Slashdot Mirror
Google To Add Pay To Cover a Tax For Gays
GrApHiX42 writes "Starting on Thursday, Google is going to increase the salaries of gay and lesbian employees whose partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax they must pay that heterosexual married couples do not. Google is not the first company to make up for the extra tax. At least a few large employers already do. But benefits experts say Google's move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, because they compete for the same talent."
Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way? That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them. It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways...
Disagree != mod troll.
Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against. They should get the same as the Gay/Lesbian couples, some people may not believe in marrage or may not want to get married for one reason or another. Why should they be forced to marry just to avoid a tax?
Boy, do I see a lawsuit brewing here. How can they legally justify paying straight people less than gays, if all other factors are equal? I don't care about any tax issues. Does Google pay an apartment dweller more just because they don't get a mortgage write-off? Do they pay a single person more because he can't claim to be a head-of-household under IRS rules like a married person does? Do they pay a blind person less because they get two personal exemptions rather than one on their ISR 1040? If their pay policy doesn't address these and a lot more tax inequities, then I hope that they get sued big time for a pay policy that actually favors gays over straight people. In short, it's not for Google to start correcting the unfairness of the tax system, and to do so in a discriminatory manner that favors gays over straights just isn't right or smart.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This. All I see is an article about how the government intrudes into family lives, giving particular benefits to two heterosexuals living together in a particular sort of arrangement but not to singles, homosexuals or people living together under other arranegments. And Google has decided to follow the government's lead by discriminating against everyone whose lifestyle is not that of a particular steady homosexual partnership, e.g. people who remain single / practice polyamory / shack up in a massive commune / sleep around / anything else.
All this crap about the moving helping in "competing for the same talent" implies that everyone is either in a gay marriage[tm] or straight marriage[tm].
I think what happens is that health benefits to your spouse are tax free. Health benefits to your partner to whom you're not married are not - and gay couples can't get married. Of course this screws over the non-married heterosexual couples - maybe Google should just pay the tax for everyone who gets charged it.
Maternity leave is one area where the US is particularly behind the rest of the world. In general US labor laws are tilted in favor of the business you work for, what will be most profitable for them, unlike much of Europe where the employees actually have more power in many situations than their employers (as it should be).
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Sorry,two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, spare me the BS please. He's not proposing to deny you gay marriage or anything, he's just just saying basically that compensating that tax for one particular slice is still leaving out a whole other lot of slices which, for all practical purposes, are just as married.
It seems strange to me to see reactions basically boiling down to "booyah, now it's your turn to suck it up." Unless he is one of those that actually did anything against you in the first place, two wrongs just don't make a right.
And basically you're trying to prove what? That gays can be just as much self-centered pricks as the fundies on the other side? We already knew that. After all the most vehement anti-gay preachers turned out to _be_ gay.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's much better. If you discriminate against 50% of people, they might vote you out at the next election. If you discriminate against a small minority, everyone else says 'well, I'm not one of those (Jews, Communists, Gays, Gypsies, whatever), so I don't care' and lets you stay in power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government. Anything otherwise is discriminatory. It isn't necessarily discriminatory to give write offs to family though over individuals. We live in a welfare state and certain benefits are provided to you. Schooling, tax write-offs to your parents, etc. You received these once too even if it was indirectly. If I create a family with another man (I'm a guy) and raise a child with him than why shouldn't I also be entitled to the same tax write-offs and health benefits that any other hetrosexual family is entitled to? And the same thing basically applies to other write-offs for many other things like disabilities, etc. There may be things that the government allows you to write off that you shouldn't be able to write off or is discriminatory against the poor/rich classes. For instance if they allowed only high ticket items to be deductible for tax purposes and only taxed the lower part of your income. In effect making the poor pay the taxes and the rich pay nothing. Or possibly the exact opposite. In any case this issue is clear cut. Gays shouldn't pay more than anybody else. That's just wrong. If you want to tax the childless population- because they have a larger disposable income-maybe we can figure something out- but don't do it based on the Gay population- there is an identical family structure here that is utterly discriminatory.
