If the owner of the house decides to offer a discount to market-based rent, that's going to depend on their overall assessment of the situation, and income change doesn't necessarily change anything about the situation (although it might, and probably would in this case.) Suppose one of the couple didn't have a change in base income, but did receive a huge inheritance. Then what?

Ordinarily if you rent, you don't take the landlord's income into consideration in terms of what you are willing to pay.

Partner B could just pay what rent is considered fair, given that it's not a typical renting scenario. If partner B rented a similar house with a roommate, what would they expect to pay?

They asked, perhaps they are trying to figure out when they got scratched. If it wasn't you, you have no responsibility.

Keep in mind the only benefit is a $500 credit per dependent

It's a legitimate need. You probably want to avoid places with slick marketing.

They lie a lot

"We have a unique need for exactly your car!"

Call them up.

Dealer: "What car do you have?"

You: "The one in unique demand!"

Dealer: "Umm...funny thing about that..."

You want to switch to something. There are a lot of places with better rates

Or a school that could at least pay more than one faculty member.

A cheap school accepting only ten students sounds more like someone's hobby vs. a real school.

Transit ridership is still down significantly.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TRANSIT

While I am not an expert on this, my understanding is there are 'background actors' who don't have lines, and 'principal performers' who do. An actor can remain background even over an extended period of time, so there's no contractual reason to churn them, but there's also probably not that much benefit to trying to ensure some concept of continuity for individuals in roles where it's not essential to the story.

You wouldn't expect those things to happen just from changing banks. Their ads are probably overselling what benefits you will receive.

There's probably not much downside to doing this, but just don't expect major changes as a result.

The guys in the red shirts who beam down with the landing party are not good candidates for recurring roles.

Good point. Probably those places that can only charge $40,000/year for tuition are no good.

Most "regular private schools" do not cost $60,000/year. Even in NYC.

There may be one or two that you are looking at the cost something close to that.

Almost anyplace close to the US in the "tropics" is going to be much less safe than most of the US.

Top 11 Countries with the Highest Homicide Rates*

• Incidents per 100,000 people - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2018

El Salvador - 52.02
U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S. territory) - 49.28
Jamaica - 43.85
Lesotho - 43.56
Honduras - 38.93
Belize - 37.79
Venezuela - 36.69
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - 36.54
South Africa - 36.40
Saint Kitts and Nevis - 36.09
Nigeria - 34.52

Then the US is 4.96 on this metric.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country

It's personal preference.

If everybody wanted to live in the same place, then nobody would be any place else.

For most people, the percentage is zero.

For you, you are looking at some of the most expensive schools in the country, and it's only 10%ish.

Does the kid want to go to boarding school?

This post was sort of bizarre: https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/11d6lze/isnt_boarding_school_a_way_to_save_money/

As though boarding schools were somehow providing services below cost.

Basically yes, if we ignore time value of money.

6% of 200,000 would be about $12,000 annually. It's likely that it would take several years for that to work out to the extra tax from taking the money sooner, but that depends on a bunch of parameters.

I hear that works great for penny stocks.

Well not really. You are concerned about the 'overhead' on your principal. For the retirement distribution, that's the taxes. For a mortgage, that's the interest payments.

The principal matters as well, but you are going to pay that in either scenario, and ultimately you would be taking money from the IRA in any event.

So now I'm curious how much you think you need to avoid some unpleasant fate.

Just to clarify, NIIT applies to investment income, and retirement plan distributions are not considered investment income for this purpose. Other types of investment income could be affected though.

Note that if it was 35% tax rate (which it might or might not be depending on other income and other taxes...) then to get 200K, OP would have to withdraw $307,692 to have $200K after tax.

You are going to take out the money eventually anyway, so you want to find the incremental tax hit of taking it out sooner. That occurs because bigger distributions potentially are taxed at higher rates than smaller distributions due to tax brackets. To know this, you'd have to know your current tax bracket and what you would otherwise take out each year.