Most sexist part of tax code?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Roughly one-third of married women now bring home a bigger paycheck than their husbands. "

your response is sexist, not the tax code.

12:57 - my response isn't sexist. in fact, you made my point for me -- 2/3 of women make less than their husbands. how is that not a disproportionate impact on women's salaries?

this is just a basic fairness issue - why should my co-workers with stay-at-home wives get to keep more of their salary then I do? why should the tax code favor their choice over my family's choice?

i think you don't understand what the issue is. a married couple is taxed the same, whether there are two incomes or one. if your male coworker makes $100K and his wife does not work outside the home, his family is taxed on $100k. if you and your husband both work and make a combined $150K, you're taxed on your total income. what is unfair about that? if your family makes more money than another family, you pay more in taxes as a general matter. there's nothing sexist about that.

[Anonymous]

Make more money than your husbands. Then it is a tax policy that will discriminate against them. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

14:17 -- how is it fair to give a tax bonus to the family with one working parent, and a tax penalty to the dual-earner family? why is that more fair than simply taxing each individual worker based on what he or she makes?


you may want to read this:

http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2007/afeministteaparty.asp

[Anonymous]

are you really relying on Ms. magazine for your tax argument? i see now why your position is so ridiculous. and am now bowing out of the conversation because it's pointless to try to have a battle of wits with an unarmed idiot.

[Anonymous]

The more interesting quote in that article is the quote about family accounting, where all expenses related to the woman working are counted against her salary (daycare, dry cleaning etc), making it seem that her salary is negligible.

http://www.misformoney.net/2009/03/marriage-penalty-myth.html

Some Couples Pay Less Together

In most relationships one spouse earns more than the other, look at the data above. The average man’s salary is 70% higher than that of the average woman. This income gap means that some couples pay less tax than they would as individuals. Why? It can happen when one spouse is in a higher tax bracket than the other.

Our "average" man and woman pay the same amount of tax as individuals and as a couple because they are both in the 15% tax bracket. But what happens when you marry a 25 percenter to someone in a lower bracket? It allows more of the high earner’s income to be taxed in a lower bracket. I’ll use myself and Mr. M as examples. For simplicity’s sake we’ll say my taxable income is $80,000 while Mr. M’s is $20,000. As individual filers:


-Me: $4,675 + ($80,000-$33,950) * 0.25 = $16,187
-Mr. M: $835 + ($20,000 - $8,350) * 0.15 = $2,583
-Total Tax: $18,770

-Me and Mr. M Married: $9,350 + ($100,000 - $67,900) * 0.25 = $17,375
-Marriage Benefit: $1,395

The tax we would pay together is lower because Mr. M’s income is below the limit for the 15% tax bracket. My income could use up the currently unused amount in that tax bracket.

[Anonymous]

And someone with a stay-at-home wife gets to defray 100%, seriously reducing their tax bracket. Duh!

[Anonymous]

Dun

Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous]

15:13 - I'm not too impressed with your intellect either. Instead of actually responding to my view with your own analysis of the issue, you just call me names and insult Ms. magazine? Not exactly a cogent argument.

[Anonymous]

Well, apart from the recent catfighting, it's nice to see so many informed and articulate posters on a subject of some substance. One thing that seems to be confusing at least one poster is the fact that a policy can be gender neutral and still have a disparate impact on a particular group. Sure the policy may have to be re-examined in light of that impact, but it's a bit of stretch to call the policy sexist without some evidence that it was designed to have that impact. And for what it's worth, I'm one of those women who outearns her husband, and I think a woman who drops out of the workforce because of the tax implications is a woman who didn't want to be in the workforce to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Not so PP!

I stopped working because I made 60K (as the ED of a state political org)-- all of it taxed at 40% (fed, state, and FICA). Leaving me 36K take home to cover childcare, commuting and business expenses.

As a professional, I put in a LOT of overtime. So we had an evening babysitter, too. Plus a weekly cleaning service. Those were an additional 12K a year. Brings us down to 24K. Daycare was 11K per kid (2 kids) total 22K. Professional wardrobe, drycleaning, metro/parking cost way more than 2K a year.....

