If you cohabitate, you're married, and can't escape ACA

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax/2/
As designed, Obamacare threatens to turn cohabiting while functionally living as if married into a national sport. Paraphrasing what I noted at my home blog in March 2010, the following grim scenario appears likely:
The law in many if not most states says that you can’t cohabit indefinitely and still claim not to be married.
Because the government will be starved for money, the Internal Revenue Service will task itself with finding cohabiting couples and divorced couples still living together who are “illegally” claiming that they are not married for health care subsidy purposes.
Those caught and punished by the IRS carrying out its new role as the de facto “marriage police” could get hit with multi-year bills for undeserved “tax credits” running into tens of thousands of dollars.
So there is a HUGE benefit to not being married when filing taxes. . because of the 'wedding tax'. . now if you cohabitate, you're married and can't avoid it. BS! Three roomates living together for 10 years is a three way marriage? How do they get to declare who's married and who isn't? And they say republicans want to be in your bedroom. . .



[edit]
so it's true that some states (9) apply common-law marriage, and if you divorce for the purposes of taxes a judge can find that you're still married. . .
but otherwise this link is a farce :(
then again, there are benefits for NOT getting married nowadays in terms of taxes
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Im not sure whether to laugh or cry at the govt going around verifying whether adults living together should be considered married for the purposes of taxes.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
Seriously some dude's blog as a source? Come on OP you can do a bit better than that. This guy doesn't even bother to cite any language in the ACA to support his position. BTW I also love how he ripped off the IRS Records logo on his home blog.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
Im not sure whether to laugh or cry at the govt going around verifying whether adults living together should be considered married for the purposes of taxes.

You should be debating rather or not to laugh or cry at OP's shitty sourcing.
 

unixwizzard

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
205
0
76
just wondering to myself out loud... would this "rule" or law or whatever apply equally to same-sex couples, or would it only apply to male/female co-habitation?

an interesting can of worms waiting to be opened.. particularly when the fed. govt. goes and declares a same-sex couple as married (for tax purposes) in a state that considers same-sex marriage to be illegal.

I'm sure the butthurt will be strong when this starts happening..
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
OP we learned a great lesson today...don't post every FWD FWD FWD : email from your uncle.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
They did it in Canada:
Many couples in B.C. who live together were likely shocked to find out they were essentially married Monday morning after the province's Family Law Act came into force.

One person's new car becomes "family property" under the act, which grants the same rights to common-law couples who've been living together for two years as already existed for married couples, the Globe and Mail reports.


http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
but it still stands that there is a huge benefit to not getting married in regard to taxes. . . wonder why. Didn't you used to get 'rewarded' for being married in your taxes?
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
but it still stands that there is a huge benefit to not getting married in regard to taxes. . . wonder why. Didn't you used to get 'rewarded' for being married in your taxes?

No....people have bitched for decades about the marriage penalty.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,206
28,906
136
but it still stands that there is a huge benefit to not getting married in regard to taxes. . . wonder why. Didn't you used to get 'rewarded' for being married in your taxes?

Whether you are "rewarded" or "punished" depends on total household income and how much of that income each spouse earns. For couples of modest income where one spouse earns significantly more than the other, the tax code provides a "reward" for being married. For couples of modest income where each spouse earns about the same as the other, the tax code can "punish" marriage. For couples where both spouses are high earners the tax code does neither.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
but it still stands that there is a huge benefit to not getting married in regard to taxes. . . wonder why. Didn't you used to get 'rewarded' for being married in your taxes?

There is a huge benefit to not getting married in BASICALLY EVERYTHING.

People ignore the odds of dying together in their 80s all of the time. Marriage is generally done for irrational reasons or forced situations.....I doubt healthcare will stop it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146

Thanks.

I was always under the impression from word of mouth that there were tax benefits to marriage. Sad to see that isn't the case - especially since I'm about to do so early 2014 D:

I guess I was under the impression there were deductions under marriage. Oh well, either way our income puts us right in the middle of that 20% bracket - regardless of filing seperate or together. Shouldn't make a difference I guess.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Thanks.

I was always under the impression from word of mouth that there were tax benefits to marriage. Sad to see that isn't the case - especially since I'm about to do so early 2014 D:

I guess I was under the impression there were deductions under marriage. Oh well, either way our income puts us right in the middle of that 20% bracket - regardless of filing seperate or together. Shouldn't make a difference I guess.

Many deductions fall under the Schedule A.
The level to use the Schedule A is less for married than the SUM for two singles.

The penalty is that the higher bracket the summation of income could bring. Lower income gets a higher rate.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Pants on head media linked as a "source" for the second time today. You people are simply revealing to everyone what a lunatic partisan hack you are!
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Bottom line is the IRS can not enforce the penalties. That is the beauty of the ACA... in that the IRS has no authority to collect. They can not legally garnish wages, or imprison you for it.