Dual 400k incomes vs single 400k income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. The unhappy married or divorced couples are the exception. We're all retiring in the next few years and looking forward to truly golden years together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

[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.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

Yup! I gave up on a path to high level career to sahp. Made for less stress, everyone happier, and I didn’t want to put my kids in daycare (oldest wouldn’t have done well—wouldn’t take a bottle or go to strangers at all). So I quit my 6 figure job (over 25 years ago) and chose to stay home. This allowed spouse to take on whatever work project needed with you any thought of “is it my week to be home since spouse is traveling” or “sick kids who calls out of work” etc. I managed the kids and home front. Wouldn’t change a thing. Happily approaching retirement for spouse with $30m in bank plus 2 homes owned. We are all happy

[Anonymous]

As our incomes rose we never really changed the lifestyle we had in our late 30s and early 40’s. We were comfortable and happy. All the higher income did was insure a very good retirement and our ability to help our kids out if needed. So far they haven’t needed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

Yup! I gave up on a path to high level career to sahp. Made for less stress, everyone happier, and I didn’t want to put my kids in daycare (oldest wouldn’t have done well—wouldn’t take a bottle or go to strangers at all). So I quit my 6 figure job (over 25 years ago) and chose to stay home. This allowed spouse to take on whatever work project needed with you any thought of “is it my week to be home since spouse is traveling” or “sick kids who calls out of work” etc. I managed the kids and home front. Wouldn’t change a thing. Happily approaching retirement for spouse with $30m in bank plus 2 homes owned. We are all happy

I mean he obv makes way more than $200k-$400k/year so your story is kind of irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

Yup! I gave up on a path to high level career to sahp. Made for less stress, everyone happier, and I didn’t want to put my kids in daycare (oldest wouldn’t have done well—wouldn’t take a bottle or go to strangers at all). So I quit my 6 figure job (over 25 years ago) and chose to stay home. This allowed spouse to take on whatever work project needed with you any thought of “is it my week to be home since spouse is traveling” or “sick kids who calls out of work” etc. I managed the kids and home front. Wouldn’t change a thing. Happily approaching retirement for spouse with $30m in bank plus 2 homes owned. We are all happy

I’m always amused by these posts posting about there obscene wealth on a public forum. I mean it’s “anonymous” but the sites IP logs will likely lead back to your house, and I know there are foreign adversaries mounting this site because of its proximity to our political class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

[Anonymous]

I make $390, spouse makes $250. Both of us have a lot of flexibility and work from home several days a week. My trade off is that I travel once a month for 2-3 days.

We have a nice life. Two houses, vacations whenever we want, household help for cleaning and yard. Our retirement savings and college savings are in a great place. We donate a large amount to causes we care about. We can likely retire in our mid-fifties when our youngest graduates from college.

Our kids grow up seeing both parents work and contribute to running the household. Both parents cook and run car pools. Modeling that partnership is important.

That is the long answer- the short answer is that yes, it’s better to have two high earners if you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

Yup! I gave up on a path to high level career to sahp. Made for less stress, everyone happier, and I didn’t want to put my kids in daycare (oldest wouldn’t have done well—wouldn’t take a bottle or go to strangers at all). So I quit my 6 figure job (over 25 years ago) and chose to stay home. This allowed spouse to take on whatever work project needed with you any thought of “is it my week to be home since spouse is traveling” or “sick kids who calls out of work” etc. I managed the kids and home front. Wouldn’t change a thing. Happily approaching retirement for spouse with $30m in bank plus 2 homes owned. We are all happy

I’m always amused by these posts posting about there obscene wealth on a public forum. I mean it’s “anonymous” but the sites IP logs will likely lead back to your house, and I know there are foreign adversaries mounting this site because of its proximity to our political class.

Lol, you think China cares that PP has $30 million (if she actually has that – I think people lie here but that’s another issue)? What are they going to do with that information? There are probably 1 million people in the US in households with that net worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. The unhappy married or divorced couples are the exception. We're all retiring in the next few years and looking forward to truly golden years together.

Divorce rates are somewhere around 50%. And the idea that the remaining 50% of couples are happy is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

Yup! I gave up on a path to high level career to sahp. Made for less stress, everyone happier, and I didn’t want to put my kids in daycare (oldest wouldn’t have done well—wouldn’t take a bottle or go to strangers at all). So I quit my 6 figure job (over 25 years ago) and chose to stay home. This allowed spouse to take on whatever work project needed with you any thought of “is it my week to be home since spouse is traveling” or “sick kids who calls out of work” etc. I managed the kids and home front. Wouldn’t change a thing. Happily approaching retirement for spouse with $30m in bank plus 2 homes owned. We are all happy

I’m always amused by these posts posting about there obscene wealth on a public forum. I mean it’s “anonymous” but the sites IP logs will likely lead back to your house, and I know there are foreign adversaries mounting this site because of its proximity to our political class.

Lol, you think China cares that PP has $30 million (if she actually has that – I think people lie here but that’s another issue)? What are they going to do with that information? There are probably 1 million people in the US in households with that net worth.

I was thinking North Korea and Russia, they convert stolen funds to cryptocurrency and have huge facilities like the GRU combing for targets.

[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!

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The $50k is immaterial, and probably actually detrimental to the family, but the $50k spouse is probably selfish and wants to do it.

Would you say the same thing if the spouse is instead spending 10K on a hobby instead of making 50K on it instead?

Most people would probably think, "your family is making 1M a year, surely you can spend 10K a year and enjoy yourself." But doing something you enjoy that also makes your family 50K a year? That's the thing that's selfish, sure.

If you are spending 40+ hours/week on said hobby and expecting your breadwinning spouse to take on a greater portion of childcare/sick day coverage/transport to activities etc, so that you can participate to that level then yes it’s equally selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There’s so much less stress with the breadwinner SAHM setup. It can make for very happy marriages.

Yup! I gave up on a path to high level career to sahp. Made for less stress, everyone happier, and I didn’t want to put my kids in daycare (oldest wouldn’t have done well—wouldn’t take a bottle or go to strangers at all). So I quit my 6 figure job (over 25 years ago) and chose to stay home. This allowed spouse to take on whatever work project needed with you any thought of “is it my week to be home since spouse is traveling” or “sick kids who calls out of work” etc. I managed the kids and home front. Wouldn’t change a thing. Happily approaching retirement for spouse with $30m in bank plus 2 homes owned. We are all happy

I’m always amused by these posts posting about there obscene wealth on a public forum. I mean it’s “anonymous” but the sites IP logs will likely lead back to your house, and I know there are foreign adversaries mounting this site because of its proximity to our political class.

Lol, you think China cares that PP has $30 million (if she actually has that – I think people lie here but that’s another issue)? What are they going to do with that information? There are probably 1 million people in the US in households with that net worth.

I was thinking North Korea and Russia, they convert stolen funds to cryptocurrency and have huge facilities like the GRU combing for targets.

When you have $30M your name is tied to your wealth in public records. Don't need to hack a forum to figure out that someone living in a $3M house with 3 luxury cars registered and $20K/yr in political donations is rich.