That was pretty much my reading too. I think the correct solution is to give in to the Christians wanting the state not to recognise gay marriage and go a step further - the state should not recognise any kind of marriage. If you want to sign a contract for shared ownership of possessions and to cohabit with someone, that's possible without marriage law. If you want to get this agreement blessed by your favourite religion, that's not the state's business.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think the point was that if you "go all natural", you'll get pregnant way more often, and thus "get a couple periods every couple years."
But, what do I know? I'll return to my basement now.
No law can be defect-free, but consider the fact that every member of a Gay/Lesbian couple was once a child.
Some mostly-correct assumptions are implicit in the law. Kids are known to do better in intact families. (even kids that grow up to be gay) Kids do better with a stay-at-home parent, traditionally the mom. Hetero couples generally produce kids. Legal issues related to kids (inheritance, etc.) are easier with a married couple.
Even totally single people benefit from marriage-related tax breaks. Oh sure, having benefited as a child it would be mighty nice (totally selfish) to throw away the tax advantages for the generation that follows. Your childhood is comfy, and screw the next generation, hmmm?
It's kind of like social security, moving wealth across generations. The kids are at least a good investment; they cost less and aren't just waiting around to die. Better food or additional at-home parental time would do some good.
Think of the children, Gay ones included.
So what would you use that "human female reproductive system" for?
Parent's point being, there's no period when you're pregnant.
If you are pregnant you don't have periods. Now read his post again.
European companies are really hesitant to hire people because it's so damn hard to get rid of people.
Places that think they can get away with it will particularly avoid those who seem likely to take advantage of the benefits.
WTF is with people thinking they should get paid for nothing and/or have a right to get back a job they abandoned for half a year? Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job.
But they can get married, so why don't they?
If they don't want to get married, but think unmarried gay couples shouldn't get benefits they don't have, the solution is obvious: lobby for gay marriage.
Dilbert RSS feed
That was pretty much my reading too. I think the correct solution is to give in to the Christians wanting the state not to recognise gay marriage and go a step further - the state should not recognise any kind of marriage. If you want to sign a contract for shared ownership of possessions and to cohabit with someone, that's possible without marriage law. If you want to get this agreement blessed by your favourite religion, that's not the state's business.
Actually, it's absolutely the state's business. You're not seeking simply cohabitation or shared ownership, you're seeking a legal agency relationship that trumps the rights of blood relatives, allows for probate-free inheritance, etc. Since the state normally enforces probate and intestate succession, they absolutely must be involved in marriage. When the state is not involved - i.e. common law marriage - the couple does not get these probate benefits, nor do they get to be legal and medical proxies for each other.
The church has no business being involved, however. They perform weddings and join people in wedlock, which is a purely religious ceremony.
Either legalize same-sex marriage, or just do away with any kind of legal marriage at all. The latter is what I would do if I had my way. Why does the state meddle in what should be a commitment between two people?
Because the state is enforcing that relationship. If one spouse is in an accident and goes comatose, the other spouse is the medical and legal proxy and gets to decide whether or not to pull the plug, even over the wishes of blood relatives of the first spouse. Without marriage, that second spouse would not have rights that trump the rights of blood relatives. Same goes for probate-free inheritance and intestate succession. Marriage is not a "commitment between two people", it's a contract between two people and the state.
you know, some of us actually believe the point of life is not to labor as a wage slave. that if society were set up in such a way to maximize individual happiness instead of profit, corporations would take a dent, but capitalism would go right on ticking, and we would be happier people with richer lives. exactly what is wrong with that goal?
meanwhile, you seem wedded to the ravenous idea that toiling for the corporation should be the end-all consume-all point of life
"Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job."
