Dual 400k incomes vs single 400k income

[Anonymous]

One is well-off and the two who work to make the same amount are merely UMC.

[Anonymous]

Each 200k worker has to pay social security taxes on the first 168k. 168kx2=336k in taxes

One 400k worker only had to pay social security on 168k.

If you have a SAHM, you get to save on daycare, camps, aftercare and you have more time to enjoy your weekends because the house is clean and errands were ran during the week.

The downside is that the jobs that pay 400k often don't allow the person much time at home, they're demanding and stressful. My 160k job though is also demanding and stressful, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Each 200k worker has to pay social security taxes on the first 168k. 168kx2=336k in taxes

One 400k worker only had to pay social security on 168k.

If you have a SAHM, you get to save on daycare, camps, aftercare and you have more time to enjoy your weekends because the house is clean and errands were ran during the week.

The downside is that the jobs that pay 400k often don't allow the person much time at home, they're demanding and stressful. My 160k job though is also demanding and stressful, so there's that.[/quote

All the sahms I know are sending their kids to preschool and camp 5 days a week. It’s considered stimulating for their kids. They save on not needing a nanny, but they spend plenty on school, extracurriculars etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Each 200k worker has to pay social security taxes on the first 168k. 168kx2=336k in taxes

One 400k worker only had to pay social security on 168k.

If you have a SAHM, you get to save on daycare, camps, aftercare and you have more time to enjoy your weekends because the house is clean and errands were ran during the week.

The downside is that the jobs that pay 400k often don't allow the person much time at home, they're demanding and stressful. My 160k job though is also demanding and stressful, so there's that.

All the sahms I know are sending their kids to preschool and camp 5 days a week. It’s considered stimulating for their kids. They save on not needing a nanny, but they spend plenty on school, extracurriculars etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Each 200k worker has to pay social security taxes on the first 168k. 168kx2=336k in taxes

One 400k worker only had to pay social security on 168k.

If you have a SAHM, you get to save on daycare, camps, aftercare and you have more time to enjoy your weekends because the house is clean and errands were ran during the week.

The downside is that the jobs that pay 400k often don't allow the person much time at home, they're demanding and stressful. My 160k job though is also demanding and stressful, so there's that.

All the sahms I know are sending their kids to preschool and camp 5 days a week. It’s considered stimulating for their kids. They save on not needing a nanny, but they spend plenty on school, extracurriculars etc.

Yeah most SAHM stay pretty active and to do it comfortably actually takes a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Each 200k worker has to pay social security taxes on the first 168k. 168kx2=336k in taxes

One 400k worker only had to pay social security on 168k.

If you have a SAHM, you get to save on daycare, camps, aftercare and you have more time to enjoy your weekends because the house is clean and errands were ran during the week.

The downside is that the jobs that pay 400k often don't allow the person much time at home, they're demanding and stressful. My 160k job though is also demanding and stressful, so there's that.

All the sahms I know are sending their kids to preschool and camp 5 days a week. It’s considered stimulating for their kids. They save on not needing a nanny, but they spend plenty on school, extracurriculars etc.

Yeah most SAHM stay pretty active and to do it comfortably actually takes a lot of money.

Agree. And when their husband cheats or she ages a bit or gains weight, she'll be screwed. It's rare to find a man who wants to support a woman in this way and doesn't devalue her eventually. Just wait until the kids are in MS and beyond or he loses his job.

Only in my parents generation and earlier did the traditional arrangement actually work. And many marriages were unhappy. Now with women being educated and it costing a LOT more money to have the traditional UMC life, people are seeing a different balance.

I know plenty of women want to SAH. Do it with caution!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it better to have a HHI of $400k but full control of your spouse, or $800k but have to pretend to be a partner?

Ding ding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My spouse earns $500K and I $250K or so. We both are in tech, My DH lost his job 2-3 years ago, and he could take time to find a new job in 4-5 months. Now I am out of job, but there is very little pressure to find a new one quickly. I work to accelerate our earnings and fast track our retirement. Plus jobs in tech are not stable, so I force both of us retiring together in early to mid 50's once kids are in college and college is paid for.

Wow what are your spouses qualifications / degrees?

[Anonymous]

Two working is better. More money, more savings, more security in that if one loses the job you only lose half of the hhi vs all of it, balance and equality in the relationship. More retirement savings, more social security income in retirement. The daycare years are short relative to the years a person is in the working world so never understood the no daycare as a primary argument for why one should quit working (unless of course a couple can’t feasibly afford it which isn’t what we’re discussing here at 400k hhi).

[Anonymous]

In most one high income family, there is more calm because division of labor is not a point of contention.

In most collective high income family, there is a constant power struggles to prioritize schedules and responsibilities.

