit just to make things easier than the complex contractual thing we have going on now, but we are just not willing to get hosed like that.

Yeah, I forget sometimes that people take it personally if you do well. I guess I would think that someone who many people think "should" be a republican supporting democrats would be a good thing and I specifically said I am not objecting to limiting the deduction, just the inequitable implimentation of it (I also think the GOP will have a field day with it calling it a marriage penalty).

[hileeopnyn8d]

42. So basically

what you're saying is you base all your life decisions on tax code. Both this and your OP seem to indicate that.

I do understand what you're talking about in your original post, but I don't have an answer for you.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Yes, unfortunately, money rules many decisions.

People may think we are "rolling in money" at our current income, but the reality is we have very little in savings and between mortgage and student loans and debts from starting our business.. we pretty much go month to month.

[NoSheep]

81. Then maybe you shouldn't have had children. I think it is unfair that

my tax dollars might be helping to pay for something your kids are benefiting from. Don't you see how this is such a self centered standpoint you are taking here?

[Milo_Bloom]

122. You obviously haven't read what I said.

I am not arguing AGAINST the tax. I am ALL FOR raising taxes on those making over 250K per year.

I am arguing against the inequitable implimentation of that tax.


Why should a family making over 250K per year be treated different than 2 people living together making 350K per year?!?

[NoSheep]

80. WHERE, exactly, does FAIR start in your book?

:popcorn: I mean, how much do my tax dollars pay in to making your business a success? What is your business?

[Milo_Bloom]

121. Your tax dollars do not pay for my business.

And my business, is none of yours.

Fair starts with equitable treatment.

Society shouldn't ask/except people to get married and then punish them via the tax code.

If you want to set the exemption at 250 per household, make it 125 per individual.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Expenses are higher for singles than families.

It costs more for a single to eat even in the home. Only receive one exemption.

I'm sure there are other aspects that make living as a single much higher than couples or families.

But, this part I would consider important only for those with an income much less than the $200,000 or $250,000.

[spooky3]

50. agree -- see my post #46

For other small examples - a household needs/wants one cable system, one vacuum cleaner, one landline phone, etc., whether there are two people or one. Even energy usage for two is less than twice what it is for one person.

[slackmaster]

39. Nobody needs that much money

It's not fair to everyone else that you and your wife are doing so well.

:hide:

[Milo_Bloom]

40. LOL

Thanks! I needed the laugh!

[dcindian]

41. I wonder if it has to do with families generally having more deductions?

It does seem somewhat like a penalty to me.

A single person uses less of his 200k for basic living expenses then a family at 250k. The single person ends up with more disposable income and is better off then the family yet gets treated the same.


Good job on the business keep it up!

[JamesA1102]

43. Not true.

A single person making an equal salary, living in an equivalent home and with the same number of dependents acutally has less disposable income. Plus married people get other breaks on things like Health Insurance.

[dcindian]

44. True I assumed single = 1 married > 1

I bet for the most part the government assumes that too?

It would seem then the logical thing to do would be anyone with a dependent gets to file as married.

Or get rid of the whole married thing and just go with number of dependents.

[JamesA1102]

255. I was refering to the disposable income part

not the deductions.

[Milo_Bloom]

49. Break on health insurance? Actually EXACTLY the opposite is true for us.

Our company has a health insurance plan and allows for "domestic partners"... Here is how it breaks down.

If we sign up as married/domestic partner, it would cost $1400 per month.

If we sign up as two individual employees (and one of us takes our kid as a dependent) it is $900 per month.

[JamesA1102]

254. That is true for you and many others.

But for many people it is not. It all depends on the company and their health coverage.

[hulklogan]

48. I guess this is one advantage us gays have even though we can't get married.

I don't think we should be treating married people differently in taxes at all, whether it is unfair as your situation is or a marrieds only benefit.

[TahitiNut]

51. Gee. Too bad you're not gay. Then it wouldn't be a problem, right?

:eyes:

I suspect that gays in California aren't much concerned about the terrible inequities of being married.

:shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

53. So one inequity excuses another?

I love that reasoning.

[Mr. Sparkle]

55. You have it better than most in the country, i really wouldn't complain.

[treestar]

56. Have kids

Your taxes go up when you get married, but once you have kids you are eligible for all sorts of deductions and you are better off than anyone, married or single. Unless you are too well off to feel that, but for most people, that is the end of it. I guess the government figures two can live as cheaply as one and is still in the 50s about people living together without being married.

[Kdillard]

57. I would consult a tax expert before putting the breaks on

the wedding plans. I thought you could be married but file separately. I would see if that option would work out for you guys since separately you make 150,000. Or as someone suggested above perhaps you could change what your business is filed under. It could be as easy as doing either of those things and you are worried for nothing. In any case good luck in figuring out what is best for your family. I do understand about wanting a fair dealing.

[Top Cat]

58. Stop complaining you are better off than the majority of the Americans

I would trade my HH income with you any day.

[onenote]

59. my wife asked exactly the same thing -- why the disproportionate line?

Not complaining or anything else, just wondering if there was a particular reason or explanation being offered.

[Aloha Spirit]

62. If you look at the tax tables, the 33% federal tax rate currently kicks in

for individuals at 171,000.
For married filing joint at 209,000.
So, this is my udnerstanding:
Under those taxable income levels, people are already paying at 28% and getting 28% on deductions (edit--or less, depending on what tax bracket...)
Above that, you're paying at 33 and getting 33 on itemized deductions.
So, you can't roll back someone's deductions from 33% to 28% if they're already at 28%.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-08-66.pdf

Now, if you want to ask why are the tax brackets that way, I don't have any clever ideas for ya.

[mix]

61. you both make more money

than 98% of americans (look it up)

i live in a county with poverty rates near 25%, out of a population of only 30,000, child poverty is around 35%

we need more income equality, not less, which is what your concern amounts to

no sympathy here

[Milo_Bloom]

63. Again...

This complaint is NOT about the increase.

My complaint is about it being applied inequitably.

I believe they should keep it at 250K for families and REDUCE it to 125 for single people, so as to make it equitable.

[mix]

65. yer story's odd

eom

[jbnow]

86. You were clear. People are distracted by the big numbers (nm)

[dbmk]

98. Exactly

A lot of people here attack the OP just because him and his loved one has a good income. Instead of trying to answer the, on its face reasonable and understandable, question.

Questioning his love for his partner because of it is just beyond unreasonable.

He is obviously more than willing to pay his fair share - just wondering how the definition of fair had come about in this particular case.

And some here has tried to explain it. The design in the tax code probably tries to take into account the advantages of combined households that marriage signifies, and that single persons are not able to take advantage of. A lot of expenses are not dependant on the number of person living together and they hit single people harder.

And in the interest of keeping the red tape down, they can't take every little specific into account. So in some cases, from a pure economical perspective, that might put some people and their arrangments in a position where they are hit harder or the opposite - from making what appears to be a simple rearrangment that has nothing to do with economics.

I am pretty confident they are not trying to punish marriage. They are probably trying to avoid effectively punishing singles.

[Milo_Bloom]

123. Thank you!!

Very reasonable response (one of the few).

It is nice to see people actually read for a change.

I know Obama isn't trying to punish marriage, but you also know that the GOP is going to hammer this point really hard and call it a marriage penalty... and honestly, that is how I see it.

The fact that my fiance/girlfriend/partner (whatever she is) and I will be treated differently than our neighbors (who did get married) bothers me. At the same time I am not going to just fall on the proverbial sword to make it equitable and get married and pay more just because... I would rather them fix the tax code and make it equitable.


At the end of the day, I think they aren't going to be able to get this change through, because the GOP is going to go absolutely nutz over it and say that Obama is against marriage and I think they (Obama and the democrats) need to consider the political implications of what they are proposing here.

[Lucky Luciano]

256. Give it up - you will not get much sympathy from anyone.

If you make decent money, a lot of people here will consider you a bad person and not listen to your question.

As for your situation, your complaint sounds reasonable. Not sure if the ratio should be 250:125 instead of 250:200 as there are benefits of being married that save money (though not for you since you are effectively married). It is just a silly state contract. You love each other and are committed - as far as I am concerned you are married.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. I disagree. Two can live more cheaply than one.

