← We The People Platform Download .docx

COHABITING UNMARRIED

COUPLES

How the Platform Treats Households That Are Not Legal Marriages

How does the platform's tax architecture treat cohabiting partners?

How are dependents and benefits allocated when partners are not married?

What about common-law marriage states, domestic partnerships, and blended families?

An Analytical Framing Document

Jason Robertson

v1.0 · Created May 5, 2026 for v2.15

Ohio · 2026

The Question This Document Addresses

Approximately 17 million Americans live with an unmarried partner. This number has roughly tripled over the past three decades and continues to grow. About one-third of these households include children, either biological children of one partner, biological children of both partners, or children adopted by one partner. The federal tax system treats cohabiting partners as separate filers, generally classified as Single or as Head of Household if they have qualifying dependents. The platform's wage floor architecture, citizen-facing comparison documents, and calculator all support Single, Married Filing Jointly, and Head of Household categories — but cohabiting couples typically fall into Single or split between Single and HoH depending on the dependent situation, and the platform's documents do not explicitly address how this filing-status structure interacts with the platform's universal benefits.

This document works through the platform's treatment of cohabiting couples across each commitment, identifies the design choices the platform must make about per-individual versus per-household benefits structure, examines the dependent allocation rules that determine which partner claims which child for tax and benefit purposes, and addresses the interaction with state-level structures including common-law marriage recognition and domestic partnership registries. The analysis is more tractable than the non-citizen analysis because the federal tax system already provides a clear framework: cohabiting partners are separate tax units. The platform inherits this framework and the design questions are primarily about the universal benefits that operate outside the tax system, where the platform has more freedom of design.

The patterns that warrant analytical attention include: cohabiting couples with shared biological children (most common); cohabiting couples with one partner's biological children only (blended-family pattern); cohabiting couples with each partner's separate biological children; cohabiting couples in common-law marriage states (where the legal marriage may be recognized retroactively); cohabiting couples in states with domestic partnership or civil union registries; cohabiting couples where one partner is a non-citizen (intersecting with this version's other new document); and cohabiting couples whose composition changes mid-year through marriage, separation, or other events.

Federal Tax Treatment Is Already Clear

Cohabiting partners file federal income tax separately. Each partner uses Single status unless they have qualifying dependents allowing Head of Household filing, in which case they use HoH. The Internal Revenue Code does not recognize unmarried cohabitation as a filing-status category. This is true regardless of how long the couple has been together, whether they share children, or whether they have entered into any state-level domestic partnership.

The platform's wage floor exemption replaces the standard deduction for each filer separately. A cohabiting couple where each partner earns $50,000 and is in a mid-skill occupation receives a wage floor exemption of perhaps $42,000 each, totaling $84,000 of exemption across the household. A married couple at the same combined income receives one MFJ exemption of perhaps $75,000 (combined floors of two earners). The cohabiting couple receives a slightly higher combined exemption ($84,000 versus $75,000), which seems counterintuitive but reflects how the wage floor architecture handles individual occupational floors. Whether this differential treatment is intentional or an artifact warranting platform design attention is a question this document raises.

The federal income tax architecture, including the wage floor exemption, applies to cohabiting partners' tax returns the same way it applies to any other Single or HoH filer. There is no design question here; the platform's tax architecture works as intended for cohabiting couples.

Universal Benefits: Per-Individual or Per-Household?

The platform's universal benefits operate at varying levels of aggregation. Some are per-individual; some are per-household; some are per-eligible-recipient defined by other criteria. Working through each clarifies how cohabiting couples are treated.

Universal Healthcare

Universal healthcare is per-individual. Each person has health insurance coverage independently of household composition. Cohabiting partners are each covered separately, paying their respective contributions through payroll. There is no design question here that varies with marital status; the platform's universal healthcare architecture treats partners identically whether married or cohabiting. This is a substantial simplification compared to current employer-sponsored insurance, where coverage is often family-based and cohabiting partners may be excluded from each other's coverage even if they share children.

Universal Childcare

Universal childcare is per-child. Each child needing childcare can access subsidized care. The household composition determines the financial relationship: which adult pays what childcare cost, how household income affects subsidy eligibility (if any), how the contribution is allocated between adults. The platform's universal childcare commitment is presented as access for every child rather than as means-tested for the household, so household composition's effect on eligibility is presumably zero. The platform must specify whether childcare contributions (the 0.5 percent of payroll) are charged on each adult's income separately (as they would be under per-individual payroll taxation) or somehow aggregated. The default per-individual treatment is administratively simplest and matches the universal healthcare pattern.

Universal Mental Health Access

Same logic as universal healthcare. Per-individual access; per-individual contribution; no design question varying with marital status.

Founding Stake

The Founding Stake is per-individual citizen. Each adult citizen receives the Founding Stake distribution; each citizen child receives it. Cohabiting couples receive two adult Founding Stake distributions (one each); their children each receive one. There is no aggregation effect; cohabiting couples receive the same total Founding Stake as a married couple with the same number of citizen members.

