41
42

LTR/MARRIAGEWhy Marriage - Part 1 - Finances (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor

There has been a lot of discussion lately about whether marriage is preferable to an LTR. Over a series of posts I’d like to unpack the reasons why marriage is the *primary** female goal over and above any other relationship structure. This is not to say that other types of relationships are bad or don’t work for the people involved. But I want us all to be clear on what we are gaining or losing from the various life choices available to the Red Pill Woman.*

 

As a note: not every RP man *wants** marriage, and marriage does come with some risk, for both men and women. The purpose of vetting is to sift through men that are incompatible. No RPW should be trying to ‘lock down’ a man that is not at least open to the idea of marriage. No one here should specifically be targeting a man that comments on a RP sub either. It is important to understand the potential drawbacks of marriage from the male perspective, which makes these topics even more important to consider in the cold light of day. While I will certainly touch on areas where men benefit, my focus is to suss out the best strategy for women, regardless of whether or not it is the best strategy for all men. It is the responsibility of every man that wishes to avoid marriage, and no one can ever force another to marry. It is up to each couple to put all of the information together and decide what is best for them.*


 

Financial Benefits

 

Marriage provides financial benefits that are immediate (in the form of taxes), intermediate (how money is managed and saved) and long term (retirement and death benefits). I’ll touch on each. I’m only considering the financial benefits of a lifetime marriage and not addressing divorce in this post.

I’m focusing on the US in this post - the rules and regulations are different in each country and right now I’m only speaking for the place I know best.

 

Immediate

  There are a few areas of life where the cost will immediately decrease upon marriage. The benefit of this is obvious. If your taxes are lower and your bills are lower, you will have more money to either spend, save or pay down debt. This is minimal for some and more marked for others.

  First: the tax code is setup to promote marriage and children. Simply by having “the piece of paper” and keeping everything else equal, your taxes will decrease. If you’ve ever looked at the tax tables (and I don’t know why you would) you can see that after $9,500 in taxable income, the taxes owed change based on whether you are single, married or head of household. Here is one way that plays out:

 

  • If an LTR couple each makes $75,000 & $25,000 per year they will each owe $14,528 & $3,290 in taxes. So as a LTR household they would be paying $17,818 to the government that year.

  • If a married man (sole breadwinner) makes $100,000 he will owe $16,536 per year.

  • If a married couple makes $75,000 & $25,000 per year, their household income is the same as the LTR but their taxes are $16,536 - the same as the sole breadwinner.

  This may seem like a negligible amount but we’re looking at the taxes in the most simplistic way possible. The larger the discrepancy in income between spouses, the more marked a difference marriage makes. Tax credits and deductions are also impacted (usually positively) with marriage.

  Also, a household can save more money into accounts that will lower their tax burden than single people can.

  Other immediate financial impacts: all types of insurance costs decrease with marriage. Auto is of course the big one that most people are aware of. There can also be decreases in other types of insurance such as homeowner's or long term care (when you are older). Your health insurance options open up since both partners can be covered under one plan. This may or may not lead to a decrease but it certainly leads to more flexibility.

 

Intermediate

  Marriage is currently one of the best indicators of lifetime success. If you follow the sequence: graduate HS, work, marry, have children you have a 97% likelihood that you will not be poor by the time you enter your 30s.1. The same study shows that among millennials the highest income levels are 1. Married and childless 2. Married and had children once married 3. Divorced with no kids 4. Never married and childless.

  Where feminism complains of a ‘marriage penalty’ for women in the workforce, there is no disagreement that married men have on average higher incomes (a marriage premium) than their unmarried peers by about $15,900 annually. The marriage penalty is not entirely helpful either, as married women have family incomes around 73% higher than the unmarried ladies.2.

  Finally, married couples tend to be about 4 times more wealthy than their unmarried counterparts. Some of the reasons for this will benefit a LTR couple as well - if you are living together you have two people paying for one dishwasher. But many cohabitating couples do not combine resources the way that married couples do, which decreases the benefits of the dual income. People who get married (and stay married) will each have about 2 times the wealth of someone who has never been married.3  

Retirement and Beyond

 

I’m using ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ but the following is true regardless of gender unless noted.  

