I love my husband, but my marriage is costing me

The Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2026 7:00 a.m. EDT | Erin Antler

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An outdated tax code forces dual-income couples to pay a premium.

Two years ago, my fiancé and I attended the wedding of friends in Atlanta. At the reception, the newlyweds confided that they were not getting legally married. When we asked why, they gave a simple answer: taxes. ­ We laughed. Everyone knows marriage saves you money on taxes. Or so we thought.

Then we got married. After filing our first joint return this year, we understood.

The first surprise was that married couples must either both itemize or both take the standard deduction even if they file separately. My husband owns a house with a mortgage that carries interest he can write off. But I don’t. We calculated that we would collectively save more by both taking the standard deduction than by both itemizing. But this meant my husband’s mortgage deduction went effectively unused.

Then came the bigger hit: the marriage penalty. The tax code does not simply double income thresholds for married couples. In 2025, for example, the 37 percent bracket begins at $626,351 for a single filer, but at $751,601 for a married couple filing jointly — not $1.25 million. The 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax applies above $200,000 for a single filer but above $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly, not $400,000. The 3.8 percent net investment income tax follows the same pattern.

Our accountant confirmed that, all told, we would pay several thousand dollars more each year because we are married.

Not every couple faces this penalty. But many dual-earner couples do, especially spouses with similar incomes. I am a technology lawyer; my husband is...

---

TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: dating; manosphere; mgtow; pua; redpill; relationships; women

[ChildOfThe60s]

She’s getting what she voted for. I don’t know why she’s complaining. The lack of self awareness among these nimrods is stunning

[Fledermaus]

I don’t believe WaPo.

The marriage penalty was addressed a long time ago.

[Brian Griffin]

The are apparently restrictions when filing Married Filing Separately (MFS).

[Brian Griffin]

https://www.bing.com/search?q=married+filing+separately+vs+jointly

[LouAvul]

the newlyweds confided that they were not getting legally married

So, for the sake of taxes they're simply shacking up? Galatians 5 says fornication is a work of the flesh. Oh well.

[ClearCase_guy]

Liberals love taxes. When the taxes are paid by others.

My Father-in-Law (rich Liberal) is always pushing for tax increases on the rich. “I’m not worried!” he says, “I have a great accountant!!” Laughs uncontrollably at that one.

[stanne]

They’re making $750,000.

And they’re newlyweds. No kids

There shouldn’t be a marriage penalty and 35% bracket is outrageous. But…

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””The first surprise was that married couples must either both itemize or both take the standard deduction even if they file separately.””””

---

I give them a bonus point for creative thinking. But instead of spending their time thinking creatively, they should instead read the tax code.

[PeterPrinciple]

“I have a great accountant!!” Laughs uncontrollably at that one.

---

he probably thinks if he got refund, he paid no taxes. Accountant will let him think that.

[cgbg]

“Tax increases on the rich” end up failing to touch the rich (who as you hint use excellent tax accountants and attorneys to take advantage of every possible loophole—and even create new ones through lobbying Congress and state legislatures).

It is the upper middle class (like the couple in this article) who get the shaft.

[fwdude]

A lot of these tax laws were put in place at a time when there was a single breadwinner in the house: the MAN.

If that traditional arrangement is still honored and exercised, the marriage "penalty" is non-existent. The working husband's income is effectively shared with his non-working wife.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So, for the sake of taxes they're simply shacking up? Galatians 5 says fornication is a work of the flesh. Oh well.

What does that have to do with civil marriage?

A person can undergo a religious marriage ceremony in a church without a civil marriage license, but this union is not legally recognized by the state. While the ceremony may be considered valid in the eyes of the church and God, it does not confer any legal marital status, meaning the couple cannot access government benefits, tax breaks, or spousal rights.

[sipow]

It was only fixed for lower incomes.

[SPDSHDW]

Did you need a certificate from the Roman empire to be married?

Or just a priest officiating?

Getting married before God /= to getting a state license.

You are stating that God requires a state(man) license otherwise vows made to him are null and void, AKA fornication.

[Vermont Lt]

Democrats: “They need to pay more!!!”

[PAR35]

Solution to their problem - she quits her job, and turns to making babies. Children can provide a nice deduction.

[DFG]

I am an Enrolled Agent.

Some taxpayers elect to file Married Filing Separate (MFS) if married or Single/Head of Household (with a dependent) if not married due to back taxes, child support, or student loans. MFS can be even more complicated in the 9 community property states. They can file Married Filing Joint (MFJ) with Injured Spouse (form 8379) so that only part of the refund is applied to back taxes, child support that is in arrears, or defaulted student loans.

The most common reason I hear for not filing MFJ is Student Loans. The minimum payment amount is higher if they file MFJ as both spouses income will be included in the calculation.

A lot of taxpayers try to cheat on Head of Household. Must have a dependent and must have paid at least half of the household bills.

[Bernard]

The Only Fair Tax Is The Tax That Taxes You And Not Me.

Lesson drilled into Accounting 304 (Income Tax) at UIC in 1970. Day 1.

[Varsity Flight]

Woodrow Wilson strikes again.