As a single person I have many of the same fixed costs you and your spouse do.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. This isn't true.

I keep seeing people say this, but it simply isn't true. A single person can live as cheaply as a couple if they make similar choices.

A single person can get a roommate and make their expenses equal to those of a couple.

[Hello_Kitty]

74. Ah, but you are emotionally attached to your "roommate"

Whereas, I am stuck with the luck of the draw, personality-wise. Big difference. No, really, I mean, BIG difference!

[Milo_Bloom]

124. Is it a big difference?

You can interview a roommate...Get rid of ones that annoy you and some roommates become best friends.

Most marriages end in divorce.

[raebrek]

271. I don't believe most marriages end in divorce.

The operative word being most.

Raebrek!!!

[NoSheep]

82. So why don't you and your partner take in a boarder? Or laundry?

[WinkyDink]

195. With a house and a yard in suburbia? I don't THINK so. "Can get a roommate" just like that, huh?

[GOTV]

291. Yeah, or they can get married - but until they do their expenses are higher ....

... for an equivalent lifestyle and so it's fine that their taxes are lower

[Milo_Bloom]

298. Huh?

You think 2 people living together have greater expenses than 2 people married?

What expenses are higher?

[GOTV]

325. No. A single person can go out and find someone to marry/live with.

[OwnedByFerrets]

68. Same reason I, as a single person with no children, dont get

the same benefits as those who have 14 kids get. Its the law. Want it changed? Just a matter of convincing congress to change laws.

[Hellataz]

73. I have no sympathy for anyone or couple making that much money and bitches about paying a small hike

in taxes. There are family out there working their ass off and struggling paycheck to paycheck who don't bitch about the $100-$300 taken out of their paychecks every other week in taxes and some people have the nerve to bitch about their taxes being raised a few measly percentage points in order to help save this country economy...BOO freak'in HOO! Suck it up!

But i agree there should be a change in the structure, so that a family making $250,000 get the tax hike as do Individual's making over $100,000 a year.

Does anyone understand that the average family doesn't even make close to that?

Federal min Wage = $7.25 x 40 Hrs Per week (full time) X 52 weeks = $15,080 x 2 (2 working parent household) = $30,160 BEFORE TAXES

So excuse me if i can't feel the pain for families or individuals in the hundred thousand dollar plus bracket.

[dbmk]

99. Its not about the hike

But about the difference. Its a fair question.

I am pretty sure the OP has compassion for those earning much less. And its pretty clear he has little problem with paying more. He just doesn't understand why would suddenly come into play from this reaarangment in his personal life.

He definately does not deserve to be flipped of, just because he wants to understand why something is fair. Deserving fairness is hardly income dependant.

Pretty sure he was not looking for compassion, so I am sure he can live without yours.

[Hellataz]

194. If the OP had no problem with paying the tax hike then there wouldn't even be this thread.

the point isn't about the differences in tax structure it's that so much don't take that making over even $100,000 puts you in a place where you aren't allowed to bitch about paying taxes when the majority of americans barely get by.

You want to call into question my compassion, well what about those who bitch about paying a small hike what ever the reasons are while others don't bitch about their paying their share while earning less then $30,000 a year. That's the REAL loss of compassion.

[dbmk]

199. Lets just be clear here

I did certainly not "call into question your compassion".
You said you were not affording any to this person, and I said he could probably do without.
Can't say I spare him much either. On the scale of things it is certainly a tiny problem to have.

But the OPs problem was not about paying more or paying his fair share. he was just trying to find out why that fair share changed with his marital status.
We pay what the tax mans says we must and no more, and we expect others to pay their reasonable share too, all depending on tax brackets and what have you.
If we can't understand why we must pay more because of a given situation, then I think that would make any of us raise the question - regardless of income level. It might very well be an issue that comes into play any given income level. Why are married couples taxed differently than singles?

The OP can't understand why - can't understand the fairness of it. I think plenty here has answered why that is, and that maybe the OP might not have had all the numbers in the calculation.
He can take that information and do what he finds preferable. Just telling him "you are rich, suck it up" is not exactly winning any friends or doing the idea of higher taxes on those with higher incomes any good.

I can understand your objection, but to stop people from relating their issues with a piece of legislation or a situation, because it might hurt the sensibilities of people in a less fortunate position seems to me to be a slightly uneducative and narrow approach to a debate.

[Hellataz]

206. I understand the point, but i had an objection to the point being raised at all.

In the heart of the matter, people trying to figure out a reason why they have to do something doesn't always boil down to the best intentions, it's often they are annoyed with having to do something (aka pay higher taxes) and thus need to look for a reason to cut that new policy down.

Maybe that's not the intention of the OP, but I have been consistently seeing it across the board with people who are well off and it has made me a bit irritated on the topic, so you'll have to excuse the "you're rich suck it up" attitude i may be sporting. Cause when it's all said and done and you've seen the poverty and suffering I've seen, you might understand why i have little patience for anyone who bitches about paying a little more in taxes during an economic meltdown being felt by so many except those who are bitching.

I did say in my first post the OP had a point, but in a backwards way. They thought that married people's bracket should be larger to compare with the individual bracket. I happen to think it's the individual bracket that needs to be lowed, so that anyone making $100,000 or more gets a tax hike.

[NoSheep]

83. Do you get any tax credit for having children? If so, is that fair to those of us who don't?

Isn't that unfair? Should I start a thread raving about something so stupid as that? Oh I could go on and on!

[question everything]

85. Now, take a pen and paper

or use an Excel Spreadsheet and write down the expenses that you would spend individually - rent, grocery, utilities, etc. - if each has his/her own place to live.

Now see look at the expenses when you both live under one roof.

No such thing as a "marriage penalty." Living as a couple is a lot cheaper than living apart. What you may "lose" in taxes you gain in other fields.

"Marriage penalty" is an invention of rich, selfish Republicans who believe in "gimme, gimme" and never pay back.

[Milo_Bloom]

126. Yes, there IS a marriage penalty.

We already live together and split everything just as you said.


We pay X in taxes each year.

IF we get married we pay X + Y in taxes each year.


Y IS a marriage penalty.


If the simple act of getting married costs us more in taxes, it IS a marriage penalty.

[Grinchie]

88. How about your figure out the taxes both ways and look at the numbers...

Jesus.

Inequitable. What about a single mom with two children. Is that so hard to imagine? Is she married, or is she single? It's definately a family that needs the income.

Do the numbers like any businessman instead of whining about a perceived inequity like a republican. Be happy uyou have someone to share life with. The money is irrelevant.

[Milo_Bloom]

129. I did the numbers, that is the problem.

We pay significantly more in taxes if we choose to get married.

Same relationship. Same living situation. Same everything, except more taxes if married.

[Two Americas]

90. lol

And this will bring your plans to get married to a screeching halt?

I assume that you are already shacking up (11 year "engagement") and therefore dramatically economizing on living expenses. That is what the marriage tax rates assume - maintaining one household as opposed to two. So you have been getting a free ride of sorts.

[dsc]

92. You get several benefits from being married

You can add your spouse to your insurance tax free, we have to pay. Your Social Security is worth more than mine is. When one of you dies the other inherits tax free, doesn't work for me. I could go on but I think we have reached 700 bucks a year.

[Milo_Bloom]

147. Actually, we have the same benefits.

We registered as domestic partners, so we don't have to pay for her to be on my insurance (in fact it worked out cheaper to be two individuals, instead of having one of us as a dependent). SS is worth the same and we own EVERYTHING jointly, so when one dies, the other inherits tax free.

[dsc]

208. You pay federal income taxes on the value of that insurance

unless you are ripping off the government.

[Milo_Bloom]

211. No you don't.

[dsc]

218. Yes you do

If you are unmarried and your employer gives you benes they are taxable as income.

[Milo_Bloom]

222. Actually, no, I went over this with my accountant specifically.

As long as you are a registered domestic partnership... it is exactly the same as if you are married.

[dsc]

231. so on top of everything else

straight people who refuse to show committment to each other get a tax break that gays who show they are committed to each other can't. Honestly I can't sympathise with you a whit on this.

[Milo_Bloom]

245. So two wrongs make a right?

Also, are you actually suggesting that not getting "married" is refusing to show committment?

