Skip to comments.
Is marriage financially penalized in the US for low-income couples, esp. on welfare, or not [mainly asked in analyzing reasons for long term "cohabitation" (fornication) even among parents
Blogspot.com ^
| January 10, 2026
| Daniel1212
Posted on 01/10/2026 8:31:27 AM PST by daniel1212
Is marriage financially penalized in the US for low-income couples, esp. on welfare, or not [mainly asked in analyzing reasons for long term "cohabitation" (fornication) esp. among low-income parents]
Marriage is often penalized for low-income couples in the US, especially those receiving welfare or means-tested benefits.
Welfare and Tax Penalties
- Means-tested benefits: Welfare programs like SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, housing assistance, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) calculate eligibility and award levels based on household income. When two low-income adults marry and combine incomes, their joint income frequently exceeds program thresholds, causing sharp reductions or complete loss of benefits.1234
- SSI marriage penalty: Married disabled couples receive less in combined SSI benefits than if they remained unmarried. For 2025, the maximum benefit for a single person is $967/month, but for married couples the combined amount is only $1,450/month—less than double the single amount, penalizing marriage.5
- Effective income loss: Examples show that a single mother marrying the employed father often sees a major drop in benefits. One study found marriage would reduce combined resources from $81,279 to $66,200—a penalty of $15,709 or about 30% of pre-tax income. A couple combining incomes and marrying also loses housing subsidies, with penalties exceeding half their combined earnings in some cases.34
- Tax penalties: While recent tax reforms reduced marriage penalties for many, they persist especially for low- and moderate-income families. Filing jointly can move a couple into higher tax brackets, and certain credits phase out faster for married filers than for single parents claiming dependents separately.67
- There is broad public support for eliminating these penalties, as they are seen as harmful to family formation. Legislative proposals have been made to address marriage penalties in SSI and the tax code (e.g., S.73, H.R.1757, "Make Marriage Great Again Act").85
Table: Typical Impact of Marriage on Low-Income Couples
| Scenario | Pre-marriage Benefits | Post-marriage Benefits | Net Change |
|---|
| SSI (disabled couple) | $1,934 (2 × $967) | $1,450 (married pair) | −$484/month |
| Welfare+housing (single mom) | $81,279 | $66,200 | −$15,079/year |
| Housing subsidy (hypothetical) | $93,927 | $66,200 | −$27,727/year |
Conclusion: Marriage can significantly reduce total welfare and public benefit income for low-income couples, often representing a steep financial penalty, and thereby discouraging marriage among those who rely on assistance.45613⁂
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Rector-Written-Testimony.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-americas-welfare-state-needs-immediate-reform/
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/understanding-marriage-penalties-welfare-and-their-impact-society
https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117879/witnesses/HHRG-119-GO27-Wstate-RectorR-20250211.pdf
https://accessabilityofficer.com/blog/ssi-marriage-penalty-in-2025-why-disabled-couples-lose-benefits-for-saying-i-do
https://ifstudies.org/blog/its-time-to-eliminate-marriage-penalties-in-the-us-tax-code
https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-marriage-penalties-and-bonuses
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/320/text
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2024/11/26/eliminating-marriage-penalties-through-universalism/
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/marriage/7-tax-advantages-of-getting-married/L1XlLCh0m
For US couples not receiving welfare or means-tested support, marriage may still incur a "marriage penalty"—but this is typically limited to the design of the federal income tax code and, for some, Social Security calculations.
Key Points
- Federal taxes: Since the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, tax brackets are mostly “marriage neutral†for couples earning up to about \$600,000 combined, so most middle-income married couples no longer face major tax penalties solely for marrying. Couples with highly unequal incomes may even receive a "marriage bonus" compared to single filers. However, dual-earner couples and those with children can face a tax penalty if their combined income bumps them into a higher marginal tax bracket than if they filed singly or as head-of-household.^1^5
- With children: Penalties often arise if unmarried partners can file as "single" and "head of household," allowing them to combine two standard deductions and get greater access to tax credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC) compared to married parents filing jointly. Married parents may lose or see reduced credits/benefits as their incomes are combined for eligibility.^7
- Social Security: Social Security treats married and unmarried couples differently for benefit and taxation purposes, often penalizing dual-earner married couples who each receive benefits.^3
- High incomes: Most marriage tax penalties are concentrated among higher-income couples (over \$624,000 AGI), who may pay higher rates as a result of joint filing than if remaining unmarried.^10
Table: Marriage Penalty/Bonus for Non-Welfare Couples
| Situation | Marriage Penalty / Bonus |
|---|
| Middle-income, unequal earners | Marriage bonus |
| Dual earners, middle to high income | Small penalty (2–5% of AGI) |
| With children, unmarried filing HOH | Moderate penalty (loss of tax credits) |
| High-income (>\$624K AGI) | Up to 2.8% of AGI penalty^1 |
Conclusion
While severe benefit losses are rare outside welfare systems, US couples not on welfare may still face a small but real tax penalty for marrying, especially dual-earner households with children or high incomes. Most other married couples, or those with very unequal incomes, may not face a penalty and could even benefit from marriage under tax law.
