Dual 400k incomes vs single 400k income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One curved argue that two 200 K incomes has some advantages over a single $400k.

There is implicit stability and having two earners, so that if one gets laid off, sick or disabled there’s still some money coming in.

It can also breed a more equitable relationship, but it’s not a requirement many breadwinner families are equitable

But in general most$400k Jobs are very demanding with long hours of stress and travel versus you could have two almost lifestyle jobs if they are split, like two Fed workers. I don’t really buy the claim that some people work 80 hours, but it is possible that the aggregate labor of our worked and both cases is very similar.

In general though, I feel feel like a single breadwinner is the better arrangement. [/b]But we are dual income, so maybe it’s just grass greener.[b]

I’m part of a dual income household and have wondered about this too.

I think there are benefits to having 1 person freed up to manage all the house/kid stuff so the other can focus on work. Also, with 1 income you’re paying lower payroll taxes, not having to shell out for childcare, and the single earner gets a lower tax rate than they would were they unmarried. So there’s definite perks to this.

But on the other hand, I also like that my DH and I are fairly equal earners (me a fed making ~150k and him in private sector making 175k + bonuses). Both jobs are decent paying, but not so high income as to be stressful. It’s rare that we ever work more than a 40 hour week. No work travel. Both fully remote. We can manage our hours to not need aftercare and DH can be off in time to coach the kids’ sports practices at 5:30 pm.

Also, there are 2 of us saving for retirement, and if one of us gets sick/cannot work otherwise we still have 1 income to fall back on. It also makes it easier to fall into a good division of labor around the house because once the workday is over we are both on second shift duty whereas some breadwinners seem to think the SAHP is supposed to be “working their duties” 24/7 while the working person is done once their job ends. I would not be very happy if all the cooking, doctors’ appointments, camp signups, etc. fell to me (conversely there are some working moms who are expected to take on all the household duties as well so that also sucks and may be more of a marriage issue than employment status issue).

If you can find 1 high earning, but very secure job that offers lots of flexibility/minimum stress and travel; AND the working person is an equal household contributor/you can afford to outsource things, that is a pretty good setup I imagine. But that is a unicorn scenario and you better hope that the marriage works out long term.

[Anonymous]

^^ oh just re-read the question and it’s about a 400k single earner vs 2 400k earners? So we’re debating 400k vs 800k HHI?

I had thought it was about having a 400k HHI made up of 1 vs 2 earners. So my response may not be relevant! And we’re not quite at 400k combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ oh just re-read the question and it’s about a 400k single earner vs 2 400k earners? So we’re debating 400k vs 800k HHI?

I had thought it was about having a 400k HHI made up of 1 vs 2 earners. So my response may not be relevant! And we’re not quite at 400k combined.

Both are interesting questions, but the probability of hitting the $800k is a much more rarified audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One curved argue that two 200 K incomes has some advantages over a single $400k.

There is implicit stability and having two earners, so that if one gets laid off, sick or disabled there’s still some money coming in.

It can also breed a more equitable relationship, but it’s not a requirement many breadwinner families are equitable

But in general most$400k Jobs are very demanding with long hours of stress and travel versus you could have two almost lifestyle jobs if they are split, like two Fed workers. I don’t really buy the claim that some people work 80 hours, but it is possible that the aggregate labor of our worked and both cases is very similar.

In general though, I feel feel like a single breadwinner is the better arrangement. But we are dual income, so maybe it’s just grass greener.

Every time I say something like this, someone inevitably comes out to say that, actually, they work *less* the more they earn. Also, apparently, 7-figure WFH jobs are a thing. I'm skeptical that these are anything but outliers, but who knows?

Yep!!

Outliers or just liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked, more money is better. Was that your question?

Sometimes more money is actually less. IF you have one spouse who earns $400k and one who earns $100k, then you probably have to outsource childcare, are paying double FICA and SS taxes and the lower income is taxed at a much higher rate than it would be if stand alone. I know many people who actually bring home less with the wife working a lower paying job, but they are happy to do it since they don't want to take care of the kids and want equal partnership at home.