[dsc]

249. yes it is

sorry but I have pretty much zero sympathy for a group of people who willing choose not to get married and then piggy back on our hard won games to get the rights of marriage.

[Milo_Bloom]

281. Although you should ABSOLUTELY have the right to get married.

To suggest that marriage is the only way to show committment is completely idiotic.

Marriage is little more than a state recognized contract... one that is actually fairly easy to break and is broken quite often.

Real committment comes from the people involved, not some state sponsored contract.

[Zuiderelle]

280. Your accountant lied to you then. I pay TAXES on the BENEFIT of the domestic partner insurance

that I elected for my partner, that I would not have to pay if I were married. That amounts to THOUSANDS of dollars a year. I would gladly take any existing or proposed marriage "penalty" and save that money.

[PBS Poll-435]

335. If you are more than a 2% shareholder in your S-Corp, you absolutely pay federal income tax

On your health insurance and on the group life insurance in excess of $50,000.

[shaniqua6392]

93. I will speak for those of us who are married and only make about $50,000. per year....

STOP WHINING! My God in Heaven. I wish I had your "troubles". Maybe then I could afford to feed my family meat more than two days a week. Maybe I could afford college for my daughter who graduates next year. Maybe...Maybe...Maybe... Just get married. Pay your taxes. You will still be living better than 95% of the country.

[ncteechur]

94. Marry for love not money.

[freemarketer6]

95. Can someone explain why this insensitive post is not being

eviscerated? In this time of great economic collapse where millions are losing their jobs every day, where people are now killing their families then committing suicide because they have reached the end of their hellish tunnels, where only 4% of the US makes over 110,000 a year, someone who admits to making $250,000.00 or $300,000.00 is whining about having to suspend marriage plans because of inequitable treatment? I now begin to wonder...

[dbmk]

100. Because rich people are not bad people?

It might actually help to have a decent discussion on this.

Demonstrating how it is fair will give a lot of people the ammunition they need when they run into the same discussion with people that might be less partial to the Democratic Party or the progressive cause?

Or lets set an income limit on the matters that can be discussed from now on?

[Honeycombe8]

104. Being successful money-wise is not a sin or something to be ashamed of.

That's the American Dream for many.

No one is giving him his income. He and his partner are earning it.

Just like I earn mine, and I'm sure you earn yours. I picked a vocation (or ended up in one) that pays a certain amount. It's more than many get paid. It's less than many get paid.

Being wealthy is a good thing. It's what you do with it that matters. And I hope he's spending his expendable income! It's good for the economy.

[freemarketer6]

108. You miss the point.

dd

[Honeycombe8]

112. No, I really don't think I did. You're complaining that he's complaining about what you think is

a trivial matter, since so many are in dire straits right now.

I agree that it's kinda weird he'd base his marriage decision on $2,000, and that $2,000 should be a trivial thing to someone with his income. But the consequences of new tax laws are not really trivial, even when they matter only to a small percentage. Dems include wealthy people, as well as poor people. And we rely on wealthy people in these recession times to spend money to at least help the economy somewhat.

Their issues matter, too. Just because someone else has a more serious problem, doesn't make this one less important to him.

It's like commenting on Michele Obama's latest dress. A bit trivial in these times, but it is of interest to many (and to her). We can't always just talk about the most serious problems facing some of our citizens. There are other concerns and interests.

[namahage]

196. Except that he has been claiming that other peoples' concerns

such as the NYP cartoon, are trivial.

And yet he expects us to work up outrage over a perceived "marriage penalty" which only applies to those in his situation (high earnings that just happen to be around the threshold, no disparity in earnings, one household).

Were singles to be treated as exactly 1/2 of a married couple, as he seems to want, it would unfairly hit single-household singles, who pay a greater percentage of income to maintaining a household than two co-habitants would (of course, if this is a problem, they should just stop bitching and get a roommate). One inequality would be traded for another, as there would now be a tax incentive for "shacking up."

His argument that this would be turned into a Repuke talking point is also fairly weak. The Repubs would know better than to try to bitch about "marriage penalties" that affect only the top 5%.

In short, he wants "equality" only where he personally would be affected.

[WinkyDink]

114. "Being wealthy is a good thing." HIGHLY debatable, particularly among mainstream religions.

[flpoljunkie]

101. Is that your 'taxable income' or your 'adjusted gross income?'

February 27, 2009

DRILLING DOWN ON THE BUDGET
Tax Cuts

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON — As President Obama vowed during his campaign and again after the elections, the proposed budget would extend the Bush tax cuts for most households with taxable incomes below $250,000 but allow them to expire at the end of 2010 for families with incomes above that level.

The changes mean that the top tax rate for income between $250,000 and about $370,000 would climb from 33 percent to 36 percent, while the rate for income above $370,000 would climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. People at upper-income levels would also lose the 2003 Bush tax cuts for income from capital gains, and they would gradually lose the ability to take the personal tax exemptions.

Overall, the administration estimated that the combined effect of its tax policy would widen projected deficits over the next 10 years by $2.6 trillion, compared with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were all allowed to expire at the end of next year. In other words, the tax cuts far outweigh the tax increases. But the pain would not be distributed equally. People in the top 5 percent could see substantial increases in their tax bills, while most people below that level would see their taxes go down.

But the administration also included several twists, most of which would add to the tax burdens of upper-income people. The most notable is a new restriction on the value of tax deductions for people in the top two brackets, which is intended to finance a "reserve fund” for expanded health care. Under that proposal, a tax deduction would not be allowed to reduce a person’s taxable income by more than 28 percent of the deduction amount.

For example, if a couple in the top tax bracket has $50,000 in deductions like mortgage-interest payments and charitable contributions, their taxable income would only drop by 28 percent of that amount rather than by 39.6 percent.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html

[Milo_Bloom]

133. Taxable.

[JTFrog]

102. QQ

Seriously.

I hear this argument from republicans everyday. EVERY FUCKING DAY. What makes you think we want to hear it from you?

Equitably? Equitafuckinbly?

Of all the fucking inequalities in the world you thought this one would garner sympathy? You actually come in here complaining that YOU are being penalized for being rich and wanting to get married?

Equitably??????? Again, fucking Seriously? Do you really think that the cards are stacked against YOU?


JUST LEAVE MILO AND HIS HONEY'S MONEY ALONE!!!!!!

[Milo_Bloom]

134. What argument do you THINK you are hearing?

[JTFrog]

137. I see another rich mother fucker complaining about how UNFAIR his taxes are.

Even tho you are completely fucking wrong as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread.


Life is fucking unfair.

But you're little IMAGINED inequity problem is a fucking joke.

[Milo_Bloom]

139. See, I knew you didn't read the thread.

I am not complaing about MY TAXES.

I have no problem paying the increase as I have said many times.

I currently live with my partner and we do very well and work very hard (7 days a week, upwards of 10-12 hours a day).

We pay our taxes without complaint each year. (Although I hate the paperwork involved, even with an accountant there is much to gather and organize).

What I am complaining about is that our taxes would increase SIGNIFICANTLY if we did nothing more than get married. No other change.


that IS a marriage penalty and no one has proven otherwise.

[JTFrog]

140. IT'S SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UNFAIR!

Q fuckin Q

[Milo_Bloom]

142. It is unfair and it is a marriage penalty.

[JTFrog]

146. Only for your fucking tax bracket. Tough fucking shit. Stay single then.

There are much bigger inequalities in life to worry about.

See people here were IN FAVOR of the tax hike on folks who make the money you make. I don't think you're going to get far claiming how fucking UNFAIR it is to you.

[Milo_Bloom]

151. We are planning to.

We were doing it to make parents happy, as they don't like us "living in sin" with a child.. but we are not going to spend thousands extra per year to relieve their sensibilities.

However, it remains an inequity that shouldn't be written into the tax code.

[GOTV]

327. So your real problem is that the tax increase didn't kick in when you moved in together ...

... you just don't like that they're waiting until you married.

[Milo_Bloom]

330. The problem is with people who CLAIM there is no marriage penalty

When, in fact, there is.

[Honeycombe8]

103. Ummm....you DO know that single people pay a higher tax rate?

So it may be that the % of income taxes paid for a single person is that $200,000 of AGI is equal to about $250,000 of AGI that a married couple pays.