|
|
|
|
|---|
[Supplemental] An AEI/IFS analysis of couples with a youngest child under two found that about 82% of couples in the second and third income quintiles (roughly $24k–$79k) face a marriage penalty in means‑tested benefits (Medicaid, cash welfare, food stamps) if they marry; only about 66% in the bottom quintile face such a penalty. Earlier work on AFDC found that program rules were relatively lenient toward cohabitors compared to husbands, meaning that “discouragement of marriage by the AFDC system may lead to increased cohabitation rather than increased female headship,” and that cohabitation was effectively encouraged in some states. More recent family‑policy reports argue that welfare design often makes “more financial sense for them to cohabit rather than marry,” especially when combining benefits, tax credits, and eligibility thresholds. ....the system tends to: Make formal marriage economically costly for many lower‑to‑lower‑middle income couples. Leave cohabitation / informal partnerships as the “rational” choice, which then show up in data as unmarried parents and, when the relationship dissolves, as single‑mother households with absent fathers. Sources |
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: bastards; bastardy; culture; fatherlesskids; fornication; greatsociety; marriage; marriagepenalty; men; society; welfarefraud; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Keywords: marriage penalty; welfare fraud [not reporting boyfriend for $ reasons); fornication (fostered by $ marriage "tax); fatherless kids (likewise).
I see this as a norm in the low-income (American-wise) densely populated city I have lived in for over 30 years, doing charity mission work. Long-term, presumably unmarried parents of children seem to be much a norm. Which is besides the increasing number of aloof double-income, no kids fornicating young couples. All need repentance and faith the Lord Jesus.
To: daniel1212
I have a nephew who does this, because if they get married they get penalized financially.
2
posted on
01/10/2026 8:34:11 AM PST
by
MuttTheHoople
( "Never thot I'd live to see the day when the right wing would become the cool ones"-Johnny Rotten)
To: MuttTheHoople
In Texas, if you live together, you are considered married. I suppose this would fall under Common Law. I’m not a lawyer.
3
posted on
01/10/2026 8:37:26 AM PST
by
johnnygeneric
(Could we...again?)
To: daniel1212
I don’t have detailed facts to report, but my BIL’s wife taught at a low-income school in Omaha, NE. When her husband came to drop off something at school she introduced him to her kindergarten class as her husband. Those little kids immediately broke out with cries of “Oh, gross! You’re MARRIED?!”
These kids wore designer clothes and had electronics that she could only dream of. Omar Jr (or similar names) had no father named on any birth certificate and though the dad lived with the family they were not married, because as long as the govt didn’t know that Omar Sr was the father of Omar Jr, the family could get necessities from welfare while the dad could buy them all the luxuries. And that was the norm for the kids in her classroom.
I think that addresses your question.
To: daniel1212
My marriage ensures that my much younger homemaker wife will receive my social security when I die.
5
posted on
01/10/2026 8:38:16 AM PST
by
Dr. Sivana
("Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." (John 2:5))
To: daniel1212
All About the Benjamins...
6
posted on
01/10/2026 8:38:23 AM PST
by
Big Red Badger
(ALL Things Will be Revealed !)
To: daniel1212
I work with a lot of young people and see the same. I think another bar to marriage is social — if they can’t afford a wedding that looks like a Hollywood production on social media they postpone it indefinitely.
Courthouse weddings or a Saturday afternoon with cake, mints, punch and peanuts in the church fellowship hall are long gone.
7
posted on
01/10/2026 8:39:48 AM PST
by
Cloverfarm
("...a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People ...")
To: daniel1212
Re: College Financial Aid
This was true for my husband and me when we were graduate students. That was 50 years ago. We did not marry until we had both graduated.
So...This has been a problem for at least a half century.
8
posted on
01/10/2026 8:39:54 AM PST
by
wintertime
( )
To: daniel1212
Welfare punishes marriage.
That’s why welfare is intergenerational. Only 4 generations screwed so far, and no end in sight.
9
posted on
01/10/2026 8:42:43 AM PST
by
Uncle Miltie
(islam v. communism: Which is worse for mankind? Discuss…)
To: daniel1212
Even living together puts welfare benefits at risk. Many years ago my brother could not officially move in with his girlfriend at the time. I’ve heard stories of toothbrushes being counted by inspectors, but that as always third hand. Looking at how well states like Minnesota stewards their welfare money, I doubt anyone is checked for following the rules on cohabitation, but the rules are still there.