If you are able to generate more wealth, as noted above, you will certainly be on track for a better retirement than someone with fewer assets. However, it goes beyond wealth generation. When Social Security was established, more women were SAHMs and worked little if ever. The system therefore determined that a wife is entitled to SS benefits as long as her husband worked. Even now if she works it is still possible that she will be able to claim a higher benefit against her partner's earnings. This is true in the case of divorce as well. Finally, when her husband dies, the wife is able to collect his benefits if his SS is greater than hers.  

Pensions also tend to provide options that will provide for the remaining spouse when her partner dies. This benefit is not available to anyone but your spouse.  

Money can be inherited or gifted between spouses with no penalties, limits or death taxes. Money can be inherited by a LTR partner but a portion will be lost to taxation. The wife will receive a larger sum of money upon the death of her husband than a GF upon the death of her BF.

 


If you are planning to be in a lifetime LTR there are certain legal steps that can be taken to mitigate the longer term impacts of not being married. This is what same sex couples did until the States started to put same sex marriage on the books. It is worthwhile to note that the statistics I’ve referenced show the most likely scenarios; there are going to be outliers there. Taxes and pension benefits, on the other hand, do not have the same sorts of workarounds and an LTR is almost always going to be at a disadvantage in those situations.

  Next Week: But I don’t have to get married to have a baby…


[–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

General note to all users:

  • women do not need to 'justify' their desire to marry

  • talking about the financial advantages that both men and women experience is not 'gold-digging' behavior

  • no one on this sub aims to 'force' unwilling men down the aisle.

  • Male contributors: do not comment on this thread unless you have read the sidebar and your activity reflects the necessary benchmarks outlined. Mainly, regularly activity on one of the following subs: TRP, askTRP, or MRP

Please note that all accusatory, uncharitable, and anti-RPW comments will be removed.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I will definitely be saving this post for reference in future discussions!

If you are planning to be in a lifetime LTR there are certain legal steps that can be taken to mitigate the longer term impacts of not being married. This is what same sex couples did until the States started to put same sex marriage on the books.

And yet, it was still necessary for same sex couples to fight for the right to be legally married because all of legal avenues to recognize a partner's legal and financial rights-- wills, power of attorney, etc.-- can all be contested in court by next of kin in the event that one half of a partner dies or becomes incapacitated.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And yet, it was still necessary for same sex couples to fight for the right to be legally married...

Right. I've long made the argument that if marriage was just a piece of paper or solely a religious/ spiritual institution, then same sex couples would not have had a reason to push for it as hard as they did.

The reason that the courts finally allowed (is that even the right word) same sex marriage was because they were able to show financial losses. IIRC the woman's partner died and her estate (in the millions) was settled through the courts. Even though the remaining partner got the money, she was out a considerable amount due to death taxes which would have been avoided if they had been married.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 5 points6 points  (2 children)

•If an LTR couple each makes $75,000 & $25,000 per year they will each owe $14,528 & $3,290 in taxes. So as a LTR household they would be paying $17,818 to the government that year. •If a married man (sole breadwinner) makes $100,000 he will owe $16,536 per year. •If a married couple makes $75,000 & $25,000 per year, their household income is the same as the LTR but their taxes are $16,536 - the same as the sole breadwinner.

It's better than that. You didn't factor in the standard deduction. When you do, the taxable income for each person drops by $9300. If you are in an LTR but not married, they don't stack. So if you're living like spouses, but only one of your works, they only get a 9300 deduction. If they're married, they get an 18,600 deduction. Example:

Man makes 100k, woman makes zero. man is taxed at 90,700 (single) rate, which is $18,353.

Man is married to woman, and he (or they) make a total of 100k. That combined married income is taxed at 81,400 (100k - 9300x2), for a total tax rate of 11,911.

Yes, that piece of paper saves them $6,442 in taxes.

Now, yes, she'll be entitled to a bunch of stuff (welfare, etc). And she will get some money from the IRS due to having low income. Maybe it even washes out or is better - welfare in the US is whacked out. But do you really want to have the welfare system in your business?

Hint:no.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I was hoping someone mentioned this in the comments! I did the most basic overview of the taxes that I could so it didn't end up as a wall of text but yes, it's usually better than the simple numbers I threw up there.