Isn't that a penalty for NOT being married?

[Milo_Bloom]

128. It depends upon income level

Check out the tax tables.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/2009-tax-tables.html

At the lower income levels there is no difference and at higher income levels you are better off single.

The advantage tips to married people who make around 80K per year each.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. Is that your income AFTER expenses? eom

[Honeycombe8]

106. Here's your answer: You STILL would paid thousands less if you got married.

EXAMPLE ONE:
Single person AGI $200,000. Interest deduction of $18,000. Property taxes of about $8,000. Federal income taxes owed under 2008 would be around $62,135 (or about 25% of your total income).

Married people AGI $250,000 filing jointly. Same interest and property taxes. Federal income taxes owed under 2008 would be around $53,804 (or about 21.5% of your total income).

You can extrapolate this out at higher incomes, and the results will be the same.

You can see that, even with a decrease in the mortgage interest deduction, married people would likely STILL pay thousands less in income taxes. A deduction is not like a credit, so it only partly affects the amount you pay in income taxes.

So if you REALLY want to base your relationship with the love of your life on whether you do or do not have to pay an extra $2,000 a year, then getting married is STILL the best way to avoid that. To stay single means you pay thousands because of a higher rate.

And I'm guessing that $2,000 a year doesn't mean THAT much to you, not like it does to millions of others. I'm gonna guess that that's less than you paid for your flat panel oversized TV. Maybe you're focusing on taxes too much, when it comes to your relationship? Tax laws change every year. What are you gonna do....get married, then divorced, then married, then divorced...based on the tax laws that year?

[Milo_Bloom]

132. NO, we wouldn't.

We have run the numbers with out accountant and we would pay signficantly more if we got married.

[Exilednight]

107. This has to be one of the more crazier posts I've seen on DU ............

You are aware that nearly 95% of small businesses make less than 250k per year, and nearly the same percentage of the population?

You make more in a week than most Americans make in six.

[Milo_Bloom]

135. I know I am lucky and appreciate it.

For fucks sake, I am not complaining about the tax increase!

I get it.

I pay more.

I am cool with that.


What I am not freakin cool with (and you are going to hear a hell of a lot more from it as this plan gets vetted on news shows) is that there is an actual penalty being paid for getting married and I am living proof of it.


My partner and I, filing seperately but living in the same household pay X in taxes each year.


IF we did nothing but get married we would pay X+at least $7,000 (even more under this new rule.. close to 10K according to our accountant)

No matter how you reason it out... THAT is a marriage penalty.


Here is what I advocate.

Increase the rate on families making 250K per year

AND

Increase the rate on individuals making 125K per year.



What I am COMPLAINING about is having a different rate for married people vs single people.

[JTFrog]

111. Don't you have something better to do than bitch about taxes? Like defend racist cartoonists?

At least we're seeing some consistent values here.

Every time I see this thread show up on the front page I just want to puke. It's so full of pukey values.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Forkboy]

113. Times have changed. We used to ask people their sign, not their tax bracket.

[Moostache]

127. Isn't 11-years of co-habitation a common law marriage anyway?

I really do not know the answer to that....just curious...all apologies if the co-habitation period is less than those 11 years...

[Milo_Bloom]

131. It's not.

Just living together doesn't make you married via common law UNLESS you held yourself out as married.

[Bluenorthwest]

136. perspective helps

I just got back from CA, much of it depressed and gutted, the rest of it still wallowing in excesses they can not see.
I've been with my partner for so long, we make you look like folks on a first date. Marriage is not available to us. To me, your arguments sound hollow and selfish, to be honest about it.

If equal treatment of couples is your deal, I'd like to know what kind of a stand you took against Prop 8. Seems you could have laid down one hell of a donation to fight it. Did you? Did you hit the streets, talk to friends? Vote against it even?

[Milo_Bloom]

138. Where I stand on Prop 8?

We donated THOUSANDS to defeat that fucking proposition.

Yes, I took to the streets, begged friends to donate and help. I worked with some people to produce videos against it that got hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube.

I spent nearly all of my time during the election working towards defeating it and frankly I cared more about defeating that abortion than I did getting the democrats into the white house and it pissed me off to no end that the pro-8 people were able to use Obama's image on their advertisements because he was against "gay marriage".

[Bluenorthwest]

143. Then thanks for all of it

And I take your stand as a principled one. Huge inequity in taxation is something I have lived with for many years. So I guess I'm not so suprised by this as you might be.
Just back from CA, where people of all incomes were nervous about the future of those incomes. All expect declines, especially those in your financial neck of the woods. If you are not, take great comfort in that. Seriously.
But all inequity is wrong, with that I agree.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

141. The purpose of taxation is to raise money to operate the government

and fund programs as determined by our elected representatives. The tax code tries, sort of, to be "fair" because the only way to get people to pay their taxes more or less voluntarily (not everybody can be audited) is to create at least the perception that the burden is shared somewhat fairly. Lately, of course, it hasn't been shared fairly at all, and that's pretty obvious. What the proposed changes are attempting to do include both: (1) raising more revenue, and (2) shifting more of the burden to the wealthier taxpayers. $250,000/year is a somewhat arbitrary figure, since depending on where you live, that amount might allow you to be just upper-middle-class -- or really well-off. So even the amount isn't really fair. I don't know how you design a tax code that is absolutely, 100% fair to everybody all the time. So maybe it's a little unfair to tax high-earning married couples as you describe, but we single people have been stuck with a lot of "unfairness," too, like paying for other people's kids' educations (which I do not resent in the least). So it seems to me that you can get married if a formalized relationship is important to you, or not, if the money is more important to you. But we will never see an absolutely fair all the time to everybody tax structure. This one is better, though, and I'm pleased with that.

[Milo_Bloom]

144. Fair answer.

I agree there are other inequities as well, such as those not availing themselves of the public education system paying for it (although I pay all those taxes without complaint each year).

I brought this up for 2 reasons.

First, I have often read on this board that there is "no such thing as a marriage penalty" and although I knew one existed because of the AMT, it was too complicated to argue about and most people don't understand it anyway. This one makes it very VERY clear that there IS a marriage penalty in the tax code. Two people living together pay less than the same two people married. It is time for people to stop claiming there is no such thing. And also, it ticks me off that doing what society asks us to (and getting married) would have significant financial consequences.


Second, you are going to hear this over and over from the right as this budget is debated and they are going to go straight for the marriage penalty language... so people better be comfortable with it and the reaction the average tax payer is going to have.

[Bluenorthwest]

152. The language around marriage that your post reminds me of

is all that 'Sacred Union' 'Holy Matrimony' talk. Some kind of Sacrament, that is blessed by bean counters and entered for financial advantage. I'm sure you agree, but just saying. Most straight marriages I know are like yours, greatly timed and maintainted for financial reasons, if not soley, at least greatly.
Marriage penalty language? How about painting marriage as both holy and in need of tax breaks to be worthwhile? Let them try it. They want to have their host and eat it too.

[Milo_Bloom]

157. Yeah, as you can imagine, I don't go for the sacred union thing!

However, at the same time, I really feel that marriage should be a choice people enter into outside of financial considerations.

I know people who stay together solely BECAUSE of tax breaks they get and/or because it is too expensive to get divorced. One couple lives completely sperately, but still file as a couple b/c of what they can do.

But, then I am someone who wants to trash this entire tax code and write something actually fair and equitable... tax corporations properly and make sure individuals pay their fair share.

Marriage, as far as I am concerned, shouldn't come with a direct financial beneift OR cost. It should be revenue neutral. Death benefits, insurance benefits, sure... but let the direct revenue impact remain even.

[zulchzulu]

145. I presume you have a decent accountant

If you're incorporated as an LLC, there are plenty of deductions to offset a fairly minimal tax increase.

Also, if having to shell out some coin for taxes is going to stop you from getting married, consider if marriage is even worth it based on that excuse. Many people get married knowing they are broke. Their love is a little deeper than seeing that some taxes might have to be paid.

[Numba6]

148. gosh, your life must just suck

[Lucky Luciano]

258. Funny thing about these pics is the fact

that those kids would probably consider you a rich greedy corporatist if they were politically minded. You know - you living in an apartment with beds and rice to eat every day and all. It is all relative. They would not want to hear you bitching about your "first world economic dilemmas" such as possibly making "as little as $30,000 per year."

