Average incomes of HDM purchasers

Going totally off on a tangent, I always thought it's unfair that married couples have 2 incomes but yet their expenses are not double. There should be tax breaks for singles, or else higher taxes for couples.

I think I just ticked off a bunch of people

There used to be higher taxes for couples, in the US at least. It was commonly referred to as the "marriage tax penalty".

Dude, I don't think you've ticked anyone off. This is not meant as an insult, but you merely showed that you are ignorant of the many ways married couples with both members working outside the home are penalized when it comes to taxes. I'll just give you one example. Many couples are in a situation where, if they were just living together and single, both members could open and contribute toward a Roth IRA. However, as soon as they marry the IRS combines their income for purposes of determining eligibility for Roth IRAs and decides (even though their incomes haven't changed) they're ineligible.

65k-100k
Blu-ray only

I don't think you ticked anyone off, but I think the whole "expenses are not doubled" is crazy talk.

You know, it's not like my wife and kid don't eat. Or we drive two cars, so we pay more for mileage/gas/repairs/inspections/maintenance (and don't forget the actual expense of buying two cars). We pay roughly 4 times as much as a single person for health insurance (for family coverage). Plus there are 3 of us getting sick and going to the doctor (copays) and getting prescriptions. Going to a restaurant, movie, play, amusement parks, anything requiring an admission fee is twice as much (3 times if you count my kid). We have three times as many hobbies to support, since we all have different interests. Oh, and traveling on a plane? Yeah, we have to buy 3 tickets. Oh, and I also need to save to put my kid through college...


We might not pay exactly twice as much in taxes, but the other added expenses kindof make up for it.
Single people shouldn't complain so much

Oh, I am in the 65k-100k range. HD DVD only. And I am married but also am the sole provider.

Actually, financially speaking there is TONS of research out there that indicates that over a lifetime, married couples end up wealthier than singles. It's not speculation, its empirically researched fact. There's also a lot of research to indicate that married men live longer than unmarried men, that children born into two parent households are more "successful" (in the very broad sense -- as in: won't be convicted of a felony, will graduate high school, won't be part of a teenage pregnancy, etc.). Unfortunately, none of this is particularly "sexy" in the eyes of the media, and when these stories do come to light, they're typically discredited with "but that doesn't mean EVERY situation is the same" (which of course, the average person takes to mean: that doesn't apply to ME, I'm SPECIAL . . . newsflash, somewhere between 30-70% of people are below average, depending on how skewed the statistic is, yet no one will admit they're at that end of the distribution).

Man, did I just "say" all of that out loud?

[/RANT OFF]

once you add a child when married your expenses triple. IMO

Look at payroll taxes (FICA) to start with, and notice that a $150k/year couple pays almost double what a $150k/year single pays.

Look at the marginal rates; a married couple with combined $150K income will pay higher income taxes than the sum of two singles at $75K apiece.

Also, look at the fact that the AMT targets married couples with multiple deductions for children and large home mortgage deductions (to house the family), and that the dependent child tax credit is phased out for upper-middle-class families.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see where singles are penalized by the tax code - it's the other way around.

Does my lucrative drug business count as income?



Seriously.... modest household income, I just spend it on the RIGHT things like HD media and home theater stuff.

Yes, hence why I used phrases like "used to be" and "it was called"

Forget the kid, just add a wife. I never bought a box of Kleenex when I was single. I doubled my expenses in that alone.

I am with you, but how can you double from nothing?
ABCD: I think you did tick off a bunch of people, but not the ones you thought you would.

I'm not sure how to read that, but I actually go through less kleenex now that I am married. Well, I would if she didn't always have a headache.

That's right .... the necessities.

Technically yes even illegal income should still be reported. Thats how they got Al Capone. For tax evasion.


Link:http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html

100k+
Married with 2 young uns
Stay home Mom (I do want it that way, so no real complaints)
Numerous other hobbies
no HD yet.. busy building a dedicated room for it and then it will be time to decide which one (both?) to go with and, which projector to use and should I get the myriad of other "toys" like kalaidascape (sp) etc.

Taxes? do not get me started...

Don't feel bad, That is exactly what I thought when I was single

Where's the option for "I don't own either, I'm not wasting my money until they settle the format war"?

Not included because it's specifically eliminated in the topic. People who haven't purchased HDM are by definition not "HDM purchasers" as specified in the topic, so sorry, you don't count.

The poll seems to be geared to current HDM users and people making <$125k. It's insulting to vote >$100k for some incomes around here.

No disagreement there. Good lord the cost of daycare is insane!

What about two

I'm surprised there are so many single format owners making a moderate income(+100K). I would have thought most would be dual format owners.

Based on content of so many posts, I expected more unemployed.

I'm retired and no, I won't tell you my income. Let's just say I don't have any intent to buy new gear in the near future. Except maybe a couple of connectors to make my own cables. I guess I'm in the minority around here.

I make a bit over 100K(I'm single) a year but this is all relative. I live in atlanta where that much money offers a great lifestyle here. But my annual income probably wouldn't cut it in California or New York.

The marriage tax penalty is very much still in existence, although it has been eliminated for the lowest 2 tax brackets. I totally disagree with TurboTax's assertion that "The more unequal the spouses' income, the more likely that combining them on a joint return will pull some of the higher-earner's income into a lower bracket. That's where much of the marriage tax bonus comes fromthe fact that one spouse often makes much more income than the other." Once I reach a certain income level, if I am in the top tax bracket, my wife who would be in the lower brackets by herself is now going to pay tax at the highest rate. Sorry to continue this side issue but the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax are two of my biggest pet peeves. Every April 15th I am tempted to get a divorce just for Uncle Sam.

The key word is "likely". Start out with you earn everything and your spouse earns nothing you will find the benefit. Now keep the household income constant, only reduce yours while increase your spouse's by the same amount. At some point, there will be a cross-over. And that's why the more disparity the more "likely" beneficial.