I made over 130K last year...

[ShawnD1]

Interesting. Wiki's page says that what I posted is correct, but you get a penalty if you and your spouse have similar incomes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

married is better if:
you make 100k per year and your wife makes 20k per year (or stay at home mom)

marriage penalty if:
you and your wife both make 50k

Prior to 2003, if both spouses earned about the same amount of money, then they ended up in a higher tax bracket and were penalized for being married. Actually, the smaller the difference between what they each earned, the higher the marriage penalty. However, if one spouse earned a good salary, and the other didn't, then they weren't penalized. The marriage penalty could affect couples in all income brackets, though. A couple who married could lose earned income tax credits that they had received as singles.

 

[dud]

Look at Russia too. They are in real rough shape. Hell Russia was trying to pay young couples to have kids because they don't have enough growth to support things.

I just shake my head whenever people give a family crap about having kids and telling them it was a selfish decision.

Those kids will be paying the taxes to maintain roads that you'll use when you retire. They'll be nurses and medical professionals that will take care of you when you are old. They'll be the construction workers and skilled labor that repairs your roads, cars, and buildings. They'll take your order at McDonalds when you get your senior citizen cheap cup of coffee. They'll help pay for your medicare bills and social security so you can go hit the river boat gambling slots.

And so on.

Kids are our future and are required for a nation to not just grow, but simply maintain.

Are you a realist ... or just a cynic?

 

[KentState]

Isn't it the other way around?

right now:
you make 100k and pay taxes based on that (extremely high taxes)
she makes 20k and pays taxes based on that (no taxes)

married:
(100 + 20)/2 = 60k
pay tax percentage equivalent to 60k income?

My understanding is that this is the advantage of getting married in the US. The way progressive taxation works, earning 2x as much income means you pay more 2x as much in taxes. Being able to average it with someone else means your wife's taxes would go up slightly while yours go waaaaay down.
I had this explained to me a few years ago when comparing taxes in the US against taxes in Canada. In Canada, we don't combine incomes; married people file their taxes as 2 individuals then you do your taxes by claiming write offs for the higher income. If I make 100k and the wife makes 20k, we would put our baby as a dependant on my taxes.

Nope. Basically, her income is only progressive up to 15%. Combine it with mine, and the entire amount is taxed at 28% flat while mine remains progressive like before we were married. The tax brackets between single and married overlap enough that you get screwed. I combined them together in Turbo Tax for my morbid curiosity and it was worse.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Look at Russia too. They are in real rough shape. Hell Russia was trying to pay young couples to have kids because they don't have enough growth to support things.

I just shake my head whenever people give a family crap about having kids and telling them it was a selfish decision.

Those kids will be paying the taxes to maintain roads that you'll use when you retire. They'll be nurses and medical professionals that will take care of you when you are old. They'll be the construction workers and skilled labor that repairs your roads, cars, and buildings. They'll take your order at McDonalds when you get your senior citizen cheap cup of coffee. They'll help pay for your medicare bills and social security so you can go hit the river boat gambling slots.

And so on.

Kids are our future and are required for a nation to not just grow, but simply maintain.

This is why the fear of Mexicans speaking Spanish will be overcome when the population becomes old enough to fear losing their welfare-state.

 

[Engineer]

It doesn't work like that. President Bush did away with a lot of the "marriage penalty", but the current president has put many of them back in.

Goes to Google that. I have not seen anything put back in. From where I'm sitting, my taxes are lower than they have ever been at my current income level.

 

[Doppel]

I always found it silly that people want a deduction for making the personal, selfish decision to have children. Why should I, a childless income earner, help you in your personal decisions to have children? Will you help me by a sports car via a nice deduction?

Just goes to show how parents can see beyond their own selfish desires.

Maybe their kids will eventually go to war and shoot bad guys for you or dig ditches or serve you french fries, they generally benefit society. Your point is not entirely without merit, though.

I agree that having kids is fairly selfish for most--people don't have kids because they are thinking it will be good to serve the country with that child, but they do benefit a nation nonetheless.

 

[Engineer]

I agree that having kids is fairly selfish for most--people don't have kids because they are thinking it will be good to serve the country with that child, but they do benefit a nation nonetheless.

I don't recall many people (if any) stating "I'm going to have a child to get a bigger tax deduction" either. Maybe a few that think that they can get a bigger welfare check or child support but I've heard of nobody wanting a child for a bigger tax break.

 

[vi edit]

I don't recall many people (if any) stating "I'm going to have a child to get a bigger tax deduction" either. Maybe a few that think that they can get a bigger welfare check or child support but I've heard of nobody wanting a child for a bigger tax break.

Even if I was able to claim that $1000 credit (or whatever it is) it doesn't come close to making up for the $1500 a month I spend on daycare or the $150+ a month per kid I'm socking away for future college costs.

Yeh...definitely not doing it for the money.

 

[Engineer]

Even if I was able to claim that $1000 credit (or whatever it is) it doesn't come close to making up for the $1500 a month I spend on daycare or the $150+ a month per kid I'm socking away for future college costs.

Yeh...definitely not doing it for the money.

Waits for someone to chime in stating that you get a $3,600 deduction for that child as well as a daycare deduction....both of which you should not be getting (because they aren't getting the same deductions or you aren't paying the same rates as they are)!

 

[alkemyst]

Even if I was able to claim that $1000 credit (or whatever it is) it doesn't come close to making up for the $1500 a month I spend on daycare or the $150+ a month per kid I'm socking away for future college costs.

Yeh...definitely not doing it for the money.

I think you lost most of your audience at $1500 a month for daycare

Our 'average' $250k wage earners seem to be taking a different stance lately.

If I had kids, I'd be ok with $1500 per month, fuck I spend $500+ on just stray cats... I'd not be so sure with the college fund. Too often they reduce the plan (especially if you started early, like at birth). Also they ignore that you'd be quadrupling your money over an 18 year period in most cases. If you are dedicated, your best value would be managing it yourself. This is my rub with the whole 1%er debate. I am in the 5%, but even at $350k for the buy in to be in that group you have a ton of problems that those above you don't.

I am feeling it myself at lower than that. I donated more than 10% of my net salary and can't write off anything. I won't ever starve, but a bit of our forum is trying to fault me on my latest car when most of those used to make fun of my cars.

This is the world we live in.

I am going to try and change that.

It's only a good deal for those that can't save money without rules.

 

[vi edit]

If I had kids, I'd be ok with $1500 per month, fuck I spend $500+ on just stray cats... I'd not be so sure with the college fund. Too often they reduce the plan (especially if you started early, like at birth). Also they ignore that you'd be quadrupling your money over an 18 year period in most cases. If you are dedicated, your best value would be managing it yourself. This is my rub with the whole 1%er debate. I am in the 5%, but even at $350k for the buy in to be in that group you have a ton of problems that those above you don't.

The $1500 a month is even with a heavy work subsidy at that particular daycare. It's around $900 a month for a newborn and $550 for my 4 year old. Last place I was at was over $1200 a month for an infant alone.

Asfar as the college fund, it's a 529 plan through the state of Iowa that uses Vanguard index funds. I do manage my own.

 

[vi edit]

Waits for someone to chime in stating that you get a $3,600 deduction for that child as well as a daycare deduction....both of which you should not be getting (because they aren't getting the same deductions or you aren't paying the same rates as they are)!

Sadly that's per household and not per kid.

The worse part is that all the deductions do is further jack up daycare prices. It's the same concept as health insurance. Remove some transparency or inject some money into a particular field and suddenly the prices don't see so bad so people are willing to pay more. $12,000 a year for daycare is *really* like $8,000 a year after the tax deductions...such a deal! Daycare prices have far, far, far outpaced inflation.

 

[Engineer]

Sadly that's per household and not per kid.

The worse part is that all the deductions do is further jack up daycare prices. It's the same concept as health insurance. Remove some transparency or inject some money into a particular field and suddenly the prices don't see so bad so people are willing to pay more. $12,000 a year for daycare is *really* like $8,000 a year after the tax deductions...such a deal! Daycare prices have far, far, far outpaced inflation.

Reminds me of cash for clunkers.

 

[IronWing]

On a related note, my property valuation for tax purposes dropped 23% from 2012 to 2013 taking the assessed value back to the 2004 level. Talk about mixed feelings.

 

[vi edit]

On a related note, my property valuation for tax purposes dropped 23% from 2012 to 2013 taking the assessed value back to the 2004 level. Talk about mixed feelings.

Did they adjust the rate multiplier higher to keep your taxes the same? Or was it a legitimate drop in taxes?

 

[IronWing]

Did they adjust the rate multiplier higher to keep your taxes the same? Or was it a legitimate drop in taxes?

Rates have stayed the same except the school override rate* which goes up slightly. Overall, taxes will go down unless the county jacks rates between now and then. The county has weathered the storm fairly well so far and the sups has declared they won't raise rates.