[LWolf]

150. I don't think it's a "penalty"

to tax people equally whether or not they are married. I see taxing couples at a lower rate as cultural bigotry, myself. A culture that values marriage above independence, even when so few couples are able to stay married, when so many marriages are dysfunctional, and so many marriages do financial as well as personal harm when they end.

Either that, or, if married couples get a benefit, then any group of people combining resources to maintain one household should get the same benefit, regardless of marriage or the relationship between them.

I'm not against marriage, but I am against the automatic assumption that marriage should be the goal of the majority, and that somehow, the two-income household shouldn't pay taxes at the same rate as the rest.

What I'd really like to see is a carbon tax on children, myself. With the deductions going to people who don't have children, and lesser deductions to those who don't have more than 2. I can't think of a better way to encourage our citizens to stop overpopulating the planet than to tax them more for doing so.

But that's just me. ;)

[Milo_Bloom]

158. It sounds like we agree!

I think the tax should be the tax whether or not people get married or stay single.

[LWolf]

166. That we do.

:hi:

[Numba6]

154. Why not marry this one, your tax deduction is safe

[Milo_Bloom]

161. Because they are not.

Why get married?

[NC_Nurse]

155. I don't think it's a good idea to get married or not get married based on money.

Just my .02

[JTFrog]

156. But, it's all about the bottom line. And it better be a fair one at that.

:eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

164. Yeah, it should be fair.

[Milo_Bloom]

162. Why not?

Seriously.

Most marriages end in divorce and the number 1 thing people fight about is money.

If two people live together in a committed relationship, share everything, but entering into a state sponsored contract would cost them thousands of dollars per year, why should they do it?


If the sole act of getting married would have significant negative impact, why shouldn't that be a consideration?

[NC_Nurse]

177. Then don't get married. What's the problem? Nobody's forcing you. What I'm

saying is, the decision needs to be about whether being married is important to you. There are pros and
cons of marriage in many areas, financial and otherwise. If finances were my main concern, I wouldn't have done it.
Tax break or not.

[WheelWalker]

190. Monetary considerations are not worthy predicates for life decisions.

You have said it yourself, that many marriages fail over financial issues. You are simply showing what you value: money.

[WheelWalker]

189. I'll add two and make that four cents.

I took a vow of poverty in 1967. Monetary considerations are not worthy predicates for life choices.

[Numba6]

168. 167 replies to help some rich guy get out of taxes. How may replies to an "I need a job" post, I won

wonder

[Milo_Bloom]

169. You misread the post.

No one is trying to get out of taxes.

[Numba6]

171. You are misreading the times

why all this help for some rich asshole who don't wanna pay taxes?

[Milo_Bloom]

172. Because there was no objection to paying taxes

You need to read before objecting.

[Hello_Kitty]

175. Yes there is.

You are objecting to the higher taxes you would pay as a married person. You are forgoing getting married because of it.

[Milo_Bloom]

201. An objection to a hypothetical???

I am going to pay whatever taxes I owe at the end of the year. The wedding was hypothetical. We had discussed it, but this pretty much closed the door.

I used this as an example to PROVE that there is, in fact, a marriage penalty.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

174. cry me a fucking river. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

176. Yeah, maybe I suppose. I'm okay with it. n/t

[fartiste]

178. I agree with you

It is a marriage penalty and it certainly does suck...

The tone of most of these replies reeks of class envy.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fartiste]

185. eek

so sorry!--I erroneously thought since I'm a registered Democrat, Obama volunteer & voter, and rather passionately (in real life, mind you) committed to environmentalism, abortion rights, animal welfare, and public radio -- I thought this would entitle me to post an opinion on a message board called Democratic Underground.

I can't find my earlier posts, can you please enlighten me as to what in them condemns me as a freeptard?

It is the pettiness, the snottiness that I find disturbing, not the opinions themselves.

[JTFrog]

186. If you donated to the site you could find em yourself.

Nothing more petty and snotty than accusing folks of having class envy.

But anyone that throws around terms like "hilbama!!" and "go barillary!!" is POSING.

[fartiste]

188. poser?

but i liked them both! i was very torn during the primary and it was never a bitter either/or for me.

[Hello_Kitty]

193. And then you spew some bullshit about "class envy"

Try committing yourself to economic social justice for a while, along with your other pursuits.

[WinkyDink]

198. "It is the pettiness, the snottiness that I find disturbing": Bush spoke in self-reference, too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

183. you cant buy class with money dear. nt

[WinkyDink]

197. "Class envy": The canard spewed by greedy high-wage-earners against the poor.

[JTFrog]

200. You would have been better off leaving the sock in the drawer. n/t

[noamnety]

180. Of all the inequalities in the world to get bent out of shape about

you pick the oppression of (straight) married people with incomes of 300K?

Do you get that some people can't legally get married at all? At least you have a choice.
Do you get that some people can't find any job at all? And you are coming here whining about how you might be taxed on income of 250k?
Do you get that a lot of people who HAVE jobs spend 10 years trying to earn what you earn in a single year?
You get that some people aren't allowed the privilege that you are currently enjoying, of being legally allowed to live with a person you'd rather not marry because of tax breaks?


Two Americas said it well. You are currently enjoying the benefits of maintaining one household, saving money but expecting the tax breaks of people maintaining two households. You got away with something. Pat yourself on the back for that, I guess.

In my city, sharing the expense of one household while not being a "traditional family" is against city code ... for our "comfort and convenience." So our single penalty is that we aren't allowed to have roommates, to share expenses, and so on ... even when we are making poverty wages and can't afford to maintain a house on our own.

Please figure out what real inequality is before publicly declaring yourself to be a victim of it. You are not a victim of anything here.

[Milo_Bloom]

246. ...

"Do you get that some people can't legally get married at all? At least you have a choice."

Yes and I have donated thousands of dollars and countless hours of time and effort to see that ALL people get to make this choice.

"Do you get that some people can't find any job at all? And you are coming here whining about how you might be taxed on income of 250k?"

I never complained about paying the tax. I am complaining about the inequitable distribution of it and so far, not many have tried to answer the original question.

"Do you get that a lot of people who HAVE jobs spend 10 years trying to earn what you earn in a single year?"

Yes.

"You get that some people aren't allowed the privilege that you are currently enjoying, of being legally allowed to live with a person you'd rather not marry because of tax breaks?"

That law is an equal injustice and should be fought.


Please figure out what real inequality is before publicly declaring yourself to be a victim of it. You are not a victim of anything here.

Never claimed to be a victim.

[Burma Jones]

182. Look, my wife and I are getting hit by this shit too

not to mention the staggering losses we've taken in the market over the last year, and I mean staggering, just like everyone else.



If you're actually spending all of your combined $300K annual income, thanks for helping the economy along.

If you want to knock your combined income down to under $250K, then look for somewhere to stash $50K or more, I'm sure you can do it - reinvest in your business, save for retirement.

I don't know where you live, but that will have a lot to do with what you're going to be able to deduct.


Here's a little something about y/our problem from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/your-money/28money.html?em



People got rich as shit even when the tax rate was confiscatory, OK?

If you have that kind of income and that successful a business, I am sure you will find some way to make your annual income look like it's under $250K......


If you're just venting about a perceived injustice, trust me on this, the financial benefits gained through marriage far outweigh this hiccup. Anyway, if you have the serious bucks, you need to pony up, we've had it way too easy over the last 8 years.

[baldguy]

187. Then you'd better hope that Obamanomics succeeds

so that you can maintain yourself in the style to which you've grown accustomed, in spite of your tax contribution.

[mix]

191. populist ruse, this post is

this is how the right and the top few percent who have the wealth, try to connect with the commoners: by emphasizing a shared inequity, which here is the perceived affront to the institution of family (bourgeois, heterosexual), i.e. "marriage penalty"

[JTFrog]

192. Bingo. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

203. So answer the question...

and explain how it ISN'T a marriage penalty?

[mix]

207. solution: vote republican asap

eom

[Milo_Bloom]

213. Good luck continuing to win elections with that attitude.

[WCGreen]

205. Look into filing married filing seperatly...

Split the cost of the mortgage, split the cost of the property tax. It could work out better for you.

