Google Paying Homosexuals Extra

[ClydeR]

A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners' health benefits – but only if they’re gay.

The company said in its blog Thursday, that it will be “grossing-up imputed taxes on health insurance benefits for all same-sex domestic partners in the United States.”

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

But under Google's new policy, the company isn't offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because it says heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

More... (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/01/google-raises-eyebrows-new-gay-employee-benefit/#content)

Focus on the Family is making sure everybody knows how unfair Google is being.


“If Google wants to be truly fair to its employees, it should consider extra compensation to married heterosexuals who are bitten every April 15 by the marriage-penalty tax,” spokesman Gary Schneeberger told FoxNews.com. “How is offering more money to only one group to offset a perceived inequity not a form of discrimination against those groups not fortunate enough to receive such bonuses?”

Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl says even if the idea seems good in practice, it could become a legal issue because it's deciding which domestic partners get these benefits based solely on sexual orientation.

What Google is doing should be illegal.

[Rinualdo]

Fox News legal analyst.

lol

[Drisco]

Focus on the Family is making sure everybody knows how unfair Google is being.



What Google is doing should be illegal.

Gay's can't get married. That's unfair.

[ClydeR]

Gay's can't get married. That's unfair.

Without exception, every state in this country allows homosexuals to get married. But it has to be a marriage, which means a union of two people of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination in the marriage laws.

[CrystalTears]

Who keeps pos repping this moron?!

[ClydeR]

Who keeps pos repping this moron?!

You know why there is a conservative ascendancy in this country? It's because liberals have grown arrogant, resorting to personal attacks, instead of attempting to defend their weak ideas. That false sense of entitlement, which is a form of pride, will presage their fall.

Pride, where Wit fails, steps in to our Defence,
And fills up all the mighty Void of Sense!
If once right Reason drives that Cloud away,
Truth breaks upon us with resistless Day;
Trust not your self; but your Defects to know,
Make use of ev'ry Friend — and ev'ry Foe.

[Drisco]

Without exception, every state in this country allows homosexuals to get married. But it has to be a marriage, which means a union of two people of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination in the marriage laws.

Really, I thought the meaning of Marriage has changed in the dictionary. The word Same-Sex marriage has been coined hence a new definition to Marriage. Old words take on new meanings and are accepted. Your logic is flawed.

[RichardCranium]

Damned gay-o-sexuals.

[Amber]

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

But under Google's new policy, the company isn't offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because it says heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

Surely you aren't advocating that Google award heterosexual employees living in sin a benefit usually reserved for married couples??? I fear for the future of our nation when even ClydeR forsakes conservative Christian values.

[kookiegod]

Gay's can't get married. That's unfair.

Exactly, and I am a good Christian Conversative.

I am working for one state senate campaign, helping out a Congressional campaign, etc.

I want the world 'marriage' restricted to church weddings, and everyone gay or straight gets civil unions, and people can follow their own faith to if they married, life partners, what the fuck ever.

Good job by Google.

And Clyde, fuck the tax laws in this country which had to make this happen.

[Drisco]

All that needs to be brought up is the age old principle:

Separation of Church and State.

Only real reason gays can't get married are because of Religious Anti-Gay activists. Marriage and it's ties to religion shouldn't even be apart of the government. When you get married you shouldn't be getting a Marriage License, you should be getting a civil union license. Marriage is just the celebration of the union.

[Jayvn]

yeah...gays should be just as unhappy too... it's not fair.

also..is it on the application..or do you have to interview with a lisp to get that extra little % on the paycheck?

[AnticorRifling]

As long as women are still making less for the same jobs what's the problem?

[CrystalTears]

You know why there is a conservative ascendancy in this country? It's because liberals have grown arrogant, resorting to personal attacks, instead of attempting to defend their weak ideas. That false sense of entitlement, which is a form of pride, will presage their fall.Been reading chapters from Rocktar's book of how to reply to people who don't agree with you by calling them liberals, eh?

[ClydeR]

Good job by Google.

And Clyde, fuck the tax laws in this country which had to make this happen.

The employer's responsibility is to pay all employees based on their performance, not based on the employees' social situation. Congress makes the tax laws for the very purpose of causing some people to have more money after taxes than other people. People with children, for example, get tax breaks that aren't available to people without children. What if Google decided to pay people without children extra so that they would have the same amount after taxes as people with children?