Refundable Transition Bridge Credit

The Bridge Credit applies to filers whose net position would otherwise worsen during the transition. As a tax credit, it operates on tax-filing-status terms. Each cohabiting partner is a separate filer, so each is independently evaluated for Bridge Credit eligibility. A cohabiting couple where one partner gains substantially and the other does not would have the Bridge Credit available to the partner who needs it without affecting the other partner's tax outcome. This is more flexible than the MFJ situation, where the household is evaluated as a unit and intra-household variation is averaged out.

Civic Infrastructure Benefits

Universal broadband, the broadband subscription replacement, identity theft protection, tax preparation through Direct File, and other Civic Infrastructure benefits operate at the household or service-recipient level. A cohabiting couple sharing a household has one broadband connection, one identity theft protection benefit per individual (this is a per-individual benefit since identity theft is per-person), and presumably one Direct File experience per filer. The household-level benefits do not require the household to have a particular legal structure.

Dependent Allocation: The Central Tax-Filing Question

Cohabiting couples with shared dependents must decide which partner claims each dependent for federal income tax purposes. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has tie-breaker rules that apply when both partners could potentially claim a child but disagree (or both attempt to claim and the IRS must resolve). The most common rules: the child of unmarried parents living together is generally claimed by the parent with whom the child lived for more than half the year; if the child lived with both for the same amount of time, the parent with higher AGI claims; specific circumstances modify this. The Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Head of Household filing status, the dependent care credit, and the education credits all flow to whichever parent claims the child.

These dependent-allocation rules predate the platform and continue under the platform unchanged. The platform's wage floor exemption operates on the filer's individual income (not on dependent count), so dependent allocation does not directly affect the wage floor exemption value. The Child Tax Credit allocation does affect the platform-side and current-side tax calculations identically (the platform preserves the CTC), so dependent allocation does not change the platform's relative tax outcome compared to the current system. However, the Bridge Credit may be affected: a partner who claims the dependents and qualifies for HoH filing has different Bridge Credit eligibility than a partner who files Single. The platform should specify whether intra-couple Bridge Credit allocation is constrained or whether the couple has flexibility to optimize.

The tax planning consideration most relevant for cohabiting couples is whether the household maximizes total tax benefits by alternating dependent claims across years (allowed under current law in some circumstances) or by allocating all dependents to one partner (typical). The platform inherits these planning patterns. The platform's design should not penalize cohabiting couples relative to married couples for legitimate tax planning, and should not create new compliance complexity that married couples avoid through their unified filing status.

Common-Law Marriage and Domestic Partnerships

Common-law marriage is recognized in approximately ten US states (the exact list has shifted over time as some states have abolished common-law marriage prospectively while grandfathering existing ones). In a recognized common-law marriage state, a couple can be legally married without a marriage license or ceremony if they meet certain requirements (cohabitation, mutual consent to be married, holding themselves out as married). Such couples are legally married for federal income tax purposes and are eligible for MFJ filing status.

The federal tax system handles common-law marriage by deferring to state law: if the state where the couple resides recognizes them as legally married, they file as married. This continues unchanged under the platform. Common-law marriage couples are not 'cohabiting' in the platform's relevant sense; they are legally married couples whose marriage was established without ceremonial process.

Domestic partnerships and civil unions are state-level designations that vary substantially in their legal effect. Some confer marriage-equivalent rights for state purposes; some confer narrower benefits; some have been largely superseded by same-sex marriage recognition. The federal tax system generally does not recognize state domestic partnerships as marriage for federal tax filing purposes (unless they meet the state's common-law marriage requirements). This means a couple in a state-recognized domestic partnership may file Single federally even though they are 'partnered' for state purposes.

The platform inherits this dual-track treatment and should clarify it. A cohabiting couple in a state-recognized domestic partnership is treated as cohabiting for federal platform purposes (each is a separate filer; each receives individual Founding Stake; etc.) regardless of state-level partnership status. State-level benefits the partnership confers (state inheritance rights, state tax filing options, state-level health insurance access) continue to operate as state-level benefits. The platform does not require partners to dissolve domestic partnerships, change tax filing approaches, or otherwise disrupt existing arrangements; it operates alongside state-level structures.

Composition Changes During the Year

Households change composition. A cohabiting couple may marry mid-year, may separate mid-year, may have one partner move out and another move in, or may experience deaths or births that change household structure. Federal tax rules handle these mid-year changes by determining filing status as of the last day of the tax year (December 31). A couple married on December 30 files as married for the entire year; a couple separated on December 30 files separately. The platform's annual benefits are calibrated to the same annual periodicity.

Continuous benefits such as universal healthcare coverage do not depend on tax-year status. A person has healthcare coverage continuously regardless of household composition changes. Universal childcare access for children depends on the children's needs, not on their parents' relationship status. So mid-year composition changes do not disrupt access to the platform's universal commitments.