[Numba6]

210. Why are you trying to help a whiny rich fuck who's too cheap to go to a tax accountant?

[WCGreen]

CAuse I do taxes and I can't help myself....

[Milo_Bloom]

229. Our accountant said that was the worst possible status for us.

[Numba6]

232. Then you should do it & stop wasting baudwidth w/ your whiny protests

[WCGreen]

235. I'm just looking at what you layed out and depending on how

your income falls, it could be advatages.

Notice I just said just to look at the possibility not that you should file under Married Seperate...

[Milo_Bloom]

236. I understand.

I was just letting you know what we had found out when we discussed it. Sorry if it was a short/snippy answer. Been dealing with a bunch of people who can't read properly.

[noiretextatique]

300. it is...it's the highest rate

not sure why a some who does taxes would suggest that.

[high density]

212. Have you actually done research (with an expert) to determine how this would effect you?

If you think it will cost you "thousands of extra dollars" then it seems prudent to hire a tax accountant to determine if that figure you've pulled out of your ass has any basis in fact. (I have skimmed the entire thread and I don't see a basis for your "thousands of extra dollars" statement.) A shitload of things in the tax code are phased in gradually as your income increases but you are acting as if you hit $250,001 and suddenly you've got thousands of extra liabilities once you earn that extra dollar. The Republicans love it when people think that latter way, but I am not aware of anything that actually works that way in our tax code. (Go ahead and point one out if you find it, because I'm rather curious myself.)

[Milo_Bloom]

214. Yes, have done so.

The figure is actually 10,000 total, give or take depending upon circumstances.

And yes, there are some magic threshold numbers and I have gone over them with my accountant. One would be the AMT. WHen you hit the number, you automatically MUST pay the AMT. YOu can hit it as a couple and avoid it as 2 individuals and it will instantly cost you thousands (In our case, 7K extra in taxes per year).

[berni_mccoy]

215. A Word Of Wisdom: Don't Post Personal Financial Data on a Political Website

But I would get a second opinion on your tax situation (as well as your accounting). It sounds to me like you have bad advice. Being married puts you in the smallest tax bracket. Also as a business, you can claim all kinds of deductions you could not otherwise claim. You could end up paying as little as 20-25% of your net revenue as a business, which, if your accountant does things right, you could end up paying less than 18% of your gross revenue. I won't even go into all the opportunities you could pursue if you give your S.O. a 51% ownership.

I've always done my own accounting and taxes. I don't trust anyone else with it.

[noamnety]

216. I think I understand the OP's point

He's explained he doesn't have a problem with a tax hike for those with income beyond their needs, in order to ensure the welfare of those in poverty. He only has a problem with the difference between how it's applied to married people and single people.

I think - in his clumsy way - what he's trying to say is that he's happy with new higher rates, he embraces them because "we all must make sacrifices to help the economy" (although he's opting not to make that sacrifice, cause he'd personally rather keep his money than get married AND help the economy).

Apparently he just wants to see the same hike applied to single people. He's pissed off that he's currently eligible for the lower tax rate, which he prefers to continue taking advantage of. He wants to get married - and to pay more taxes to do his part, really he does, and the reason he can't is that our stupid unjust government has given him the option not to pay more taxes, and not to get married. Poor guy.

(hmmmm. maybe it makes less sense now that it's typed out.)

[Milo_Bloom]

223. Actually, you missed it a little bit.

Basically... I wouldn't complain if they applied it evenly and we were hit as we both make over 125K per year.


However, I am not going to get married if I am going to be punished for it.

[AZBlue]

217. This is a joke, right? You're not really complaining about making $250K??

If I made that much money, alone or as a couple, I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes.

[Numba6]

265. Whiny rich single people are the new oppressed minority in this country

Didn't you get the memo from Rush?

[Lucky Luciano]

267. I don't think I witnessed him complaining about making over $250K.

[Yavin4]

219. I'm Sure That The Iraqi War Veteran Who Lost His Legs

is more than willing to give up his VA benefits so that you can get married and not pay any taxes.

You fucking self-centered asshole. Got cry in your beer.

[Milo_Bloom]

227. If I wanted to not pay any taxes, I could.

When you have a corporation, there are TONS of things you can do to get away with not paying taxes and they are 100% legal.

My accountant BEGGED Me to buy an SUV in 2004 so I could write it off and it would have been almost entirely paid for by the refund money I would have gotten for buying it... I refused.

My accountant has BEGGED me to set my salary lower so I can take more of the profits as dividends (when you take profits as dividends they are NOT subject to Social Security and Medicare deductions and you save nearly 16% on them)... we refused and kept our salaries near the actual projected profit and pay the maximum amounts into SS and Medicare.

If we WANTED to, my accountant showed me how we could structre things so we could legally claim the EIC.


Basically, I pay more than I HAVE TO because I believe some of the writeoffs are a bit dishonest.

However, what I will not do is pay more in taxes just because we decided to change the state recognized status of our relationship.

[Yavin4]

230. Poor Widdle Rich Boy

Cry me a fucking river.

[Milo_Bloom]

238. Unfortunately, I am hardly rich.

Maybe I should post my expenses and show how the money we make basically covers month to month expenses.

[Numba6]

269. Yes, how can a 3-people household get by on less than $300,000? WE NEED A TELETHON FOR WHINY RICH

FOKE

Won't you help Rush's kids?



Forced to turn in their Lear jet & settle for a prop plane

Turned in the rolls for a lexus

THE MARRIAGE TAX CAUSED THIS "FAMILY" TO ALMOST GO ON FOOD STAMPS!

WON'T YOU PLEASE HELP?

[Milo_Bloom]

283. Actually, we have almost no savings and make it month to month.

But don't worry about facts... just keep thinking that 250K per year automatically = RICH.

Because it isn't like anyone has to pay back 2 six figure sets of student loans for college and grad school

And it isn't like we have a six figure debt from loans taken to start our business

And we don't have a mortgage or anything.

For our area... we are middle class.

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself very lucky that we have been able to achieve what we have.. but we are hardly "RICH"

[Numba6]

318. OH, THE INHUMANITY! Can't get by on $300,000 a year -- TELETHON ALERT FOR RUSH'S KIDS

Do You...

Have to fly in a prop plane instead of a lear jet...

Drive last year's model lexus insted of this year's BMW...

YOU ARE DEPRIVED and don't even know it!

[Numba6]

319. .

.

[Milo_Bloom]

331. None of the above

Have a single 2001 Hyundai which we share.

Can't afford vacations right now either.

[Thickasabrick]

221. I don't see it as a penalty to married people. You keep saying that

a single person can live as cheaply as a family with two incomes. Many posts have called out the obvious, shared mortgage/rent, utilities, etc. What about insurance? Single people have the full cost of insurance and cannot add their significant other to their policy for the cheaper rate. This applies to family auto insurance rates also.

I think it's horrible you would advocate individuals being capped at 125k when so many of us (individuals)do not even have the advantage of a significant other to share costs and bear the burden of raising children without child support. You are lucky to have someone to share your life but don't assume that all single people have it as lucky or easy.

[Milo_Bloom]

224. Incorrect information in here...

"Single people have the full cost of insurance and cannot add their significant other to their policy for the cheaper rate. This applies to family auto insurance rates also. "

My company has an INCREDIBLY generous insurance policy. We pay 100% of insurance for all employees from the moment they are hired. I am hyper about making sure everyone has health insurance coverage.

Here are the actual costs that were worked up for me in Re: to me and my fiance as singles vs married (or registered domestic partners)

Singles ME: 313/mo additional child dept on me 300/mo Partner added individually: 306/Mo total cost $919

Married/domestic partnership: ME + 2 dependents = $1414 per month.

Net savings of OVER $500 per month if we don't connect our insurance.

I grant you the situation is unique because we both work for the same company, so we could get a side by side comparrison.


I think it is horrible that 2 people should be treated differently than 2 other people in the exact same circumstances. If the only difference between the 2 people were the color of their skin or their religion, this would be a CLEAR equal protection case.

So yeah, if you are making 125K per year, you should pay at the same rate as a couple making 250.

