Hacker News Reader

Married people can and do cheat on their taxes all the time. I know at least a dozen married couples where both file as single and only one claims the dependents.

Married people are allowed to file separately, and the law is that only one can claim each dependent. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement, but I'm not sure how that's cheating on taxes.

the intergenerational continuity concept breaks down (and already has) when an unusually large older generations' votes and financial means allow them to skew the balance in their favor.

How does that break down intergenerational continuity?

This idea that I'm selfish because I haven't had kids yet

You seem to be making this very personal. I'm not sure where you get that from the official sources. Simply put, having a younger generation is beneficial to society. It's also a strain on those families that decide to have children. As a society we subsidize them because they provide a long-term benefit.

I've already worked out the math: If I could manage a cheap enough birth or adoption, I would save a significant amount of money by having a crotchfruit. Of course the former requires a willing co-conspirator.

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the actual costs of children. For example, the cost of daycare (unless you want to forego one of your incomes) is ~$1000/month where I live. Additionally, the requirements for certain jobs are not longer acceptable, which limits opportunities to some degree. If you are needed to help raise children at home, working for a startup that requires long hours or a job that has you away from home for significant time most likely won't work out well for either your personal or professional life, take your pick.

"cheat" as in "eliminate marriage's tax burden" in response to the parent commenter's assertion. Single childless people get maximum tax penalties always.

Yes, in many ways it's personal but likely not for the ones you think.

As for "vastly underestimating costs of children", not at all. My brother is quite poor and has a teenaged child and I've been managing his family & business finances for well over the past decade. Yes they file separately for a significant tax savings. I know exactly what it costs and I will tell you that the costs for a middle class family and a poor family are quite different. If you are living in California, working for startups and can even _consider_ daycare then you are in a vastly different situation from where I live, where teen moms and being poor are the norm. Full-time, year-round employment is rare here. But of course, the tax penalties & benefits are the same for your filing status no matter what the actual situation is.

Over here, often it's grandma taking care of the kids and the $3000 refund check the typically-single mother gets go to drugs and tattoos.

So here I am, working my butt off, not having kids I can't take care of...and even in the years where I have 0 withholding exemptions, the government decides that they need more money from me than they've taken and there's no wiggle room or options for me to do anything about it.

I'm working class and marriage and raising kids aren't even a reasonable thing to consider. I'd love more than anything to have a family. My only solution is to find a way to earn more money.

I wish it could be properly explained to white middle-class folks that in most cases "born poor stays poor"

If you are living in California, working for startups and can even _consider_ daycare then you are in a vastly different situation from where I live, where teen moms and being poor are the norm.

In which, depending on the state, they probably qualify for subsidized daycare.

Over here, often it's grandma taking care of the kids and the $3000 refund check the typically-single mother gets go to drugs and tattoos.

If you are going to say stuff like that, make a real assertion and back it up, or leave it out. I have no idea what "often" means to you, and I have no clue the veracity of your claim.

I'm working class and marriage and raising kids aren't even a reasonable thing to consider. I'd love more than anything to have a family. My only solution is to find a way to earn more money.

Didn't you earlier say it saved money?

I wish it could be properly explained to white middle-class folks that in most cases "born poor stays poor"

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Married are people are allowed to file separately, they are not allowed to file as Single, which is what the GP was suggesting happens.

MFS has much much much lower deductions and credits than Single does - so married people filing Single instead of MFS are committing tax fraud.

For a lot of people, getting married results in a tax penalty nor a benefit. As for not having kids, our society subsidizes you, not the other way around. In direct ways, kids will grow into adults that pay your social security and medical taxes that you draw on when old. Even without such programs, our economy is built on assumptions of intergenerational continuity. The Facebook stock in your 401k is priced assuming there will be continued generations of 13-25 year olds to sell advertising to. Finally, raising and educating a kid that contributes more to society than they consume is, for the time being until everything is automated, an act that generates a large positive externality to society.

Not entirely unrelated to the discussion, it's the usual time of year where I get furious about the large financial penalty that I pay the government for being single and without child.

For single folks, getting a house and deducting mortgage interest is a great way to reduce your tax burden. Of course, that means taking on a mortgage, which may or may not be possible (especially in the bay area).

To my understanding, getting married does not automatically save you a lot on taxes. It depends on your financial situation. If, for example, you make $360k and your spouse makes $40k, it's going to be a win, because it works out to reducing your tax rate and increasing your spouse's. If you make $200k and your spouse makes $200k, it will be a wash because your tax rates are the same.

I'm pretty sure my partner and I will face a loss when we marry, because our combined incomes will push us into a higher tax bracket.

It's possible, because the tax code is complex, but married-filing-jointly has a lower tax rate.

For example, let's assume you both have 40k taxable income:

Single, taxable income 40k: tax is $5,935

Married, taxable (combined) income 80k: tax is $11,864

Double the tax on "single", because you would file two returns, and you get $11,870. So you actually saved $6!

Taken directly from the tax table: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Yeah, using these figures our married tax liability still ends up being more. I suspect because our incomes are very similar and there is a steep hike (5%) between tax bracket we would be in individually and the one that applies to us if we got married.

Yeah, there are some nasty non-linearities in the tax rate. (Although you do know it is incremental tax rate, right?) My point was mostly that "in general" it's generally a wash.

Actually, if you each make $200k, you'll end up paying more taxes. Up to a combined taxable income of $146,400, two people making the same amount would pay the same amount of taxes whether or not they are married. Above that, they will pay more if they are married than if they are single.