[Anonymous]

My Dh makes $400-$500K a year and I make $150K a year. I have a very flexible job and lots of ability to take care of home/kid stuff. Only way that its manageable since DH works a lot.

My sister makes $800K a year and her DH makes $500K a year. They make a lot but have to travel a lot (sales) and it is difficult to figure out their schedules with kids. Much harder when kids were younger. Now that they are older there is a lot of car pooling and making sure one parent is home while the other one is traveling. I couldn't do it but it works for them and they make A LOT of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t understand the premise of the question.

Same HHI. two earners or one. Poorly worded.

If that was intended to be the question, it was so poorly worded that it actually posed a completely different question.

I’m the PP, it seemed pretty clear to me (not OP). Maybe because the idea of asking $800k vs $400k would be a ludicrous question.

I figured they meant “dual income $400k HHI vs single income $400k HHI” because there could be some debate there.

If you have to rewrite the question in order to make it clear, it wasn't clear in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked, more money is better. Was that your question?

Sometimes more money is actually less. IF you have one spouse who earns $400k and one who earns $100k, then you probably have to outsource childcare, are paying double FICA and SS taxes and the lower income is taxed at a much higher rate than it would be if stand alone. I know many people who actually bring home less with the wife working a lower paying job, but they are happy to do it since they don't want to take care of the kids and want equal partnership at home.

And they are normally not counting what they sock away in retirement accounts tax free with compounding interest. If they actually do the math (correctly) they are more financially stable longterm. Most people don't actually this this far out though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a DW who makes less than her spouse ($350 vs $190), I would never want to be in a position that I’m not contributing to the family HHI for a number of reasons.

What if 1 spouse is making $1 million and the other is making $50k? They're still contributing, but it doesn't matter much.

It does when the wife get upgraded (and she will). Very few $1M+ earners, who have SAHPs, are not cheating (maybe none) .....even Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos....although I had hope for Bill Gates, because he's an super nerd - but yet, still banged his intern. I work with some very high earning men and even the fat ugly ones have seem to attract young pretty women who want special treatment in the workplace and the women are ok to hide the affair (it suits them too).

[Anonymous]

Not OP but the question seemed clear to me. Two $400K incomes totaling $800K presumably has a lot more stress, hours, and travel than two $200K incomes totaling $400k, so is the extra money worth it? IMO it wouldn't be, but at our peak DH and I were in the two incomes totaling $300K and we decided one of us would stay home for a bit, so that is my perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but the question seemed clear to me. Two $400K incomes totaling $800K presumably has a lot more stress, hours, and travel than two $200K incomes totaling $400k, so is the extra money worth it? IMO it wouldn't be, but at our peak DH and I were in the two incomes totaling $300K and we decided one of us would stay home for a bit, so that is my perspective.

OK. I thought I understood the question but after reading this post, I don't think I understand anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked, more money is better. Was that your question?

Sometimes more money is actually less. IF you have one spouse who earns $400k and one who earns $100k, then you probably have to outsource childcare, are paying double FICA and SS taxes and the lower income is taxed at a much higher rate than it would be if stand alone. I know many people who actually bring home less with the wife working a lower paying job, but they are happy to do it since they don't want to take care of the kids and want equal partnership at home.

It only makes sense to not work financially for a LOT less than $100k. You are ignoring employee matching, 401k and IRA tax benefits, and the potential for future growth and the ease of remaining vs reentering the work force.

But it is much harder and they already are wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but the question seemed clear to me. Two $400K incomes totaling $800K presumably has a lot more stress, hours, and travel than two $200K incomes totaling $400k, so is the extra money worth it? IMO it wouldn't be, but at our peak DH and I were in the two incomes totaling $300K and we decided one of us would stay home for a bit, so that is my perspective.

OK. I thought I understood the question but after reading this post, I don't think I understand anything.

This post as an image.

[Anonymous]

Dh makes about 370 and I make 160. I wouldn’t stay home on his income but everyone has a different number.

But yes, obviously it’s better to have him making double my income than having both of us earning the same 160. His job has less flexibility than mine, so I handle a lot of the day to day mental load for our kids, but I wouldn’t want to reverse that.