Also, a large % of rent should be tax deductable OR they should eliminate the interest deduction.

[Thickasabrick]

234. Are you serious? Do you realize how unusual your insurance situation

is? That is in no way the norm of what is out there. More and more companies are putting the burden of insurance costs on their employees.

It is NOT the same circumstances. The couple making 250K split expenses, the singles without a significant other do not.

I have never lived anywhere where rent was tax deductible.

[Milo_Bloom]

237. I said it was not the norm.

I keep hearing how couples "split" expenses. I don't see how this is even relevant to this.

Here are 3 different scenarios... you find the problem.


2 People live as roommates only. They have a combined income of 300K and pay X in taxes.

2 People live as a couple, but don't get married. They have a combined income of 300K and pay X in taxes.

2 People live as a couple and get married. They have a combined income of 300K and pay X +$10,000 in taxes.


Sorry, but no matter how you slice it... THAT is a penalty.

And, finally... I said that I THOUGHT RENT should be tax deductable. However, California has a renters credit that allows you to get some tax money back.

[Jeep789]

225. I wondered about that too

We've been moving away from marriage penalties and now this. I agree with the poster above who said it is probably a perception problem. Obama has been promising that only those who make over $250 k will receive a tax increase and lowering it too much for singles would give the Repukes a great talking point.

Personally, I think taxes should be household oriented in which case you would end up paying married or not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

226. How would be people criticising the OP feel about a tax on all rich black people?

There are a lot of people posting in this thread saying "you make lots of money, so shut up." How would these people feel about a tax on everyone who was black and made over $250,000 a year? After all, they're rich, so it must be a good thing and they have no right to complain about it?

Clearly, a tax dependent on an optional behaviour like marriage isn't *as* iniquitous as one dependent on race, but it's still iniquitous.

The complaint the OP is making is *not* that the tax he is being asked to pay is excessive, but that it is iniquitous to ask him to pay that when other equally wealthy people are not being asked to pay it.

I am all in favour of the rich paying more in taxes, but they have as much right as anyone else to object to unjust taxes - which is to say, taxes whose level is determined not just by wealth, place of residence etc but by factors which should not effect tax rates, no matter what those rates are.

[Milo_Bloom]

228. I think what tons of people are missing...

... is that I am advocating me losing my current advantage.

[Numba6]

233. I thinkyopu should just give up your business and go peddle papers on the street

like the real workers in america, the homeless

[Milo_Bloom]

239. So, I am supposed to feel guilty?

[noamnety]

240. it's harder to see you are advocating losing your current advantage

when you've said straight out you intend to keep it.

[Milo_Bloom]

242. Of course I am.

Wouldn't you?

[noamnety]

243. No, I wouldn't.

I complain about injustices from time to time, either against myself or others.

But I make an effort not to complain about how difficult it is to be a member of a privileged group. So I might complain about sexism against women (real oppression of an oppressed group)

But I don't complain about what a hardship it is to be healthy and not disabled - and never be allowed to park in the closer handicapped spots. (perceived oppression of a nonoppressed group)

You are taking a lot of shit in this thread because you are attempting to portray yourself as a victim because of membership in two groups - rich, and married (in your case having the option to get married).

This forum is a poor audience for your complaint of injustice. People here are smart enough to recognize that married rich people are, in fact, NOT an oppressed group in our society.

[Milo_Bloom]

244. You didn't answer the question at all.

You talk about how you wouldn't COMPLAIN; however, I think we all know that if you had two choices and choice A led to paying MORE taxes and choice B led to not paying more taxes, you would take choice B, but let's put that aside for a moment and address the other falsehood you state, that I am portraying myself as a VICTIM.

Where did I ever claim to be a VICTIM?

I have often read on this forum that there is NO SUCH THING as a marriage penalty.

I would still like an answer to my original question... how is 2 people paying one rate as single and higher rate as a married couple NOT a marriage penalty?

[noamnety]

248. Then you didn't read my full statement.

"you are advocating losing your current advantage when you've said straight out you intend to keep it."

You replied, "wouldn't you?" No, I wouldn't, because of the incredible hypocrisy.

Also:

I wouldn't claim it's not about the taxes while stating I'm not gonna get married because of the taxes.

I wouldn't come to a forum making as much in one year as many of the members make in ten years, and try to make myself out to be a
victim of injustice (which you have).

I wouldn't come to a board where many of the members have truly been victims and are still reeling from the prop 8 vote removing their right to marry, and start whining about how unfairly rich married people are treated.

When confronted with the FACT that married people enjoy many legal privileges in this country that single people don't have access to (especially single people who don't even have access to marriage), including health insurance which very many people here don't have, I wouldn't respond by rubbing their noses in how very excellently your rich ass is insured.

After reading your posts, I am a stronger supporter of increased taxes for people in your position. I don't see how it's any sacrifice at all for you and your partner to survive on $290 instead of $300 a year. I doubt you'd even feel it in your budget. And yet you seem far more concerned by that than by single people who can't get insurance at all, cause hey, you got yours.

--------------
Putting this in a way that I'm sure you won't understand, I wouldn't walk into a room of people dying from not having insurance, and start whining about how unfair it is that the last time I went for a regular checkup, I couldn't get into see the doctor until 9:30 even though I had an appointment to see them at 9.

[mix]

253. beautiful

that is the post i wanted to write in response to this, you nailed it

[Milo_Bloom]

282. ..

"You replied, "wouldn't you?" No, I wouldn't, because of the incredible hypocrisy."

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that for a moment.

"I wouldn't come to a forum making as much in one year as many of the members make in ten years, and try to make myself out to be a
victim of injustice (which you have)."

Simply untrue.

"After reading your posts, I am a stronger supporter of increased taxes for people in your position. I don't see how it's any sacrifice at all for you and your partner to survive on $290 instead of $300 a year. I doubt you'd even feel it in your budget. And yet you seem far more concerned by that than by single people who can't get insurance at all, cause hey, you got yours."

Actually, it would make a huge difference, as due to our school loans, repayment of debts and the cost of living in Los Angeles, we make it month to month.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

268. One word for you: precedent.

If every decision was made in a vacuum, then what you say would have a good deal of merit.

But, both legally and politically, every injustice sets a precedent. So even when the victim of an injustice is someone who benefits from other, more serious injustices, I think it's usually worth complaining about it.

If the tax system discriminates against rich married people today and no-one complains about it, it sets the principle that "whether you're married or not can affect your taxes and the like", and makes it more likely that future tax systems may discriminate against poor married people, or against unmarried people.

There's also the issue of consistency. To use your example of sexism, one can either oppose discrimination on grounds of gender against women as a matter of logical moral principle (in which case one also has to oppose discrimination against men in those fewer cases where it occurs), or as a matter of tribe warfare (in which case one doesn't); I think the former is a better approach - for one thing, it lets one make statements like "discrimination on grounds of gender is wrong" without one's opponents being able to legitemately accuse one of hypocricy.

[noamnety]

270. You should read his posts more carefully.

He doesn't want the two situations treated equally; he wants to be able to pick and choose, selecting only the consequences that give him a financial advantage ("Death benefits, insurance benefits, sure..") and arbitrarily not having to deal with any of the consequences that cost him anything. Hence his registering as domestic partners - so he can enjoy all the benefits without having any corresponding costs. He's acting like a neocon corporation - expecting to privatize the profits, but not the costs.

I suspect this is an issue of an overly privileged person (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and suggest straight white male) who is OUTRAGED that he has found he isn't already receiving absolutely every single privilege there is in this world. Damn, you know, he somehow managed to miss one. (No offense to other straight white males here who actually comprehend the concept of privilege, much respect and gratitude to those who do get it.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

273. Actually, I think you should.

As he makes explicit in the OP, he's *not* complaining about the fact that married couples (he isn't married, incidentally) are being taxed, he's complaining about the fact that unmarried couples (in which category he is planning to stay) *aren't* being taxed the same.

He is (or at least claims to be) perfectly willing to pay more taxes if they are applied equitably; what he objects to is a tax system which rewards him for doing something he doesn't think should be rewarded.