I joke around that I convinced my husband to get hitched for the tax benefit because the year before we for married he had been phased out of the student loan interest deduction. He got it back fully when we jointly filed the next year.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Filing taxes jointly, unless your income and deductions are really complicated, is generally much more economically advantageous. The averaging effect really shines when one partner makes a boatload and the other one makes very little.

If I made 80k, and my wife made 20k, and we filed separately, I'd be paying an easy 5k+ more in taxes per year. I've done that math. But married... it's so much easier.

Honestly, I get the reasons why many people choose LTRs and don't marry, but most of them IMO boil down to insecurity, bad prior experiences, and fear of commitment. Find the right partner, both of you act maturely and in a RP fashion, and you won't have any reason to split.

LTRs are minimizing risk and planning for failure. I play to win. So does my RP wife, and we're deliriously happy together. Unlike my prior BP marriage to a feminist (don't ask).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Seems like married and childfree is the best option :)

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From a strictly income / net worth stand point - oh yeah, kids are a huge drain!

I hear there are some good parts about them too though, but I'd have to let other people make that case because I've only got nieces and nephews. And I can return them to their parents when they get ornery!

[–]ragnarockette4 Stars 2 points3 points  (1 child)

My mom was not married to her partner (who I consider my stepdad) of 17 years when she unexpectedly passed away. They had pretty airtight wills and many things were already placed in trusts, but we still had to go through probate and I would have been able to take it all if I wanted. I signed so many pieces of paper ceding my legal rights to her house (where they had been living together), cars, and other valuable assets. He could not view her body, sign arrangements for her funeral, or pick up her ashes even with my permission. He could not inquire about any of her financial accounts or retirement portfolio - only me as her next of kin. He couldn't even go pick up her stuff from her office - where he often worked as well and was well known by staff - because they were not legally married!

If she had not had a daughter he would have spent years and court and thousands of dollars on lawyers just to be able to stay in their home.

So not only did my stepdad have to suffer the loss of his long term partner, but he basically was treated like an acquaintance by the law after she died. I know they had their reasons for not marrying - namely he did not want to take on her debt - but if you don't have this incentive there is no reason to not marry. You will be absolutely screwed if your partner dies, especially if they don't have any children or your children are under 18.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this story! I have a few that I wish I could share from work (but can't/shouldn't).

I can't even imagine how hard that must have been for your step dad to have lost his "wife" and then suddenly be no one as far as the courts were concerned. And if he views you as a daughter, it was probably frustrating for him to not be able to take care of you during such a rough time too!

Death is such a difficult thing to deal with in any situation. Your step dad was lucky to have you AND so lucky that you signed away your rights. Not everyone is willing to give up money on the table like that and estate settlements can destroy families - even when some of the best planning is put in place.

[–]rpMadler 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Pensions also tend to provide options that will provide for the remaining spouse when her partner dies. This benefit is not available to anyone but your spouse.

This is incorrect. A pension election of joint & survivor annuity payments is not limited to a spouse. A spouse does have certain rights with regard to most pensions and retirement plans (under ERISA, the right to be the sole primary beneficiary and the right to a survivor benefit) but an unmarried plan participant can usually choose to provide the same benefits to an LTR partner or anyone else. The partner just lacks the legal guarantee of these benefits (the unmarried participant can change beneficiaries at any time, and is under no obligation to select a survivor benefit).

Other than this minor issue , this is a great post!

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Actually, it depends upon the plan document. I manage a DB plan where if the husband dies before going into payment, the wife gets paid, but if there is no wife, any other beneficiary gets NOTHING. Spouses have protections that are unmatched by any other status, including being a beneficiary. This IS a thing and can bite you hard.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 2 points3 points  (4 children)

It might depend on the pension plan. I know for a fact that my father's pension could only be paid out to his spouse, not to me as his child or any other beneficiary. This was something we discussed while he was still single.

[–]ragnarockette4 Stars 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yes. For a short time I worked at a financial company that specialized in helping seniors and we had more than one man marry a caretaker or friend so that she could receive his benefits. Military pensions in particular typically require a marriage certificate to pay out.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love your user name!