10
posted on
01/10/2026 8:45:05 AM PST
by
KarlInOhio
(I pray that the sleeping giant has finally awakened and been filled with a terrible resolve.)
To: Cloverfarm
The sad thing is that the wedding celebration sometimes lasts longer than the marriage. Marriage is just an excuse to have a big party, to some people.
I saw that there was a show where couples compete to have the “best wedding”. Gag. My parents got married with the cake reception in the basement of the church and went on to raise 12 kids and show us all the meaning of commitment, forgiveness, and love. I pity the kids today - including some in my extended family - who have bought into this world’s lies. When you cohabitate you practice the skill of sleeping with somebody you’re not married to. There is a reason that cohabitation before marriage increases the likelihood of divorce.
To: daniel1212
I live in Mississippi and have seen it for 50 years. An unmarried mother of several children receives a windfall of welfare benefits, getting married would stop most of them. Hence the reason the illegitimate birth rate is approaching 90% in the black community. Having babies is a career here, it's a way to guarantee a stable income from your teens through middle age. It's lucrative also, by the time you add up all the benefits like free housing, child care, food stamps, medicaid, etc. they can haul in close to $100K a year. For a young girl in high school who probably can barely read the ink on her diploma having children pays a lot better than any job she'd be qualified for, sitting home having kids & smoking pot pays a lot better than getting up at 4 am for the breakfast shift at McDonald's.
Frankly I don't blame them, it's a failure of our enormous welfare state that welfare pays so much more than work so they're incentivized to go and stay on welfare. Someone mentioned that they get cut off if they cohabitate, that's true but easily worked around. They don't admit to cohabitating and no one checks, they change partners frequently anyway so the guy isn't likely to be there long term.
12
posted on
01/10/2026 8:49:30 AM PST
by
GaryCrow
To: butterdezillion
My wife teaches on the wrong side of Tacoma, WA.
Virtually no kid has a Father at home. When there is a married father involved, it is so rare we marvel at it.
Everyone is on welfare. The rates are so high the State threw in the towel and told them to stop checking for who was eligible for free breakfast and lunch.
Everyone gets free (#1) breakfast and lunch at school. Plus SNAP benefits are calculated as if taxpayers are providing free (#2) breakfast and lunch. Yet STILL kids are dropped off by a hungover (drugged?) mother at 10:30 am, and my wife can’t teach a hungry kid, so SHE AND I buy free(#3) food for these late arrives.
I literally buy their breakfast three times.
13
posted on
01/10/2026 8:49:42 AM PST
by
Uncle Miltie
(islam v. communism: Which is worse for mankind? Discuss…)
To: johnnygeneric
yes comkmon law- weirdly NY, one of the most liberal states doesn’t have common law- last i checked
14
posted on
01/10/2026 8:52:03 AM PST
by
Bob434
(Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana)
To: johnnygeneric
In Texas, if you live together, you are considered married. So aside from these misguided social programs just dissuading marriage among parents, Texas goes a step farther and incentivises the pushing of fathers out of the home completely. These poorly thought-out policies are destroying our society.
To: MuttTheHoople
If you don’t want kids there is no benefit of marriage.
16
posted on
01/10/2026 9:00:56 AM PST
by
Organic Panic
('Was I molested. I think so' - Ashley Biden in response to her father joining her in the shower)
To: daniel1212
just changing the rule to allow marriage and welfare would do much to change our culture. I know why the rules are the way they are—it is to destroy the family and its succeeded
Allowing marriage and means testing for benefits would go far in my opinion
To: Dr. Sivana
My marriage ensures that my much younger homemaker wife will receive my social security when I die. Presuming social security does not largely die. Trust in the Lord (for salvation on His merit, and to provide sustenance for this life as per Mt. 6:33).
18
posted on
01/10/2026 9:01:44 AM PST
by
daniel1212
(Turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves damned+destitute sinners on His acct, believe, b baptized+follow HIM)
To: johnnygeneric
I think that is the saw in CA after 7 years. But the people doing it are too stupid to know what it means.
To: butterdezillion
I saw that there was a show where couples compete to have the “best wedding”. Gag. Yes, that is indeed a thing.
My parents got married with the cake reception in the basement of the church and went on to raise 12 kids and show us all the meaning of commitment, forgiveness, and love.
Real parents.
20
posted on
01/10/2026 9:05:51 AM PST
by
daniel1212
(Turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves damned+destitute sinners on His acct, believe, b baptized+follow HIM)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson