Comments on: Marriage Discrimination? $3500 Pay Cut!

By: Bess

Bess — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:07:08 +0000

Another benefit accorded married couples is “Flexible Spending” accounts. Since these are Federally based I cannot use this benefit through my employer for my wife’s prescriptions or doctor visits.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:11:25 +0000

I am oddly caught in the middle of this issue. My domestic partner and I are not same sex and we could marry if we wanted to. So far the only thing I see as a benefit to getting married is this tax issue. Not much of a reason to comply to ‘traditional Christian values’ if you ask me. We have actually talked about only getting married when everyone in Illinois or even on a federal level is allowed to! At any rate… I am taking a $4400 pay cut to not be married but still be able to get insurance for my partner. I have options… I could get married… I’m outraged at this on behalf of people who aren’t able to make that decision on their own because the government knows what’s best. Our laws are based on Chrisitan values…. NEWS FLASH… NOT EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY IS CHRISTIAN!!! Some of us can actually think for ourselves and don’t need a fabricated fictional book to tell us how to live ‘good lives’.

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:49:54 +0000

Hi. I work in the health and welfare industry and on occassion I talk with gay participants about this and the best way to get this information is to contact the IRS directly. I conferenced the participant with the IRS and stayed on the call to give the IRS some insurance and dependent information. Also, you should keep in mind that just because your company offers domestic partner insurance, it doesn’t mean that the IRS will allow you to claim the dependent unless the state you live in (sometimes the county too) recognizes your relationship as a legally recognized partnership. The one participant I helped with his imputed income questions with the IRS was shocked to find out that while the federal government would help him, since he lived in Texas, he was locked out with the state. So yea, this is important on a state level as well as the federal level.

By: Dave W

Dave W — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:17:54 +0000

I just did my taxes, and thanks for the reminder of my overpayment. (I spent hours on the phone with payroll to get them to adjust my income for massachusetts…they were imputing income for fedeal and state).

Sometimes I wonder if our opponents are just greedy. they have marriage, they have these tax advantages, they don’t have to hire lawyers, create trusts or constantly explain the differences. They have what they want, who cares about the rest.

I honestly think that the incredible selfishness of American culture vs. elswhere is part of this. “No, I don’t want to discriminate, but who is going to pay for these deductions?” I see the same issue with the death tax. Sure, repealling it only helps certain families but it is just incredibly unfair, selfish and un-American to tax income twice! I think if people were less selfish they’d be able to see it. I won’t inherit an estate over $7MM but I have a sense of fairness and the death tax disgusts me just like my imputed income does.

By: Gianpiero

Gianpiero — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:57:16 +0000

I’ve found that this is something that even many of our strongest straight allies and supporters (and many of our gay ones, for that matter) have never even heard about. In fact, I’ve had the experience of straight colleagues believing we’ve had more success than we’ve actually had–for example, stating that they’ve presumed that my partner and I have been paying joint federal taxes for years. When we take the time explain these implicit pay cuts, or the chore of doing three sets of taxes every year, or the potential for being taxed on inheriting jointly owned property–we’re putting the burdens of inequality in terms they understand. Literally, I’ve seen eyes get wide and mouths drop open. And when you explain that because of DOMA, these inequalities remain even for those same sex couples who have married, they’re even more shocked (“You mean, you’re married like me, but you’re still treated differently?”). We have to do a better job of including these real impacts as part of our discussion–and, of course, your explanation is a great step in that direction. Thanks, Rob.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:52:44 +0000

By the way, I recently discovered your blog after seeing your “Protect the Children” video on another website. You’ve got a great blog – interesting, entertaining, and informative.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:50:07 +0000

My partner and I have four children – two in college and twins that are three. I gave up a lucrative career to stay home and parent our children. Thus, I can’t obtain health insurance through my job because I don’t work outside the home anymore. I know many other LGBT families in the same situation – where one partner stays home. And, remember, many of these same folks arguing against gay marriage are the same ones who will tell you that one parent should stay home with the children. Enduring this unfair tax treatment is our only option so that I can have health insurance. So, not only am I being punished for being gay, but I’m being punished because I opted to stay home and raise a family. Apparently, staying home to raise a family isn’t a family value.

[Webmaster's note: One good thing -- if your partner is responsible for more than 50% of your financial support, he can probably claim you as a dependent and therefore won't have to pay taxes on your domestic partner benefits. Assuming his company offers domestic partner benefits. Again, though, those two conditions are something opposite-sex married couples don't have to worry about. Hell, if you're an opposite-sex married couple you don't even have to live together -- or ever plan to -- and you can still get tax-free benefits.]

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:20:10 +0000

There’s also another group of couples where one partner wouldn’t be working – those where one partner cannot work due to long-term illness or disability. Ironically, that is also exactly the kind of situation where partner health coverage is most needed. It’s also the kind of situation which is explicitly included in the traditional Christian marriage vows – “in sickness and in health“.

My grandmother was unable to work from her early 30s onwards due to crippling rheumatoid arthritis throughout her entire body. She relied heavily on the NHS for most of her medical needs, but many of the most expensive ones – such as a home adapted to her needs – had to be paid for by my grandfather and aunt. My aunt lived with her parents until their deaths in order to give her father occasional relief from caring for his wife.

It seems to me that Maggie Gallagher believes only those of economic value should receive healthcare, just like she believes that only those who meet specific criteria should be permitted to marry the person they love.

It also seems to me that the current US law excludes other kinds of relationships unfairly. What about situations where a wage-earner is supporting & caring for a sibling or close friend who is unable to work? Should people in that kind of situation have to pay extra tax on healthcare? Or to put it differently, since tax can be reclaimed on one form of altruism (charitable donations) why should another form of altruism be taxed?

[Webmaster's note: Tavdy, for the record, if you can claim your domestic partner as a dependent on your income tax, then you would be able to deduct the health care costs from your income taxes. But the requirements for calling someone a dependent are much stricter. This, of course, is something opposite-sex married couples don't need to worry about.]