Where mid-year changes do affect platform outcomes is in the Bridge Credit and possibly in tax-time calculations. A couple who lived together for most of the year and separated by year-end will file separately and each be evaluated separately for Bridge Credit eligibility, even though their economic situation during the year reflected the cohabiting period. This is consistent with how all annual tax determinations work and is not platform-specific. The platform does not need to modify standard practice on this point.

Edge Cases Worth Noting

Cohabiting Couples Where One Partner Is a Non-Citizen

Intersecting with this version's other new analytical document, cohabiting couples where one partner is a citizen and the other is a non-citizen (especially an unauthorized non-citizen) face the most complex platform interactions. The citizen partner's platform benefits are clear; the non-citizen partner's depend on the design choice for unauthorized workers. Mixed-status cohabiting couples with shared US-citizen children have the children's eligibility independent of parent status, which means the children receive citizen benefits even when one parent does not.

Cohabiting Couples Who Share Childcare with Non-Cohabiting Co-Parents

A child may have biological parents who do not cohabit with each other but where one or both have new cohabiting partners. The child has multiple adult caregivers in different households. Platform childcare subsidies are per-child; the question of which household pays the subsidized contribution and how the cost is allocated across households is a separate administrative detail. The platform should not penalize children for non-traditional caregiving arrangements; the universal childcare benefit attaches to the child regardless of caregiving complexity.

Cohabiting Couples Where Partners Are Different Generations

An unmarried couple where partners are several decades apart in age (rare but real) face composition where one partner may be Medicare-eligible while the other is not, or one is retired while the other is working. Platform commitments operate at individual age and income, not at household-level, so these couples are handled by aggregating each partner's individual treatment. There is no special case to design for; the per-individual architecture handles it.

Open Questions

This document raises questions the platform package does not currently fully resolve.

Should the wage floor architecture's differential treatment of cohabiting versus married couples (cohabiting couples receive higher combined exemption due to per-occupation floors versus married couples' combined floor) be intentional, or should the platform develop a mechanism to align the treatment? The differential is small in most cases but exists by design rather than by specific policy intent.

How should mid-year composition changes affecting Bridge Credit eligibility be handled? Standard tax practice resolves filing status as of December 31; for the Bridge Credit specifically, intra-year economic experience may differ from year-end status.

How does the platform handle disputes about dependent allocation when cohabiting partners disagree mid-claim or after separation? Standard IRS tie-breaker rules apply, but the Bridge Credit may add complexity these rules do not currently address.

Should the platform integrate with state-level domestic partnership registries for any benefit purposes, or should the federal-state separation be maintained completely? Currently the platform operates entirely on federal tax filing status without reference to state partnership status. This is the simplest design but may produce inequity in states where domestic partnerships confer substantial state-level benefits.

How should the platform's Direct File implementation handle cohabiting couples who would benefit from joint filing optimization? Married couples can optimize between MFJ and Married Filing Separately; cohabiting partners file separately by default but might benefit from coordinated decisions about dependent allocation, HoH eligibility, and Bridge Credit timing. Direct File should support this coordinated decision-making, but the design choices have not been worked out.

How does the platform handle cohabiting couples where one partner would qualify for an enhanced Bridge Credit but the household economy is shared? Strict per-filer Bridge Credit evaluation may understate or overstate household need depending on intra-household resource sharing patterns. The platform should consider whether some Bridge Credit evaluations should account for cohabiting partner income, recognizing that this introduces new complexity that goes against the simpler per-filer approach.

What about cohabiting same-sex couples in states that did not recognize same-sex marriage before Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)? Some couples who would have married earlier had it been legal may have established cohabiting patterns that they have continued post-Obergefell by choice. Their treatment is the standard cohabiting couple treatment, but the platform's communications might acknowledge this history.

Closing

Cohabiting unmarried couples are 17 million Americans whose household structure is not addressed by Married Filing Jointly but whose economic situation often resembles a married couple in important respects. The platform's design treats them as separate filers for federal tax purposes (matching current law) and as separate individuals for universal benefits purposes (consistent with the per-individual architecture of universal healthcare, childcare, and Founding Stake). This produces internally coherent treatment that does not require new household-level categories beyond what the federal tax system already provides.

The design choices that warrant explicit platform attention are: dependent allocation rules for mixed-status cohabiting couples and for couples with shared children, Bridge Credit evaluation for couples whose household economy differs from their individual filer status, Direct File support for coordinated tax-time decision-making, and the relationship between federal platform treatment and state-level domestic partnership structures. None of these are platform-fatal questions; all are real and warrant resolution. The Open Questions section above lists them explicitly for transparent acknowledgment.

The platform's design for cohabiting couples is largely a function of choices already made elsewhere: per-individual benefits (rather than household benefits) handle most of the situation cleanly, and federal tax filing rules handle the rest. The remaining design work is coordination and edge-case resolution rather than fundamental architectural choice. This makes cohabiting couples a more tractable scope question than non-citizen treatment, but the platform should still document its specific choices rather than leaving them implicit.