[mordocai]

You may take the stance that we need less children due to overpopulation problems. Either way though, people having kids is what continues America's and humanity's existence.

This is the whole idea behind lower tax brackets for married couples and similar things. Making sure our population is at least being maintained and preferably growing.

In addition, if you dislike the large amount of kids that grow up in orphanages/bad homes things like this should allow people to have more time to take care of their kids during their first several weeks of life as well as potentially encourage more people to keep their kids instead of putting them up for adoption.

[RHSeeger]

> This is the whole idea behind lower tax brackets for married couples and similar things.

I'm confused by that statement. From my experience, married couples pay more in taxes (in the US) than they would if each were single (and making the same amount).

Or am I misunderstanding, and you meant that there _should_ be lower taxes for married couples?

[hawkice]

This is a bizarrely complex question (it relates to US tax law, so no surprise there). Some households would pay more if married, some would pay more if filing separately. See: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-marria...

[mordocai]

I was under the impression it was usually lower taxes (partially selection bias due to it being lower for myself). As the other commenter points it, it is complicated and sometimes lower/sometimes higher to file jointly.

Interestingly, the current tax structure somewhat encourages single income families.

[bzbarsky]

Taxes for married filing jointly are usually lower than for married filing separately.

But taxes for married filing jointly are often higher than for two single filers. This is especially true for higher incomes.

As a really simple example, consider two people both with $100k in taxable income, after taking their standard deductions and personal exemptions, in 2016. As single filers they would pay $21036.75 each in taxes, for a total of $42073.50. If they were married filing jointly, they would pay $42985.50, which is more. That happens because while the first two bracket boundaries (10% to 15% and 15% to 25%) are twice as big for joint married filers as they are for single filers, after that the boundaries start to converge. At the very top, the 39.6% boundary starts at $415k for single filers and at ~$467k for married filers....

There are also nasty perverse incentives where if one member of a married couple has a high income the other one can't contribute to IRAs in ways they could if they were just filing as an individual filer.

[azernik]

You're right about the facts you said, but wrong about them contradicting the parent comment.

Filing as married benefits couples where only one person is pulling down an income, thus providing a subsidy for one parent to be a full-time parent but not for marriages in general.

[peterbonney]

See my comment elsewhere in this thread about overpopulation - it's really not a legitimate issue to worry about (Malthus was wrong).