However, right partners can make either set up work great and wrong partners can mess up either set up. There is perfect lifestyle, each has its own challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two working is better. More money, more savings, more security in that if one loses the job you only lose half of the hhi vs all of it, balance and equality in the relationship. More retirement savings, more social security income in retirement. The daycare years are short relative to the years a person is in the working world so never understood the no daycare as a primary argument for why one should quit working (unless of course a couple can’t feasibly afford it which isn’t what we’re discussing here at 400k hhi).

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two working is better. More money, more savings, more security in that if one loses the job you only lose half of the hhi vs all of it, balance and equality in the relationship. More retirement savings, more social security income in retirement. The daycare years are short relative to the years a person is in the working world so never understood the no daycare as a primary argument for why one should quit working (unless of course a couple can’t feasibly afford it which isn’t what we’re discussing here at 400k hhi).

I generally agree with this, which is why I didn’t quit my job when I had kids, but I totally understand why no daycare is a primary argument for having one person stay home. It is sad to have to put your infant in childcare for 10 hours a day while the parents work and commute. Many people want to be home with their kids until they go to school. Daycare years are also not short if you have 2-3 kids, spaced 2-4 years apart each. It’s more like at least 7-10+ years until all the kids are in kindergarten. Two working parents is not without trade offs, and most of the time, the trade off is having your kid raised many hours a week by daycare or a nanny which isnt ideal either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two working is better. More money, more savings, more security in that if one loses the job you only lose half of the hhi vs all of it, balance and equality in the relationship. More retirement savings, more social security income in retirement. The daycare years are short relative to the years a person is in the working world so never understood the no daycare as a primary argument for why one should quit working (unless of course a couple can’t feasibly afford it which isn’t what we’re discussing here at 400k hhi).

I generally agree with this, which is why I didn’t quit my job when I had kids, but I totally understand why no daycare is a primary argument for having one person stay home. It is sad to have to put your infant in childcare for 10 hours a day while the parents work and commute. Many people want to be home with their kids until they go to school. Daycare years are also not short if you have 2-3 kids, spaced 2-4 years apart each. It’s more like at least 7-10+ years until all the kids are in kindergarten. Two working parents is not without trade offs, and most of the time, the trade off is having your kid raised many hours a week by daycare or a nanny which isnt ideal either.

If you get the right nanny, it works very well. We had the same nanny until my youngest was 6, then the nanny moved and we didn't replace her. She was like a grandma to the kids and we are still close years later. I never understood families that change nannies often. It's not cheap to hire the right one, but when you make 800k+, it's not a huge hit and you always have the option for more flexibility when you need it.

When I only had one kid we used daycare. In my mind there is no comparison. A good nanny is worth her weight in gold.

I also agree it is hard leaving your baby in someone else's care. I took 4 mo maternity leave and DH took 3 mo FMLA after my leave, so the babies were 7 mo when we put them in daycare(1st) and nanny (2nd, 3rd 4th). Both our careers took a tiny dent, but nothing unrecoverable. In the end, it was worth it for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse earns $500K and I $250K or so. We both are in tech, My DH lost his job 2-3 years ago, and he could take time to find a new job in 4-5 months. Now I am out of job, but there is very little pressure to find a new one quickly. I work to accelerate our earnings and fast track our retirement. Plus jobs in tech are not stable, so I force both of us retiring together in early to mid 50's once kids are in college and college is paid for.

Wow what are your spouses qualifications / degrees?

These are probably sales or maybe lawyers at Fintech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Each 200k worker has to pay social security taxes on the first 168k. 168kx2=336k in taxes

One 400k worker only had to pay social security on 168k.

If you have a SAHM, you get to save on daycare, camps, aftercare and you have more time to enjoy your weekends because the house is clean and errands were ran during the week.

The downside is that the jobs that pay 400k often don't allow the person much time at home, they're demanding and stressful. My 160k job though is also demanding and stressful, so there's that.

All the sahms I know are sending their kids to preschool and camp 5 days a week. It’s considered stimulating for their kids. They save on not needing a nanny, but they spend plenty on school, extracurriculars etc.

Yeah most SAHM stay pretty active and to do it comfortably actually takes a lot of money.

Agree. And when their husband cheats or she ages a bit or gains weight, she'll be screwed. It's rare to find a man who wants to support a woman in this way and doesn't devalue her eventually. Just wait until the kids are in MS and beyond or he loses his job.

Only in my parents generation and earlier did the traditional arrangement actually work. And many marriages were unhappy. Now with women being educated and it costing a LOT more money to have the traditional UMC life, people are seeing a different balance.

I know plenty of women want to SAH. Do it with caution!

You hang with the wrong crowd!

I know plenty of sahp who are happily married 30+ years later. Spouses are execs and are decent humans and aren’t cheating.