I HATE that I made the decision I did. It has been 3 years since I stopped working, and I cannot wait until my youngest starts K so I can go back to work and net a small profit. I will still be taxed at 40%, but no daycare bills! All that is to say that if I were single (or lesbian!) or merely co-habitating but not technically married, I would not be taxed at 40%...

[Anonymous]

Looks like OP's complaint no. 1 has been fixed

http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2011/02/10/irs_says_breast_pumps_tax_deductible_expense/?p1=Upbox_links

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not so PP!

I stopped working because I made 60K (as the ED of a state political org)-- all of it taxed at 40% (fed, state, and FICA). Leaving me 36K take home to cover childcare, commuting and business expenses.

As a professional, I put in a LOT of overtime. So we had an evening babysitter, too. Plus a weekly cleaning service. Those were an additional 12K a year. Brings us down to 24K. Daycare was 11K per kid (2 kids) total 22K. Professional wardrobe, drycleaning, metro/parking cost way more than 2K a year.....

I HATE that I made the decision I did. It has been 3 years since I stopped working, and I cannot wait until my youngest starts K so I can go back to work and net a small profit. I will still be taxed at 40%, but no daycare bills! All that is to say that if I were single (or lesbian!) or merely co-habitating but not technically married, I would not be taxed at 40%...

If you were single you wouldn't have DH's income which put you in that bracket, either. If you were lesbian you would face a raft of other financial penalties that would far, far exceed The benefits. It is almost offensive to say they have it good.

Lastly, you do realize that married peoPle can file separately, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so PP!

I stopped working because I made 60K (as the ED of a state political org)-- all of it taxed at 40% (fed, state, and FICA). Leaving me 36K take home to cover childcare, commuting and business expenses.

As a professional, I put in a LOT of overtime. So we had an evening babysitter, too. Plus a weekly cleaning service. Those were an additional 12K a year. Brings us down to 24K. Daycare was 11K per kid (2 kids) total 22K. Professional wardrobe, drycleaning, metro/parking cost way more than 2K a year.....

I HATE that I made the decision I did. It has been 3 years since I stopped working, and I cannot wait until my youngest starts K so I can go back to work and net a small profit. I will still be taxed at 40%, but no daycare bills! All that is to say that if I were single (or lesbian!) or merely co-habitating but not technically married, I would not be taxed at 40%...

If you were single you wouldn't have DH's income which put you in that bracket, either. If you were lesbian you would face a raft of other financial penalties that would far, far exceed The benefits. It is almost offensive to say they have it good.

Lastly, you do realize that married peoPle can file separately, yes?

Married filing separately still incurs a penalty -- the amount for the brackets (28, 33, and 35) is LOWER than for single taxpayers. Please don't think it's a real solution to the inequity in the tax code. The marriage penalty is real, and PP is correct that merely cohabitating would mean most lower earners would keep more of their money. However, the family usually does see a net gain in situations like PP's, where it sounds like her DH makes BANK and probably benefits greatly from the expanded lower brackets filing jointly (even when she worked) provided them.

The marriage penalty is much more inequitable when both spouses make about the same.

P.S. OP, I thought this topic was the "most sexiest part of the tax code" when I clicked in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so PP!

I stopped working because I made 60K (as the ED of a state political org)-- all of it taxed at 40% (fed, state, and FICA). Leaving me 36K take home to cover childcare, commuting and business expenses.

As a professional, I put in a LOT of overtime. So we had an evening babysitter, too. Plus a weekly cleaning service. Those were an additional 12K a year. Brings us down to 24K. Daycare was 11K per kid (2 kids) total 22K. Professional wardrobe, drycleaning, metro/parking cost way more than 2K a year.....

I HATE that I made the decision I did. It has been 3 years since I stopped working, and I cannot wait until my youngest starts K so I can go back to work and net a small profit. I will still be taxed at 40%, but no daycare bills! All that is to say that if I were single (or lesbian!) or merely co-habitating but not technically married, I would not be taxed at 40%...