*School overrides are a bizarre Arizona thing to get around equal school funding mandates.

 

[TXHokie]

Maybe their kids will eventually go to war and shoot bad guys for you or dig ditches or serve you french fries, they generally benefit society. Your point is not entirely without merit, though.

I agree that having kids is fairly selfish for most--people don't have kids because they are thinking it will be good to serve the country with that child, but they do benefit a nation nonetheless.

I still missed the point of having kids is being selfish. Most people I know have kids because they want to raise a family and have to make sacrifices. The tremendous resource required in both time and money in raising kids from both parents makes any tax deduction and benefits pale in comparison, but every bit helps. Hell my wife gave up her $45k/yr job 9 yrs ago and all her future earning potential since to stay at home. Without kids we'd probably own a couple houses, live on the beach, drive Mercedes with fat retirement accounts and vacation in exotic locations. But I guess because we're selfish I drive an old car, still make mortgage payment, and have staycations. While my goal is to raise good kids that are successful, the added benefits to society is that they'll be that top 3-5% that pays their share of taxes in the future. In the long run, the government treasury will get a whole lot more out of them than what little deduction we get now.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Just did my taxes last night. I'm so pissed how much tax I'm going to have to pay. I'm no longer eligibile for many deductions. I haven't even gotten to the AMT part yet!!!!!! Depending how this pans out I might switch political parties.....

You're just doing it wrong, name one Billionaire paying over 15% in Fed tax.

 

[Doppel]

Even if I was able to claim that $1000 credit (or whatever it is) it doesn't come close to making up for the $1500 a month I spend on daycare or the $150+ a month per kid I'm socking away for future college costs.

Yeh...definitely not doing it for the money.

Also, that deduction phases out starting at $110k household anyway Having a kid for the child deduction is like driving to another state for a $2 coupon on gas.

I still missed the point of having kids is being selfish. Most people I know have kids because they want to raise a family and have to make sacrifices. The tremendous resource required in both time and money in raising kids from both parents makes any tax deduction and benefits pale in comparison, but every bit helps. Hell my wife gave up her $45k/yr job 9 yrs ago and all her future earning potential since to stay at home. Without kids we'd probably own a couple houses, live on the beach, drive Mercedes with fat retirement accounts and vacation in exotic locations. But I guess because we're selfish I drive an old car, still make mortgage payment, and have staycations. While my goal is to raise good kids that are successful, the added benefits to society is that they'll be that top 3-5% that pays their share of taxes in the future. In the long run, the government treasury will get a whole lot more out of them than what little deduction we get now.

I didn't say having kids saved money, I already said the opposite. Your story about the money sacrifice is one millions have shared, but you didn't have kids for the betterment of anybody else but yourselves.

 

[alkemyst]

I do earn over $150,000, but I would say that those people who earn that much also (typically) depend more on the frameworks that society gives us, IMO. So I think that someone such as myself uses society much more than someone who earns $25,000. Essentially, I'd say that a fast food worker relies less on societal frameworks than, say, a lawyer who is dependent upon the legal framework that society provides. In fact, I wouldn't have my current position without the legal frameworks that society provides. The same could be said for some types of engineers from industries that rely very heavily on ideas such as intellectual property.

I suppose I also fall under the "I get more and more liberal the better educated I become." I am not sure if I would have felt this way just a few years ago.

That's sort of an insane belief.

I don't damage the roads anymore than someone making $20k, I don't have the police and fire to my home as much as they do due to domestic issues and fires in the kitchen plus free ambulance rides due to no health insurance.

I am thinking you don't really make what you are stating.

My problems is those at the top don't pay enough and those at the bottom rape too much.

I am not at the $350k buy in level, but close. Even then that opening offer to be a 1%er is insignificant. The really screwed up comes higher than double that.

 

[thomsbrain]

/firstworldproblems

OP as a child:

Came here to post this. I think the OP must be trolling to post something so retarded.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I love how people mocking him (thomsbrain, MovingTarget, postmortemIA) are ones that flaunt their material possessions in their signatures.

 

[Juddog]

I love how people mocking him (thomsbrain, MovingTarget, postmortemIA) are ones that flaunt their material possessions in their signatures.

Because posting that they have a car with 184,000 miles on it is flaunting, right?

 

[OutHouse]

anybody making over 100K should get no tax credits.

 

[alkemyst]

anybody making over 100K should get no tax credits.

So what do you make, you were bragging that you have an F150 that cost over $45k.