[–]rpMadler 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes, it does depend on the pension plan (for those lucky enough to have one). Defined contribution plans like 401(k) and 403(b) plans tend to be much more flexible in terms of who can be named as a beneficiary, though spousal beneficiaries do receive favorable tax treatment there, because they can commingle the inherited assets with their own retirement accounts, while non-spousal beneficiaries must segregate the inherited funds, and most begin distributions on a different (less favorable) time frame.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is correct.

Pension plans (and nonqualified plans, if you make good money) can have VERY draconian parameters to deny a beneficiary money that a spouse can avoid.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Thank you!

A pension election of joint & survivor annuity payments is not limited to a spouse.

In the 7 years I've been in the industry, I've never encountered a joint/survivor option that was not limited to the spouse. So if you've encountered it in the past your knowledge trumps mine; the best I can say is that in my experience it's fairly uncommon.

The partner just lacks the legal guarantee of these benefits

It also may not make sense for the pension owner to take a joint/survivor annuity since this will decrease the monthly payments. It's a matter of being granted protection under the law or taking a leap of faith that your partner will take care of you. I'm watching this happen right now with a client and it's a little heart breaking when your partner of 30 years won't protect you after he's gone.

[–]rpMadler 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It's uncommon (and even more uncommon for someone to elect it) but it is legally permissible, and some plans do offer it. I've had clients elect a joint/survivor option for an unmarried partner (mostly prior to federal recognition of same-sex marriages), and even had one person who got a quote for a joint/survivor option for her daughter...Of course once she saw how much that one reduced the benefit she immediately changed her mind!

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Ha, yeah I was going to comment and say that I'd be surprised if it existed because of the children as survivor angle - which would be costly.

Of course in the end few if any people among the millennial generation are likely to get pension anyway (IMO). I don't know about you but we've seen a lot of pension buy out offers over the last handful of years. I can't imagine they'll exist for anyone outside of the public sector by the time I'm in my 60s.

I'll be honest. I covered finances first because the rules are ever changing. The tax stuff could all change in the next month and who knows what comes down the road. I figured I'd cover what I knew before I have to go reeducate myself on whatever new rules Congress comes up with.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I covered finances first because the rules are ever changing. The tax stuff could all change in the next month and who knows what comes down the road. I figured I'd cover what I knew before I have to go reeducate myself on whatever new rules Congress comes up with.

Totally agree. But one thing that I doubt will ever change is that spouses have protections and benefits financially that non-spouses simply don't. If you want to protect your money/benefits, get married.

[–]mytrpaway 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Money can be inherited by a LTR partner but a portion will be lost to taxation.

The current basic exclusion amount for gifts is $5,490,000. What you say is technically true, but applies to very few people.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But whatever doesn't trasnfer with a beneficiary named (like a house or nonqualified accounts typically) goes through probate for which there is a cost. Also, not all states follow the federal exemption. For some states it's much lower.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[removed]

[–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You need to actively participate on one or more of the the following subs TRP, askTRP, or MRP before commenting here again.

Please read the sidebar.

No one is trying to force men to marry, the goal of this community is to select men with compatible goals via the vetting process.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

I'm not trying to make the case for men to marry. I'm sure there are high achievers that are unmarried. And as noted, there are reasons for men not to marry. But if, as you said,

Married men do work more and more responsibly

Then that is a reason for women to marry instead of remaining in an LTR.

The female marriage personal income penalty seems due to having kids.

Yes, which is why I didn't want to play into what married women earn too much. To my mind a RPW has a responsibility to her husband and her children and to her career last. If this is how a woman focuses her life, she is likely to make less money than she would otherwise. I believe it's therefore more important to focus on women's overall financial well being than her specific salary compared to her single counterparts. Every day I make my husband a sandwich for work. That means he doesn't have to run out and get lunch. This means he has extra face time or work time in the office. This will be noted when he's up for a raise or a promotion. So the fact that I earn less than my single peers doesn't account for the fact that my labor contributions in the home will contribute to his ability to earn more. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

[–]danhaas 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I'm not advocating for men to not marry. I just want to give a clear insight in what the data is telling us, and that it is wrong to deduce that men will earn much more if they marry. You marry the man that you date.