[ClydeR]

Only real reason gays can't get married are because of Religious Anti-Gay activists. Marriage and it's ties to religion shouldn't even be apart of the government. When you get married you shouldn't be getting a Marriage License, you should be getting a civil union license. Marriage is just the celebration of the union.

Impractical and unworkable. Congress, state legislators and city governments would have to spend thousands upon thousands of hours and millions upon millions of dollars rewriting thousands upon thousands of laws that currently take account of marital status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States). It would be even worse than Y2K! The best thing to do is leave it exactly how it is right now.

[CrystalTears]

Impractical and unworkable. Congress, state legislators and city governments would have to spend thousands upon thousands of hours and millions upon millions of dollars rewriting thousands upon thousands of laws that currently take account of marital status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States). It would be even worse than Y2K! The best thing to do is leave it exactly how it is right now.
No, they would need to do a find/replace of "marriage" to "civil union". Done.

[Drisco]

Impractical and unworkable. Congress, state legislators and city governments would have to spend thousands upon thousands of hours and millions upon millions of dollars rewriting thousands upon thousands of laws that currently take account of marital status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States). It would be even worse than Y2K! The best thing to do is leave it exactly how it is right now.

And let millions of LGBT people suffer? This isn't just some issue about marriage it encompasses the fact that LGBT are not getting treated equally. For god sakes there are some states that don't even protect them against workplace harassement.

It will change though, just like it has for Europe and Canada. It's a matter of time only.

This is exactly how it went for Women, African Americans and Now the LGBT community..

[4a6c1]

Marriage and it's ties to religion shouldn't even be apart of the government. When you get married you shouldn't be getting a Marriage License, you should be getting a civil union license. Marriage is just the celebration of the union.

I agree with this.

[kookiegod]

The employer's responsibility is to pay all employees based on their performance, not based on the employees' social situation. Congress makes the tax laws for the very purpose of causing some people to have more money after taxes than other people. People with children, for example, get tax breaks that aren't available to people without children. What if Google decided to pay people without children extra so that they would have the same amount after taxes as people with children?

Yep, I don't want kids, so I am discriminated against by people who do and get tax breaks. Fuck them!

Honestly, if you want FAIRNESS, every single person is treated identically, regardless of race, sex, children etc. by every single law, regulation and the IRS tax code.

It doesn't happen, and if Google wants to do that, awesome.

Heck, I might think about doing it myself in my new biz when I can afford it.

~Paul

[Gan]

Exactly, and I am a good Christian Conversative.

I am working for one state senate campaign, helping out a Congressional campaign, etc.

I want the world 'marriage' restricted to church weddings, and everyone gay or straight gets civil unions, and people can follow their own faith to if they married, life partners, what the fuck ever.

Good job by Google.

And Clyde, fuck the tax laws in this country which had to make this happen.
Deserves repeating.


As long as women are still making less for the same jobs what's the problem?
:rofl:

[Celephais]

Only real reason gays can't get married are because of Religious Anti-Gay activists. Marriage and it's ties to religion shouldn't even be apart of the government. When you get married you shouldn't be getting a Marriage License, you should be getting a civil union license. Marriage is just the celebration of the union.

Really well put...

I think Google is treading some dangerous water, It's some pretty smart activism to get to their main goal, and probably fantastic PR for them, but adjusting wages based on tax burden feels wrong. Not that the unjust tax burden isn't wrong in the first place.

Personally I think any tax incentives around partnerships (marriage or civil) are stupid, why exactly should taxes for someone who is single be more than someone who is married?

[Rinualdo]

Personally I think any tax incentives around partnerships (marriage or civil) are stupid, why exactly should taxes for someone who is single be more than someone who is married?

In some cases, its not. It is not an automatic that single people of income xxx pay more then a married couple of income xxx.

[Celephais]

In some cases, its not. It is not an automatic that single people of income xxx pay more then a married couple of income xxx.

Well comparing it like that is not what I mean.

All other things being equal, if I own property worth X, and make Y and I'm single and pay Z taxes, why should a couple that owns property worth 2X and makes 2Y pay anything other than 2Z? If they were not married and the split was perfect, they'd each be paying Z, why should their union have anything to do with it?

I understand things getting complicated when you introduce kids and things like cost of living for a couple being cheaper than an individual. I also understand from the viewpoint of a society, it's good for the society as a whole for people to be married and sharing resources, but yeah...