well yeah, if the point is to run at maximum capacity possible, all the time, like we are at war with something. there is no slack to pick up if there is no tension in the rope. relax the goddamn rope, you don't have to run full bore all the fucking time. go about your company's business leisurely, let things go a little slower, and calm the fuck down
if all your competitors labor under the same respect the individual's happiness rules, there's no competitive disadvantage
or, move to china, where the wage slaves are committing suicide in mass numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Employee_suicides_and_deaths
and forming unions (in a communist country, irony)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/world/asia/21chinalabor.html
to agitate for the respect from the government and companies that i am agitating towards you: the individual's happiness is the paramount concern, not the fucking company
really, asshole
fuck you fucking corporatists,
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
The problem is, that's ALREADY the way it is!
You can be "secular married" by walking in front of a judge and signing a piece of paper. And indeed, if you're church married, after your church wedding you have to go to the courthouse to sign a legal marriage certificate.
But you can't do that if you're gay. The problem isn't even religion! Plenty of churches will gay marry a couple, so if all you want is the religious bit, you're fine. But if you want the legal status, you're fucked.
What gay people want is the right to visit their partners in the hospital, the right to deal with their estate, take care of their kids, all the shit that straight people get for free.
I'm not gay. Hell, I don't even have any gay friends who aren't total closet cases. But that this shit has managed to stay an issue for this long blows my fucking mind. It's pure discrimination, and it should not be fucking tolerated.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Either legalize same-sex marriage, or just do away with any kind of legal marriage at all. The latter is what I would do if I had my way. Why does the state meddle in what should be a commitment between two people?
Because the state is enforcing that relationship. If one spouse is in an accident and goes comatose, the other spouse is the medical and legal proxy and gets to decide whether or not to pull the plug, even over the wishes of blood relatives of the first spouse. Without marriage, that second spouse would not have rights that trump the rights of blood relatives. Same goes for probate-free inheritance and intestate succession. Marriage is not a "commitment between two people", it's a contract between two people and the state.
That's the way it is now in your jurisdiction. Whether is should remain like that is debatable. In some jurisdictions, all those things can be signed without a marriage, and undone without a cumbersome, painful divorce.
Well, not really - you can (at some expense) have a will, and a living will, and a medical and legal proxy document, and have an executor for your probate, etc., etc. However, these can all be challenged by your heirs much easier than a marriage, primarily because they're more akin to two-party contracts, while a marriage is akin to a three-party contract - the two spouses and the state, who is a party and consents to take on certain obligations. Because of the state's participation, it's much easier to then bind the state to enforce your marriage against the wishes of your heirs.
Additionally, most people don't think about these things until they're impending. Do you have a will and the other documents? Do most cohabitating people, particularly those in their 20s or 30s? The real benefits of marriage are like insurance... you don't necessarily appreciate them until you need them, and by then it's too late.
Anyway, that's peripheral to my main point: that marriage law or lack thereof, should be the same for all couples, straight and same-sex.
Agreed... I'm just on the side that it should exist for everyone.
I think we need two words for marriage. There's Religious Marriage which involves going to a church/temple/whatever and having your priest/rabbi/whatever declare you husband and wife in the eyes of your religion's god/gods/goddess/etc. Then there's Civil Marriage which is a legal contract which grants spouses rights not normally granted to non-blood relatives (and, in fact, rights greater than blood relatives). The latter can be obtained during the course of a Religious Marriage or by simply seeing a Justice of the Peace who effectively stamps a few forms and says "you're married."
I don't think there should be any governmental pressures on Religious Marriage. If a church doesn't want to marry Tom and Joe or Mary and Jane then those couples can find another church that will or just not have a Religious Marriage. Meanwhile, Civil Marriage should have no limits so long as the two people being joined in marriage are consenting adults. So Tom and Joe should be able to get a Civil Marriage even if they've never set foot in a church.
The problem is that the word "marriage" has been used for both types of marriage up until now and neither side (Civil or Religious) is going to give it up for an alternative word.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.