Anonymous wrote:"Believe me, two adults who share a house (with or without a marriage license) eat twice as much, wear twice as much, pay more for health care, operate twice as many cars, and etc. One person (with or without kids) does not have the same expenses as two. Why would you think they do?"

This is so not correct it's ridiculous.

In the DMV, most married couples I know have only one car. Most employed people with professional jobs have health insurance that covers their spouse and any children for much, much less than the cost of insuring two adults separately. Their heating, internet, water, and gas expenses are the same as they would be if they were single, and their mortgage for a 3-bed house or apartment is the same.

You're totally missing the point.

The point is that some adults choose to share expenses with other adults.

Adults who do NOT choose to share expenses with another adult are always going to have a lower standard of living. They are living on one income instead of two. Sure, a married couple pays the same for that 3 bedroom... but each person has half as much space. You're trading space for cost. That's kind of how the world works.

If you are an adult who chooses NOT to share expenses with another adult, then your expenses will be higher. And although your higher expenses will be partially subsidized if you have children (via the substantial HOH allowance) they will not be 100% subsidized because why the hell should they be. YOU HAVE ONE FEWER ADULT TO SUPPORT.

BTW, family coverage is hella expensive at both my and my spouse's job. We each carry our own insurance because of this. One of us chooses employee+kids because that's heavily subsidized out of kindness to single parents...

Way to avoid the main point.

Anonymous wrote:"Believe me, two adults who share a house (with or without a marriage license) eat twice as much, wear twice as much, pay more for health care, operate twice as many cars, and etc. One person (with or without kids) does not have the same expenses as two. Why would you think they do?"

This is so not correct it's ridiculous.

In the DMV, most married couples I know have only one car. Most employed people with professional jobs have health insurance that covers their spouse and any children for much, much less than the cost of insuring two adults separately. Their heating, internet, water, and gas expenses are the same as they would be if they were single, and their mortgage for a 3-bed house or apartment is the same.

? Most of the ones I know have two.

"Believe me, two adults who share a house (with or without a marriage license) eat twice as much, wear twice as much, pay more for health care, operate twice as many cars, and etc. One person (with or without kids) does not have the same expenses as two. Why would you think they do?"

This is so not correct it's ridiculous.

In the DMV, most married couples I know have only one car. Most employed people with professional jobs have health insurance that covers their spouse and any children for much, much less than the cost of insuring two adults separately. Their heating, internet, water, and gas expenses are the same as they would be if they were single, and their mortgage for a 3-bed house or apartment is the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WT? As HOH I get 20% of what a married couple would get. Put another way, married gets 5 times more relief.

And NO - I don't get child support or any other support.

You get the same $1,200 for each adult as a married couple or single person + $500 for each dependent. The income threshold increases from a single person. That’s the only difference. Why would you get more than $1,200 for yourself?

Should be per household. Penalizes single parents who get $0 while making the same income as a childless married couple or family with one earner making the same or more. In both situations there is just one earner. How does that make sense?

So a "household" of 1 single person should get the same as a "household" of six (2 parents and 4 kids?)

Yeah, that makes zero sense.

Anonymous wrote:I’m HoH with an AGI of $88,000, one kid in college, who has been laid off from her part-time job. I get $1700, which seems fair since I don’t make a lot. I will likely give her at least the $500 child portion.

Unfortunately, the child $500 is only for those under 17 (according to Washington Post).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WT? As HOH I get 20% of what a married couple would get. Put another way, married gets 5 times more relief.

And NO - I don't get child support or any other support.

You get the same $1,200 for each adult as a married couple or single person + $500 for each dependent. The income threshold increases from a single person. That’s the only difference. Why would you get more than $1,200 for yourself?

Should be per household. Penalizes single parents who get $0 while making the same income as a childless married couple or family with one earner making the same or more. In both situations there is just one earner. How does that make sense?

So a "household" of 1 single person should get the same as a "household" of six (2 parents and 4 kids?)

No, not one person has said that. The issue is that single/HOH are getting $0 with 4 kids, while at the same income married couples with 4 kids are getting $3k plus. It turns into an all or nothing scenario if you’re $1 above the phase out cutoff for your filing status.

I’m HoH with an AGI of $88,000, one kid in college, who has been laid off from her part-time job. I get $1700, which seems fair since I don’t make a lot. I will likely give her at least the $500 child portion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WT? As HOH I get 20% of what a married couple would get. Put another way, married gets 5 times more relief.

And NO - I don't get child support or any other support.

You get the same $1,200 for each adult as a married couple or single person + $500 for each dependent. The income threshold increases from a single person. That’s the only difference. Why would you get more than $1,200 for yourself?

Should be per household. Penalizes single parents who get $0 while making the same income as a childless married couple or family with one earner making the same or more. In both situations there is just one earner. How does that make sense?

So a "household" of 1 single person should get the same as a "household" of six (2 parents and 4 kids?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm being obtuse- is it based off of AGI or taxable income?

my question as well. that's a big difference for most people.

NP glad I'm not the only one. I haven't done my 2019 taxes yet but thought AGI was the # before deductions, yet I keep hearing it referred to as gross income - deductions. Clearly I need to do my taxes....

AGI is only adjusted for certain deductions. Not 401k IIRC.

Lots of people screwed over for filing 2019 early like responsible adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make 177k and have 3 kids. We are getting roughly the same amount as my brother and sister in law who combined made 50,000 in 2018. Our jobs aren't in jeopardy and my brother was laid off. The formula doesn't and can't take into account all these factors. It's awkward to think about.

Insidious give it to your brother. I know that isn’t the point, but that is what I would do.

Insidious?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm being obtuse- is it based off of AGI or taxable income?

my question as well. that's a big difference for most people.

NP glad I'm not the only one. I haven't done my 2019 taxes yet but thought AGI was the # before deductions, yet I keep hearing it referred to as gross income - deductions. Clearly I need to do my taxes....

It says on the site, if you haven't filed in 2019, you can use 2018 numbers.

Go get your 2018 returns and find the AGI. They are using AGI.

Anonymous wrote:We make 177k and have 3 kids. We are getting roughly the same amount as my brother and sister in law who combined made 50,000 in 2018. Our jobs aren't in jeopardy and my brother was laid off. The formula doesn't and can't take into account all these factors. It's awkward to think about.

Insidious give it to your brother. I know that isn’t the point, but that is what I would do.