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."

Comments

Why so discriminating?

[bbqsrc]

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...

Re:Why so discriminating?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Christianity is NOT anti gay, some (most) of the christian churches are anti-gay. They base this on a selective reading of the Old Testament which they use to justify an opinion they already held previously. The "christians" who use their faith to justify anti-gay bigotry should be told to read Leviticus in its entirety and fuck off. Especially those in US churches that look more like Old Testament eschatological cults than anything teaching the New Testament values of love and forgiveness.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[rjch]

Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.

Contributing children towards Planet Earth is something that governments in general are going to have to discourage. At least one country on Earth already does. The planet simply cannot sustain a growing population indefinitely.

I should also note that many gay or lesbian couples do adopt children, or undergo fertility treatment to have children.

Since it is the job of the future generation to care about the current generation when it becomes elderly, people who do not contribute DNS to the future generation, shall be required to shoulder extra burden for the common good of the society.

In general, the elderly that the current generation care for are their own parents, not other "generic" elderly people. Given your logic, then gay and lesbian people are doing themselves a disservice by leaving themselves without someone to care for them when they grow older.

In Europe and South America many countries actually had taxes for healthy 25+, who were unmarried and 30+ still without kids.

Whilst I've never heard of such a tax, I suspect that "had" is the operative word if such taxes did actually exist. We are already straining environmental resources significantly with the population we have. We do not need more to contribute to the problem.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[somersault]

Even the new testament criticises homosexual relationships (and the only laws of the old testament that were "updated" in the new testament were ones to do with sacrifices and what you could put into your body).

I just Googled to find passages and opinions on it. One site tries to say that the bible is simply criticising non-Christian worship practices when it complains about same sex relationships, but that's clearly a load of horse shit. It would just say so if that was the case.

It also tries to claim that the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah is nothing to do with Sodomy and that "know" literally means know rather than "have sex with", when Lot clearly offers his daughters to "do with what you will" instead of the men.

I don't believe in any of it any more, but like I said I find it pathetic when people try to twist their own scriptures to make them more politically correct instead of just manning up. If you don't agree with your scriptures, then stop worshipping your bigoted God.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Rogerborg]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that [the robber-barons in our Country Club are just as good as any ennobled British lord or monarch]."

Fixed that for them. That is precisely what they meant, after all: that any rich white man was as worthy as any noble white man, not some laughably ridiculous notion that blacks or women had any worth.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[QuantumRiff]

A guy in CA was collecting signatures for a bill to really protect the value and sanctity of marriage. He was trying to ban divorce.

Strangely, not many of these people were willing to sign.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Taevin]

Language is defined through its use. It's undoubtedly true that the word "sodomy" holds the meaning it does because people used it to refer to some form of "sexual deviancy." Consider also how in modern times the phrase "begging the question" has all but lost its original meaning and now is a synonym for "raising the question." That it is now used incorrectly does not change the original meaning.

Ironically, you're begging the question (petitio principii--assuming the initial point) with your argument. You're saying that 1. the word sodomy (modern) means "unnatural sex," 2. the word derives from the Latin meaning "sin of Sodom," 3. therefore the people of Sodom practiced sodomy. There's a disconnect there because you're assuming that the "sin of Sodom" is "unnatural sex," but this is an unproven claim.

If the "sin of Sodom" is instead an extreme lack of hospitality, then the word sodomy should refer to that, but will still be used improperly to refer to "unnatural sex" (and homosexual sex in particular) because that is the common meaning. Just like begging the question.

Still unfair..

[Pvt_Ryan]

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?

Re:Still unfair..

[gutnor]

Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner : Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)

Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.

Re:Still unfair..

[Nyder]

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?

Thats all "legal" marriage is. A tax break.

Love has nothing to do with marriage, regardless what the world wants to believe.

Sure, you can say marriage is the public commit process of your love. And maybe it is. But you have to go sign legal documents, that bonds you and your partner together, in a contract, that comes down to money.

Get divorced? It's all about the money split.
Partner goes into debt, oh ya, they just put you in debt also. legally.

Re:Still unfair..

[Pharmboy]

Indeed. To me, it would be fair if we simply got rid of all tax deductions for being married, children, home loan interest, etc. and just have an overall lower tax rate. I paid my home off by making sacrifices, yet I pay more taxes because I was responsible enough to do so. And why should I subsidize someone else's children? I don't have kids, so I pay yet higher taxes than those who decided to procreate. If you want kids, fine, have them, but a tax deduction for children is no different than me giving you a hand out for the effort.

In a nutshell, I pay way more taxes because I am financially responsible and have no kids. And before those with kids (and deductions) say "But you don't understand how expensive it is to have kids", I would remind them that it was their choice, not mine, and there is no sense of fairness in me having to pay for part of raising their kids.

Re:Still unfair..

[nosferatu1001]

No it is not, as the civil marriage laws have nothing relating to a religious observance in them.

In fact civil partnerships have absolutely no "standard" wording at all, unlike civil marriages, meaning you can actively denounce religion if you want and it is fine (as long as the registrar doesnt panic, that is....) - we were told we could write our entire service if we wanted.

Yes the nominal head is both State and Church, but the actual PM is purely a civil role.

Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[bersl2]

So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[lena_10326]

OK. So, you are upset google is compensating gays in long term relationships for a tax code that is discriminatory against gays and you wish to eliminate unfair wages based on sexual orientation. So then by implication I can assume you are also wishing to legalize gay marriage so that we can eliminate the federal tax code discrimination against long term gay relationships in order to stamp out google's wage discrimination which is based on countering the federal tax code discrimination against gays?

Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[frovingslosh]

So do you believe it is always OK for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, or only do so when it favors homosexuals? I strongly suspect that you are a hypocrite and would be protesting any stated policy that advocated paying homosexuals less than straights rather than more.

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay!

[TheRaven64]

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.

not really, because everybody benefits

[r00t]

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.

it hurts those it's intended to help

[r00t]

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.

Re:Andrew

[icebraining]

Of course this screws over the non-married heterosexual couples

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.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[hedwards]

It's not equivalent. In the vast majority of America, there is no same sex marriage or equivalent and in all of America there isn't a federally recognized union. Straight folks OTOH that are just in committed relationships have the option of getting married and collecting both the benefits as well as the responsibilities of being married. As long as it's not available to same sex couples it's not the same thing as choosing not to be.

The other thing is that the couples end up more or less exactly where they would be were it not for a bunch of bigots refusing to grant equal rights under the law. Perhaps you should do some research rather than making bigoted claims over the internet. I assume that you're going to go back and ask David Duke what the rest of his argument goes like.