I myself think that "the profit" for men in marriage is that that they can find someone much more responsible, commited and sane if they offer marriage. I don't think many cohabiting women make lunch for their husband.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

You marry the man that you date.

Oh yes! I definitely don't want to sound like "marry any man and he'll suddenly do well". From my own personal experience, I believe (not backed by anything here) that for some men, the responsibility of having a wife (and kids) will lead them to work harder and do better in life. I would never suggest that a woman choose a guy who shows no inclination to work and then hopes marriage will change him.

BUT shotgun weddings seem to produce better results than LTR + kids - so there seems to be something about the way that we behave within marriage that is different from how we behave in LTRs.

I think the way I look at the stats cited are: whatever the reason, married men tend to be better off financially - so go with a man who will marry you and you'll be more likely to be successful (as a family unit).

[–]jeanbroady 2 points3 points  (1 child)

So the fact that I earn less than my single peers doesn't account for the fact that my labor contributions in the home will contribute to his ability to earn more. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Oh yes! I definitely don't want to sound like "marry any man and he'll suddenly do well". From my own personal experience, I believe (not backed by anything here) that for some men, the responsibility of having a wife (and kids) will lead them to work harder and do better in life.

Another benefit of a vested man committed to taking care of his family is his seeing to the maintenance of the those things that can be more expensive if the woman has to take care of them. An example: car mechanics. Even if he does not do the work himself, he is much less likely to get ripped off than his wife when the car needs work. I too am only speaking from experience.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah. My husband takes care of the cars, especially when it's something other than an oil change or a tire repair. And when I'm in doubt with a mechanic, I tell him "oh I have to check with my husband" which is a really great deflection tactic.

We were able to stretch out a really old car for waaaay longer than it should have lived because he did all the work on it. That would have cost me if I'd had to take it to the mechanic. The "housework" that falls under the man's purview can be extremely costly if you have to hire it out.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

BUT shotgun weddings seem to produce better results than LTR + kids - so there seems to be something about the way that we behave within marriage that is different from how we behave in LTRs.

I think this is because people who feel an obligation to marry as a result of pregnancy generally have strong values regarding the importance of maintaining a family unit.

[–]Bpgiissues -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Not all situations result in financial benefit for marriage.

If one or both have good incomes you will actually pay more taxes. Lifestyle changes will also potentially cost more. For example when I divorced I ended up with the same house and same child expenses (No alimony or child support) but ended up having way more disposable income.

If you look at the 33% tax bracket as a single head of household it starts at 212k married starts at 232k. If one person is making 200k the add of a second income will be pretty much all be taxed at 33% Also deductions phase out a lot earlier for combined income. When I go out with my kids I don't drink a bottle of wine and have two adult dinners.

My ex was likely better off married as she didn't cover a lot of the joint expenses however even her disposable income might be up post divorce due to the tax benefit alone.

The only way for a high income earners to get tax breaks from being married is to marry someone who basically does not earn anything. At that point the income is now spreading across two people so there are inherently more expenses. The second person better bring a heck of lot to the relationship to make that trade off worth it.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Not all situations result in financial benefit for marriage.

You are correct that the tax benefit of marriage phases out when you reach the higher income brackets and both partners make similar amounts. Taxes are incredibly complicated and I figured that there would be CPAs or CFPs out there who would jump into the comments and point that out. I tried to make the post as easy to get through as possible and I figured that the nuance would come out in the comments. :-)

I made the assumptions that I did with the tax stuff because between my work experience and my judgement of what the average woman on this sub looks like, I think that most will see a tax break to marriage. It's not actually that the person has to earn nothing, its' that the wider the discrepancy in their income the more the lower earner (which doesn't have to be the wife) will pull down the tax burden of the higher earner. And our tax system is not geared towards benefiting anyone in the upper most income brackets but that represents a smaller portion of the population over all. It gets messier still though because as someone else pointed out, I was not considering the standard deduction (which is more for a couple than a single) and if you get into the upper echelons you are more likely to be itemizing which changes depending on what you have, what you donate to charity, what taxes you pay in your state etc etc etc). Things like 401k/IRA contributions can make a big impact in the upper brackets when you have the money to save. Doubling the 401k contribution can be huge. The ability to contribute to a spousal IRA can be big-ish.

