[bobsmooth]

>no practical upside

There's tax incentives and you become each other's medical proxy, among other things.

>high financial cost

The paperwork is cheap. Weddings are as expensive as you make them.

>absurd legal risk

That's true, divorces are expensive.

[Dracophoenix]

If you're speaking about the United States's the (relatively small) tax gains, they only become advantageous for a marriage between a stay at a non-earning stay at home spouse and a high-earning breadwinner. Any other paring creates a tax penalty.

[throwoutway]

How so? It’s a progressive bracket both ways? Wouldn’t you want your spouse to earn more income, regardless of 30% tax?

[Dracophoenix]

You're forgetting about FICA/Social Security which can be as high as 12.4% of AGI for every dollar earned below $150k or thereabouts. A stay-at-home spouse doesn't pay social security but nonetheless benefits from it (and in certain states, can do so tax free) upon retirement or death of the breadwinner. That's not a discount available to an individual taxpayer or a double-income household.

Filing as married allows for higher tax exemptions, in many cases around double the individual tax exemptions. For a high earning breadwinner this is as much as twice the "normal" buffer of untaxed income for investment before incurring a phase-out. If both spouses were high earning there wouldn't be much of a difference between the average exemption per spouse and the exemption provided to an individual taxpayer. Sometimes it's even less than if each spouse had filed seperately.

[dijit]

> There's tax incentives

That’s not universal, it’s not the case in Sweden for instance as far as I can make out.

But, the rest of what you said is true.

Though it’s unlikely that both partners who want to get married would want to forego a wedding ceremony.