For what it's worth, I think that couples - married or unmarried - should be able to claim many of the benefits (especially the non-financial things like next-of-kin status and so on) currently available to married couples, and I don't think that either married couples should have to pay taxes that unmarried couples don't or vice versa, or equivalently that married couples should get tax excemptions that unmarried couples don't or vice versa.

[noiretextatique]

301. dumbest...post...ever

so, high-income married people pay higher taxes *supposedly* than high-income single people. first of all i am not sure that is always the case, but it has nothing to do with race. the obvious option for the OP is to remain single a forego the benefits of marriage.

[Milo_Bloom]

305. Yes, it is the case.

You can run the numbers for yourself here: http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/index.html

It is equal for a while and then after 100K you pay more to be married.

Second, I have yet to really see the "benefit" of marriage. We created a contractual relationship equal to a marriage and have all the same legal rights/obligations in place.

The only thing "marriage" would give us is a title and higher tax burden.

[noiretextatique]

306. marriage may not benefit you

but it does benefit some people. the only solution for you (and others) is a change in the tax code. i'd like to see some other changes...ones that would benefit me. i'd like to deduct consumer interest, i'd like the fica rates lowered, and i'd like to deduct 100% of charitable contributions without itemizing.

[Milo_Bloom]

307. Couldn't agree with you more.

I also think a % of rent on primary residences should be tax deductable, as I don't find it fair that homeowners can deduct interest.

However, as far as taxes go, I don't think marriage should be a benefit or a hindrence.

[noiretextatique]

309. i agree with you too

the tax code should make some damn sense and should not penalize certain people.

[JTFrog]

247. Sounds like you were cheating the system to begin with by claiming whatever status gave you the

lowest taxes regardless of your living situation. Now you claim an inequity to justify continuing to cheat the system to keep your advantage.

Good on ya.

[Milo_Bloom]

296. We are not married... thus, how is it "cheating"?

[JTFrog]

317. You enjoy the benefits of pooled income and one household, yet you claim whatever

status gives you the lowest tax bracket.

Sounds like cheating, but I'm assuming your accountant has made it all legal like.

[jpgray]

257. Applying taxes "equally" would be regressive. Let's use some logic here

If you agree with the idea of progressive taxation, anyway. Two people living together that share income have an easier time of it in terms of expenses than a single person living alone. Those two can therefore afford to be taxed at a higher effective rate individually when taken as a whole. Marriage is one method used to identify two people who share their income, and therefore enjoy that advantage. Thus married people can afford to pay a higher effective individual rate, and should.

What's so hard about this? You can dodge the extra taxed income by not getting married, and the code isn't perfectly adapted to identify those who share income, but it's hard for me to see what's so unfair about it when it works exactly as it is supposed to--two committed adults with shared income have more ability to pay than an isolated individual, therefore you get a higher effective tax rate.

Simple, no? :shrug: You're not penalized for being married, you are taxed more for having an easier time of things than an isolated single person. Taxing those who have an easier time of things more is what progressive taxation is all about.

[Milo_Bloom]

299. So, people should be taxed higher who have roommates as well, right?

[jpgray]

316. No, as there is no legal basis for presuming shared income/expenses.

Nor is there any legal basis for assuming commitment to such an arrangement. Think about this some more, maybe?

[TwilightGardener]

260. What sort of people would be together 11 years, have a kid, plan to marry, and

then call it off because of TAXES?? I've heard people delaying their weddings because of lost jobs, or waiting for graduations, etc.--but to call it off because you simply don't want to pay more in TAXES?? When you're already WEALTHY?? Doesn't sound like there's a whole lotta love there, to be honest.

[berni_mccoy]

261. LOL. Probably the biggest point made in this thread. You don't marry/not marry because of taxes.

Anyone who does is a fool.

[TwilightGardener]

262. I can't wrap my mind around it--wait eleven years, say "This is it, we're going

to make it official!" and then say, "Oh, wait, never mind, it might cost us a few thousand..." Many, many people get married who are as poor as church mice, and all they have in the world is each other, and this guy is afraid of losing several thousand dollars--does he have any idea what marriage is about? What's he going to do if his SO becomes ill/incapacitated, God forbid, and no longer earns a big fat income or even becomes a financial drain from health care, etc.? Crazy.

[raebrek]

272. Well, I'd have to think about it twice

If it cost me $7,000.00 a year in a taxes more to be married then I would have to give that one a hard think too. That would be a big waste of money that could be better spent on other things.

Raebrek!!!

[TwilightGardener]

274. "That would be a big waste of money that could be better spent on

other things..." I don't know what to say. Marriage = "waste of money"?

[raebrek]

276. $7,000.00 more a year in taxes = waste of money. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

294. Actually, this is the second time we considered it and passed on it.

Marriage is a state sponsored contract and if you have the means, you can create all the benefits of a marriage via contracts.

[mix]

263. it's bullshit

and a hint of what's to come from the right

[Milo_Bloom]

286. What has marriage got to do with Love?

Sorry, but since we are not religious, we have always looked at marriage as a state sponsored contract. We were going to do it to satisfy parents, but not if there are serious financial consequences.

Further, we are absolutely NOT wealthy.

We have very VERY little in savings and still have hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. (2 six figure student loans, plus loans and mortgage).

[TwilightGardener]

328. That is just so sad and cynical--"state sponsored contract".

You're right--don't get married. It would be meaningless.

[DevonRex]

324. To me it sounds like excuse #5219 for them to NOT get married.

[county worker]

264. Pay yourself a salary less than a combined income of $250K.

For years people have gotten away with cutting taxes on those over $250K and now the table will be turned. If you don't like it make less money!

It's time the working class got a break.

[Numba6]

266. WE NEED A TELETHON! Whiny rich single people are SO MUCH worse off than anyone else in the world!

[Milo_Bloom]

284. You do understand I agree with you, right?

However, if FAMILIES making over 250K are getting a tax hike so should SINGLES making over 125K

[crimsonblue]

278. solution: turn your company into a corporate entity.

You remove all personal liability for the company, and if the company goes under, then you are not financial responsible. Also, your books will be much easier to handle, and further growth of your company will be simpler.

[Milo_Bloom]

285. It is currently an S-Corp

I have appointment with my accountant to look into converting into a C-Corp and see if that makes a difference.

[crimsonblue]

289. In that case,

moving to a C-corp probably won't be worth it. Another avenue you should look towards is moving your retirement accounts to a Roth IRA. You are only taxed once on the earnings, and you have much more flexibility in terms of contributing and adjusting the IRA as needed, as compared to a 401k.

[Milo_Bloom]

293. I haven't been able to put anything in there for a while.

I know a lot of people on this thread think the income in excessive, but we haven't had anything left over in several years, because we are paying back some major loans.

[PBS Poll-435]

333. At least with a C-Corp, you won't be taxed on the health benefits the Corporation provides for you

And your family. Not so under an S-Corp.

[Catherine Vincent]

292. Congratulations!

Hope your marriage is successful! :hi:

[sniffa]

311. As others have said, I only wish I had your problem

I'm married to another DUer who is finishing up school and our yearly income is just under 44K + student loan money for living expenses which will end this year and loans to start being repaid. The cost of living here eats up just under half of our income for rent.

As a wise DUer said upthread, don't get married.

[GOTV]

320. Yes, it's not ideal, but it's OK ...

... there's a limit to how many special cases we can codify in the tax law.

The tax law understands (or did before all this marriage penalty BS) that there are financial advantages to living together and so expects more from dual income married people than from single people at teh same effective income.

The reality is that some people live together without being married and some people get married but still live separately, we all know that but, those special cases were too small to legislate for. Maybe that's not true anymore and we need some way to get the proper tax rate from people taking the financial advantage of living together without triggering the tax rate by getting married. I'm not sure how you'd do that.

[Milo_Bloom]

332. Not, BS, quite real.

The BS is the concept that living together some huge financial advantage. The few hundred dollars per year saved isn't even close to the several THOUSAND dollars the marriage penalty actually costs.

[Numba6]

334. 334 replies to help a rich guy (who won't hire a tax accountant) get out of his taxes... & no one

offers any help to anyone who's unemployed or about to lose their home.

& the rich fucks always have to reply to each & every point in this ridiculous post

This guy has repeatedly said his household can't get by on $300,000 a year... and the hearts of so many DU'ers go out to the poor, poor, soul