Current Events > I never understood why married people get tax exemptions

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you have kids it makes sense, you have someone who's dependant on you to financially provide for them, I guess that was probably the case for marriage way back. But these days most married couples both work and have cheaper expenses since they're splitting living costs, so why do they get an exemption?

I'm all for lower taxes but I don't understand discriminating against single people for no good reason
---

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

The wedding planning lobby
---

I assume it's because married couples tend to share resources so you could make the argument that taxing both is double-dipping. If you assume things like fire fighters, police, etc cost roughly the same per household, then a couple living in the same one has marginal additional costs. As for why it wouldn't be extended to people who co-habitate, it was probably an issue of just drawing the line somewhere that's easily proveable. A marriage license held by the state is a pretty good way to prove it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I assume it's because married couples tend to share resources so you could make the argument that taxing both is double-dipping. If you assume things like fire fighters, police, etc cost roughly the same per household, then a couple living in the same one has marginal additional costs. As for why it wouldn't be extended to people who co-habitate, it was probably an issue of just drawing the line somewhere that's easily proveable. A marriage license held by the state is a pretty good way to prove it.

You actually are not far from correct. Married couples are less risk takers and are less risk to the govt too so they pay less.

If you think that's crazy, insurance does the exact same thing.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I assume it's because married couples tend to share resources so you could make the argument that taxing both is double-dipping. If you assume things like fire fighters, police, etc cost roughly the same per household, then a couple living in the same one has marginal additional costs. As for why it wouldn't be extended to people who co-habitate, it was probably an issue of just drawing the line somewhere that's easily proveable. A marriage license held by the state is a pretty good way to prove it.

I don't think that's true at all for anything other than fire fighters.

It's not double dipping unless you're taxing the same income more than once
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

It's not double dipping unless you're taxing the same income more than once

A married couple hypothetically has a single source of joint income. So taxing each of them as individuals is taxing their pool twice.
---

Anisoptera posted...

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

But isnt that their choice to do that? Its like if IHOP was giving away free pancakes to everyone wearing red all week and announced this months in advanced, people cant complain in they walk in wearing blue and didnt get free pancakes.... this analogy is horrible but its been a long week and its the best I have now. Lol
---

Anisoptera posted...

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

It discriminates against people who don't want to do what it takes to get the tax break?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

It's not double dipping unless you're taxing the same income more than once

A married couple hypothetically has a single source of joint income. So taxing each of them as individuals is taxing their pool twice.

They can still do joint taxes, but married couples are exempt from taxes on the first 12k(i think) of their income. And I'm pretty sure the new proposed tax plan would double that.
---

BCAM1984 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

But isnt that their choice to do that? Its like if IHOP was giving away free pancakes to everyone wearing red all week and announced this months in advanced, people cant complain in they walk in wearing blue and didnt get free pancakes.... this analogy is horrible but its been a long week and its the best I have now. Lol

...........did you seriously just compare the commitment of legally binding yourself to another human being to wearing a certain color t-shirt
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

BCAM1984 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

But isnt that their choice to do that? Its like if IHOP was giving away free pancakes to everyone wearing red all week and announced this months in advanced, people cant complain in they walk in wearing blue and didnt get free pancakes.... this analogy is horrible but its been a long week and its the best I have now. Lol

...........did you seriously just compare the commitment of legally binding yourself to another human being to wearing a certain color t-shirt

Dont forget free pancakes. Lol
---

Because society doesn't like single people. Single with no kids? You don't qualify for food stamps and are left to die on the curb. Ask a girl out on a date? Get arrested for sexual assault.

Solid Snake07 posted...

BCAM1984 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

But isnt that their choice to do that? Its like if IHOP was giving away free pancakes to everyone wearing red all week and announced this months in advanced, people cant complain in they walk in wearing blue and didnt get free pancakes.... this analogy is horrible but its been a long week and its the best I have now. Lol

...........did you seriously just compare the commitment of legally binding yourself to another human being to wearing a certain color t-shirt

Yes he did, so what? If it gets the point across, who cares?
---

I never understood why we don't have a flat tax and consumption tax system that abolishes 90% of the IRS and makes the tax code simple and fair.
---

GATTJT posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

BCAM1984 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It also discriminates against couples that are in long-term relationships, but don't want to get married

But isnt that their choice to do that? Its like if IHOP was giving away free pancakes to everyone wearing red all week and announced this months in advanced, people cant complain in they walk in wearing blue and didnt get free pancakes.... this analogy is horrible but its been a long week and its the best I have now. Lol

...........did you seriously just compare the commitment of legally binding yourself to another human being to wearing a certain color t-shirt

Yes he did, so what? If it gets the point across, who cares?

