Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Sigh. Given what OP's husband makes, every penny OP earns is being taxed at 37%. That's federal. Presumably they also pay state taxes. Add at least 6% on to that and that's 43%. Saying 50% isn't as crazy as you make it sound.

But it's a 13% exaggeration. Of course it's crazy. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit numbers.

Did you fail first grade math? 37% federal plus whatever their state tax rate is. I'm not going to bother looking it up for you but let's say it's 6% (and that's on the low side when you're considering all things). 37+6=43. So no, it's not a 13% swing, it's 7% swing, and it might be less. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Sigh. Given what OP's husband makes, every penny OP earns is being taxed at 37%. That's federal. Presumably they also pay state taxes. Add at least 6% on to that and that's 43%. Saying 50% isn't as crazy as you make it sound.

But it's a 13% exaggeration. Of course it's crazy. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit numbers.

Did you fail first grade math? 37% federal plus whatever their state tax rate is. I'm not going to bother looking it up for you but let's say it's 6% (and that's on the low side when you're considering all things). 37+6=43. So no, it's not a 13% swing, it's 7% swing, and it might be less. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit math.

NP you don’t tax one earner at the marginal rate, you tax them at the effective rate. Just like you don’t say “the woman’s job doesn’t pay for childcare, she should quit”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Sigh. Given what OP's husband makes, every penny OP earns is being taxed at 37%. That's federal. Presumably they also pay state taxes. Add at least 6% on to that and that's 43%. Saying 50% isn't as crazy as you make it sound.

But it's a 13% exaggeration. Of course it's crazy. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit numbers.

Did you fail first grade math? 37% federal plus whatever their state tax rate is. I'm not going to bother looking it up for you but let's say it's 6% (and that's on the low side when you're considering all things). 37+6=43. So no, it's not a 13% swing, it's 7% swing, and it might be less. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Sigh. Given what OP's husband makes, every penny OP earns is being taxed at 37%. That's federal. Presumably they also pay state taxes. Add at least 6% on to that and that's 43%. Saying 50% isn't as crazy as you make it sound.

But it's a 13% exaggeration. Of course it's crazy. If you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, then use legit numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does your family need more money for? Has he discussed that? Based on the numbers you aren’t starving so maybe start there to figure out what this is really about.

Given that he’s gotten “mean” I have to wonder if he is staring down the barrel of child support/alimony calculations. Beware OP.

+1. This does not sound good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Sigh. Given what OP's husband makes, every penny OP earns is being taxed at 37%. That's federal. Presumably they also pay state taxes. Add at least 6% on to that and that's 43%. Saying 50% isn't as crazy as you make it sound.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Correct, the highest is 37%, and that's only on earnings over 693,750. Everything below that amount is taxed less. So OP's entire tax rate is less than 37%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.

NP. There is no 50% tax bracket despite that fact that high earners like to complain that there is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why would he NOT ask her to do this? as the primary breadwinner, i'm exhausted and stressed all the time. op i'm sure you're happy bc you have a low stress life and part time job subsidized by someone else's labor. it's COMPLETELY fair enough that you shoulder some of the burden for a while.

She gave birth to their kids and does the primary caretaking. That alone would cost him 200k+ if not for her. Get real.

in what world would the primary caretaking of a single 10 year old child cost someone $200k a year?
pls give me the job of that nanny.

She’s taxed at the highest rate, so more than 50%. That gets her down to $95k net. To hire someone to drive the kids to sports and appointments will be at least 1/2 of that.

You should go back in time and slap whoever explained how taxes work to you!

DP but I do wonder what you mean. It’s reasonable to assign OP’s earnings to their top bracket. Any additional dollar certainly will be taxed from that bracket and that bracket alone.