this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
914 points (99.1% liked)

Political Memes

11238 readers
2286 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
914
hmm (s3.us-west-000.backblazeb2.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doctordevice@lemmy.ca 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

It doesn't really make a difference if both parents are working and make similar amounts. Then that part is no different from filing separately.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Point is a couple shares rent. A couple's residence is unlikely to be twice the cost of a single residence, unless you have roommates. So 30k for a couple guess further than 15k living alone.

[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Exactly. It’s to incentivize one person to be a bread winner and one to make less and be a home maker (or something with less hours) so you get the tax benefits. It would be a nice system if expenses weren’t so damn high.

[–] doctordevice@lemmy.ca 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't know any couples my age who don't both work.

[–] nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works 0 points 17 hours ago

Homemaker or not, marriage promotes economic stability because of tying folks outcomes together. As an edifice, the State likes that a spouse probably steps in before aid programs or whatever.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Married couples get the same tax benefits regardless. A raise for the lower earner always means more money for the family, so no, it doesn't incentivize having a breadwinner over having equal pay.

[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Hmmm…

Let’s do a quick exercise without real numbers. Please let me know if I’m wrong because this is what I thought. If I make 150k and am maxed out on my standard deduction, but then I make 250k and there’s no difference on my standard deduction, I’m not getting more standard deduction. If my wife is a stay at home mom and I make $250k, I am getting more standard deduction now, right?

This is how married taxes work, right? Am I wrong on that? We get different brackets and different rules. I’ve been marred for 7 years and my first year I got all my taxes back because she didn’t work that year. Am I wrong?

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 14 hours ago

No. You're correct. You would get less money back on your taxes if your wife's income went up. However, the amount your taxes go up is less than the increase to your wife's income, so you still end up ahead as a couple. You get the largest individual tax breaks when you have a breadwinner, but the total financial incentive (after tax returns) is for both partners to make as much money as possible.

That said, finances are very emotionally charged and how people should approach their finances depends on how they think about this stuff. That's why snowball debt strategies work - not because they are optimal financially, but because they play into the psychology of a human paying off debt. With that in mind, I suppose you could still feel incentivized to have a large difference in incomes because of the tax breaks - it just isn't financially optimal if there is a free opportunity for the lower earner to bring in more money.