Because it's a false equivalency. The commitment of getting married and choice of clothing for breakfast at IHOP is obviously not anywhere near the same thing. And we're all required to pay taxes, we're not all required to go to IHOP to eat breakfast.

I get the point he's trying to get across, but there are a ton of holes in it. You shouldn't be punished and have more of your income taken from you for not wanting to get married, or not being able to find someone to marry, or whatever reason you aren't married
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

I get the point he's trying to get across, but there are a ton of holes in it. You shouldn't be punished and have more of your income taken from you for not wanting to get married, or not being able to find someone to marry, or whatever reason you aren't married

You're not being punished, though. That's not what an exemption is. EVERYONE gets taxed at your rate, and if you fulfill extra conditions you can get some taken off. If there was a punishment for single people the base tax rate would be the one for couples and there'd be a singles penalty that gets added on.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

I get the point he's trying to get across, but there are a ton of holes in it. You shouldn't be punished and have more of your income taken from you for not wanting to get married, or not being able to find someone to marry, or whatever reason you aren't married

You're not being punished, though. That's not what an exemption is. EVERYONE gets taxed at your rate, and if you fulfill extra conditions you can get some taken off. If there was a punishment for single people the base tax rate would be the one for couples and there'd be a singles penalty that gets added on.

You can throw whatever kind of semantics around that you want. Single people are taxed on all of their income while married people are not. whether you want to call that punishment to the single person or a perk to the married person is honestly irrelevant.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

I get the point he's trying to get across, but there are a ton of holes in it. You shouldn't be punished and have more of your income taken from you for not wanting to get married, or not being able to find someone to marry, or whatever reason you aren't married

You're not being punished, though. That's not what an exemption is. EVERYONE gets taxed at your rate, and if you fulfill extra conditions you can get some taken off. If there was a punishment for single people the base tax rate would be the one for couples and there'd be a singles penalty that gets added on.

You can throw whatever kind of semantics around that you want. Single people are taxed on all of their income while married people are not. whether you want to call that punishment to the single person or a perk to the married person is honestly irrelevant.

It's relevant because it shapes the discussion. Rephrasing the topic, I could argue you want to punish married people by taxing them extra even though they've consolidated finances and cost the government less on a per-person basis.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It's relevant because it shapes the discussion. Rephrasing the topic, I could argue you want to punish married people by taxing them extra even though they've consolidated finances and cost the government less on a per-person basis.

Can you really prove that though?
---

I'm not saying your wrong, and I'm definitely in favor of tax exemptions that make sense, like dependants.

But I highly doubt married people cost the govt significantly less money per capita. In fact I would think they probably cost more since they can more easily apply for social welfare programs.
---

Santorin posted...

I never understood why we don't have a flat tax and consumption tax system that abolishes 90% of the IRS and makes the tax code simple and fair.

Simple, it would take away a good amount of power out of politicians hands.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It's relevant because it shapes the discussion. Rephrasing the topic, I could argue you want to punish married people by taxing them extra even though they've consolidated finances and cost the government less on a per-person basis.

Can you really prove that though?

It comes down to where they spend their money. The issue is couples tend to invest more earlier which reduces their burden on the government in the long term:
https://www.forbes.com/2006/07/25/singles-marriage-money-cx_tvr_06singles_0725costs

There's no doubt singles who make an effort to do financially prudent things--buying homes and opening up retirement accounts early--wind up better off than their married friends.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It's relevant because it shapes the discussion. Rephrasing the topic, I could argue you want to punish married people by taxing them extra even though they've consolidated finances and cost the government less on a per-person basis.

Can you really prove that though?

It comes down to where they spend their money. The issue is couples tend to invest more earlier which reduces their burden on the government in the long term:
https://www.forbes.com/2006/07/25/singles-marriage-money-cx_tvr_06singles_0725costs

There's no doubt singles who make an effort to do financially prudent things--buying homes and opening up retirement accounts early--wind up better off than their married friends.

That didn't say anything about singles being a larger financial liability for the government. It did say singles get a larger property tax deduction, but that's because they're probably paying it by themselves......
---

Im married, been married over 11 years and we have 4 kids, plus, my disabled mother-in-law lives with us. I am the only source of income besides my mother-in-law's disblility so I think I deserve a tax break when I basically have 5 dependants.
---

KBGiantsfan posted...

Im married, been married over 11 years and we have 4 kids, plus, my disabled mother-in-law lives with us. I am the only source of income besides my mother-in-law's disblility so I think I deserve a tax break when I basically have 5 dependants.

you do, but not because you're married
---