[Kranar]

All other things being equal, if I own property worth X, and make Y and I'm single and pay Z taxes, why should a couple that owns property worth 2X and makes 2Y pay anything other than 2Z? If they were not married and the split was perfect, they'd each be paying Z, why should their union have anything to do with it?

Back in the day people got married for the purpose of raising a family. In those days one of the spouses, usually the husband, worked while the mother stayed at home and took care of the children and the house. So back then you had a situation where a married couple had one person earning an income to support and represent multiple people, versus a single individual who earned an income simply for themselves.

In much the same way that say a business only pays taxes on its profit and can deduct expenses... it seemed reasonable to provide some kind of tax relief to a husband who is earning an income that will be spent amongst multiple people, as opposed to an income that is only spent for one person. A family can be thought of as an expense of sorts...

So for one... married people can file a joint tax return allowing them to split their income over two people, thus putting more of their income in a lower tax bracket.

Keep in mind though, that should both members of a marriage make similar amounts of money, then they will be subject to the marriage penalty and end up paying more money in taxes than had they filed as a Single. However both spouses filing as a Single is illegal. The best that a married couple in this situation can do is to declare their status as Married Filing Separately which will give them some advantages, but not as many advantages as if they had filed individually.

[Rinualdo]

All other things being equal, if I own property worth X, and make Y and I'm single and pay Z taxes, why should a couple that owns property worth 2X and makes 2Y pay anything other than 2Z? If they were not married and the split was perfect, they'd each be paying Z, why should their union have anything to do with it?


Fundamentally I agree with you, though the current US tax code doesn't work this way without regard to marital status.

Ie, Single person making X and paying Z != single person making 2x paying 2z.


In a lot of cases, that married couple pays more in taxes then they would if they were both single. This is commonly called the marriage penalty, and one of the reasons that married people can claim either married filing jointly or married filing separately.

[Celephais]

Back in the day people got married for the purpose of raising a family. In those days one of the spouses, usually the husband, worked while the mother stayed at home and took care of the children and the house. So back then you had a situation where a married couple had one person earning an income to support and represent multiple people, versus a single individual who earned an income simply for themselves.

In much the same way that say a business only pays taxes on its profit and can deduct expenses... it seemed reasonable to provide some kind of tax relief to a husband who is earning an income that will be spent amongst multiple people, as opposed to an income that is only spent for one person. A family can be thought of as an expense of sorts...

So for one... married people can file a joint tax return allowing them to split their income over two people, thus putting more of their income in a lower tax bracket.

Keep in mind though, that should both members of a marriage make similar amounts of money, then they will be subject to the marriage penalty and end up paying more money in taxes than had they filed as a Single. However both spouses filing as a Single is illegal. The best that a married couple in this situation can do is to declare their status as Married Filing Separately which will give them some advantages, but not as many advantages as if they had filed individually.
That's all well and good, I just don't get why it should matter at all. If you have one person working and another not working, but the person working happens to make twice as much as some third single person, the taxes should be the same, the per individual income would be the same. It's just one of those things that to me, shouldn't matter. (there's lots of stuff wrong that shouldn't matter, this just happens to be what we're talking about)


Fundamentally I agree with you, though the current US tax code doesn't work this way without regard to marital status.

Ie, Single person making X and paying Z != single person making 2x paying 2z.
I didn't say that. I said TWO people making 2x paying 2z. There are still two people, "all other things being equal" meaning no kids or other issues.



In a lot of cases, that married couple pays more in taxes then they would if they were both single. This is commonly called the marriage penalty, and one of the reasons that married people can claim either married filing jointly or married filing separately.

Right, I get that that is what happens, I'm just saying it's stupid, the marriage status should have zero bearing is what I'm saying.

I guess using variables is causing people to get confused, the only situation I'm talking about is the following:

Bob makes $50k a year, and owns a $500k house, pays $20k in taxes.
Sue makes $50k a year, and owns a $500k house, pays $20k in taxes.
Roy makes $50k a year, and owns a $500k house, pays $20k in taxes.

Bob and Sue get married. They don't move in together, they don't change jobs, they don't have kids, they had a drunken wedding in Vegas and just didn't bother getting it annulled, in the hopes the other will eventually die and leave them their stuff.

What's the reasonable (yeah I know) justification for their taxes to change? Doesn't matter if it's more or less, why is it changing. If there is one, I'm actually curious, I've just never heard of one.