If you were single you wouldn't have DH's income which put you in that bracket, either. If you were lesbian you would face a raft of other financial penalties that would far, far exceed The benefits. It is almost offensive to say they have it good.

Lastly, you do realize that married peoPle can file separately, yes?

Married filing separately still incurs a penalty -- the amount for the brackets (28, 33, and 35) is LOWER than for single taxpayers. Please don't think it's a real solution to the inequity in the tax code. The marriage penalty is real, and PP is correct that merely cohabitating would mean most lower earners would keep more of their money. However, the family usually does see a net gain in situations like PP's, where it sounds like her DH makes BANK and probably benefits greatly from the expanded lower brackets filing jointly (even when she worked) provided them.

The marriage penalty is much more inequitable when both spouses make about the same.

P.S. OP, I thought this topic was the "most sexiest part of the tax code" when I clicked in

Yes, the separate filing isn't great unless you fit certain circumstances. But the poster is complaining about how her income is taxed at 40%, when in fact it is the combined income of the family that is taxed at that rate. She may feel penalized by marriage, but she has forgotten that her husband's income is taxed at a much lower rate as the result of their marriage. In fact, all incremental income is taxed at a high rate and she should be no more upset than her husband would be if he got a raise and had to pay 40% of that.

In her particular situation, she is decidedly better off than two singles from both an income tax and inheritance perspective. She is certainly better off than lesbians with the same income, on both an income tax and inheritance perspective.

In order to feel the penalty, she would have to make as much as her husband. But then she wouldn't care, because she would have plenty of money to pay for child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so PP!

I stopped working because I made 60K (as the ED of a state political org)-- all of it taxed at 40% (fed, state, and FICA). Leaving me 36K take home to cover childcare, commuting and business expenses.

As a professional, I put in a LOT of overtime. So we had an evening babysitter, too. Plus a weekly cleaning service. Those were an additional 12K a year. Brings us down to 24K. Daycare was 11K per kid (2 kids) total 22K. Professional wardrobe, drycleaning, metro/parking cost way more than 2K a year.....

I HATE that I made the decision I did. It has been 3 years since I stopped working, and I cannot wait until my youngest starts K so I can go back to work and net a small profit. I will still be taxed at 40%, but no daycare bills! All that is to say that if I were single (or lesbian!) or merely co-habitating but not technically married, I would not be taxed at 40%...

If you were single you wouldn't have DH's income which put you in that bracket, either. If you were lesbian you would face a raft of other financial penalties that would far, far exceed The benefits. It is almost offensive to say they have it good.

Lastly, you do realize that married peoPle can file separately, yes?

Married filing separately still incurs a penalty -- the amount for the brackets (28, 33, and 35) is LOWER than for single taxpayers. Please don't think it's a real solution to the inequity in the tax code. The marriage penalty is real, and PP is correct that merely cohabitating would mean most lower earners would keep more of their money. However, the family usually does see a net gain in situations like PP's, where it sounds like her DH makes BANK and probably benefits greatly from the expanded lower brackets filing jointly (even when she worked) provided them.

The marriage penalty is much more inequitable when both spouses make about the same.

P.S. OP, I thought this topic was the "most sexiest part of the tax code" when I clicked in

Yes, the separate filing isn't great unless you fit certain circumstances. But the poster is complaining about how her income is taxed at 40%, when in fact it is the combined income of the family that is taxed at that rate. She may feel penalized by marriage, but she has forgotten that her husband's income is taxed at a much lower rate as the result of their marriage. In fact, all incremental income is taxed at a high rate and she should be no more upset than her husband would be if he got a raise and had to pay 40% of that.

In her particular situation, she is decidedly better off than two singles from both an income tax and inheritance perspective. She is certainly better off than lesbians with the same income, on both an income tax and inheritance perspective.

In order to feel the penalty, she would have to make as much as her husband. But then she wouldn't care, because she would have plenty of money to pay for child care.

Uh, did you just say exactly what I said? Because yeah, you just said exactly what I said: net gain for her family, more inequitable for similar incomes, filing separately sucks.