The other assumption I made is that we're comparing an LTR to a marriage. So in that case your example is sort of moot. Sure fewer people in the house mean decrease in living expenses. But I'm trying to discuss why marriage is a better bet for woman than an LTR. I wasn't considering what being truly single meant because that changes everything.

Also, head of household means there have to be kids with a single parent. I wouldn't consider that in this assessment of marriage v LTR because again I'm making a case for marriage over a long term relationship, period full stop. Once kids are involved we're in an entirely different set of circumstances and an entirely different set of data and arguments - which I will get into in my next post.

The second person better bring a heck of lot to the relationship to make that trade off worth it.

I don't disagree that both partners have to bring something to the table for marriage to work. In everything I am writing, I'm making the assumption that a woman is approaching her relationship and marriage in the way that RPW advises. It's also up to the man she is dating to determine that she is providing value to him when he proposes. If she's not, then he is under no obligation to marry her. She should work on herself and find someone she is more compatible with. Just because individual marriages fail, that doesn't mean that all marriages will and that doesn't say anything about the institution itself but rather the individuals participating in it. Men act like women do not give up anything to be a part of a RP relationship. For example:

I'd be making a lot more money if I were single because I'd have a lot more time to dedicate to my job and I'd have more money to put towards marketing to new clients and the like. Because I am someone's wife, my career will take a much slower progression so that I can have the time to care for him. This allows him to focus on his career and I will catch up in another decade or so. This was what made the most sense for us as a couple and certainly different people have different dynamics. I'm not sure that my husband has cleaned a bathroom or change the bed sheets in the entire time I've known him. He is making more money than I am, yes, but he also gets to come home at the end of the day and only do what he wants. I go to work and come home and have continued responsibilities. His day ends when he leaves the office, mine ends much later. So the trade off goes both ways. He has to be pretty worthwhile for me to want to care for him when I'm perfectly capable of providing for myself.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For the record, I am that great.

[–]Bpgiissues -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good response it makes sense to target the majority. My point was to be aware that for people that are working on a relationship with a financially successful partner that marriage is likely in fact a financial short term penalty and thus not a compelling reason to actually be married. My current LTR brought up the point that being married would be better financially and I had to point out that in fact it would not.

I used the head of household vs married comparison assuming that a large portion of people on this sub are interested in kids. It is also possible to be in an LTR living together with kids but not married with one claiming head of household. The point on not spending as much going out was less about the fewer people and more intended for the lifestyle changes. Ie buying a bottle of wine vs maybe having a glass.

I was surprised at how big a tax hit getting married was for us. It ended up being about 15-20k more in taxes for the two of us by the time deductions were phased out and the extra tax brackets kicked in.

[–][deleted]  (11 children)

[removed]

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I'd need a source on that stat. How many couples work 3 jobs and remain poor?

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[removed]

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    what you are suggesting is anecdotal. I brought cited facts. If you wish to seriously engage on this point, and I'm happy to do so, you have to at least manintain the standard I set by using cited facts as well.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [removed]

      [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      I have already told you that you need to differentiate between opinion and fact, and this is partially why. When one person uses evidence based in research while another uses only personal anecdotes, there is only so much that can be discussed.

      You don't even appear to be working from a RP foundation in any sense. You do know that RP states plainly that single mothers are at a severe disadvantage both in finding a man romantically and raising a well rounded and stable child?

      RPW works from premise that women today really can't have it all. Working, be a wife, and mother will result in one or more areas suffering. A woman trying to raise a child, date, and work will also struggle and she has to be aware of the red flags that go with her situation.

      [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      Remove 'sorrry' from your comment. It is an insincere use of the word because you clearly are not sorry.

      Disagreement is fine, but it must be done politely and in a thorough manner.

      Reply to this comment once you have edited your own and I will review.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [removed]

        [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        ...It is an insincere use of the word because you clearly are not sorry.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [removed]

          [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Comments can encourage thoughtful exchange or increase the chances of escalated rudeness. You set the tone with a confrontational and insincere comment.

          Saying 'sorry' the way you did doesn't convey remorse or regret, it is instead most commonly used by women that know they are being rude or snarky.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]