[Kranar]

What's the reasonable (yeah I know) justification for their taxes to change? Doesn't matter if it's more or less, why is it changing. If there is one, I'm actually curious, I've just never heard of one.


In your particular and extreme example their tax situation won't change one bit. Speaking more generally, however, it doesn't make sense to ask for a reasonable justification for an unreasonable corner case... It is recognized by the U.S., reasonably speaking, that starting a family is more of a burden to ones career and ones pocket book than being a bachelor and so to alleviate that burden, which often involves one member of the family having to take substantial time off from work or even quit their job, the IRS will consider the incomes of both partners as constituting a single unit, rather than considering their income as coming from two completely independent people. Taxing this couple as a single unit will in most circumstances result in some tax relief because of how tax brackets work, but it may result in a penalty for wealthier people, or it may result in no change in cases like the one you mention where the two partners maintain an equal and modest income.

Sure if Bob and Sue want to take advantage of this and get married without any intention of starting a family and with the baggage that comes with being married, including the financial risk of a divorce... then Bob and Sue can do that in a purely theoretical setting. In practice though, you don't see many single guys and gals getting married simply for the tax benefit and never talking to one another because it isn't practical.

Because it's not practical or even common... such an extreme scenario and abuse of the system isn't seen as enough of a justification to revoke the tax relief that the government offers to people who wish to start a family. Remember though, in your scenario where Bob and Sue make the same amount of money, 50k a piece, and have the same income there taxes will stay the same, roughly 17362 in income taxes combined, vs. a single guy earning 50k who will pay half that, $8681.

It will only be advantageous if say Sue makes 100k a year, Bob makes jack squat, and Sue wants to save in taxes by getting a drunken marriage with Bob and never speak to him again. Then she will pay less in taxes than if she filed as a single ($21,709 vs. $17,362), and if Bob decides later on to divorce her... well that's a risk Sue agreed to when she married him, and she will have to fork over a decent chunk of change to him, including half of the value of the matrimonial house.

As the marriage penalty has been mentioned... if both Bob and Sue make boatloads of cash, then they will end up paying more in taxes when they marry than when they were single. So the IRS gives them the option of filing as a married couple, but filing separately. This often helps for wealthier families where both partners work, but even in this case it won't be as good as if they could file as Single, which they can't. But honestly... people who make boatloads of cash have more than enough ways to keep their income away from the IRS than ordinary people do.

[Amber]

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Respond to Reputation... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1130171#post1130171)go fuck your god


So apparently, even using italics doesn't indicate when I'm trying to be facetious. To set the record straight, I'm an agnostic and I believe that what adults do, providing all affected parties are in consent, doesn't really concern anyone else, regardless of their gender or marital status.

I had just found it humorous, in a rather twisted way, that ClydeR, who seems to condemn everything that strays in the slightest from strict biblical guidelines, had quoted something which indicated that one of the reasons people oppose the Google payments was that they were only being offered to same sex couples and not unmarried heterosexual couples.

As to Google, I feel that while this may seem a rather risky undertaking on Google's part, it fits in perfectly with their company persona and is garnering them some great PR while bringing attention to the discrepancies inherent in our current treatments of same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.

[Methais]

Gay's can't get married. That's unfair.

You're right. Why should gays be exempt from being married, and the misery that will ensue when they get divorced?

[Rocktar]

Personally I think any tax incentives around partnerships (marriage or civil) are stupid, why exactly should taxes for someone who is single be more than someone who is married?

Back in Roman times, when the first marriage tax breaks were introduced, they were done in order to provide incentive for people that shared kids together to get married and combine households. It was felt at the time that this would help provide more financial support for women and children and so would reduce the burden placed on the Roman public welfare system by single women and children with no means of support. Rome had laws about taking care of Roman citizens and so was mandated to provide food and support and there was a rising level of unmarried women and illegitimate children running around sucking up public money. So, in the early stages of social engineering by tax code, they enacted laws to provide reduced taxes for couples that were married and further reductions for each child.

[Parkbandit]

http://rlv.zcache.com/fair_tax_bumper_sticker-p128764444825586413trl0_400.jpg

[TheEschaton]

You're right. Why should gays be exempt from being married, and the misery that will ensue when they get divorced?

The first gay divorce in Massachusetts actually happened last year. Good times, good times.