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."
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 is the angle I can never figure out. Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it. And, no, alternative sexual orientation is not a crime. The argument that a extending rights such as marriage to gay couples somehow lessens the social value of marriage is ridiculous. Following that same logical path, all those that do not practice christian marriage (Jewish, Islamic, Navajo) are also decreasing the social value of "christian" marriage.
I hope that Google's position in this matter will help influence other companies and eventually federal and state policies positively. If enough companies throw their weight behind this issue, it will become standard to offer a salary benefit for gay partners to cover the tax difference. Once it becomes standard, you can bet that companies will start lobbying congress to solve this problem in order to save them money.
Aside from the tax issues, how can anyone that appreciates the freedoms offered by our constitution and the rationale backing it in the declaration of independence, willfully discriminate against another based solely on private, personal preference? After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
Sure, why not? We tax alcohol and tobacco too. Are you suggesting that this is a sin tax error?
Just convince your employer that your girl is actually a dude. Photoshop could help out, but maybe it's not even needed.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
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
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.
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.
which is totally what she said
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
[Anti-gay Christians] base this on a selective reading of the Old Testament
Now, I fully agree with you that the majority of anti-gay Christians are anti-gays who use the above passages to justify their bigotry, but hey, it's called bigotry for a reason.
However, I'll have to challenge you to select other passages from the bible that contradict or refute the ones quoted above. Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda about loving and forgiving sinners, but I don't recall him saying that it wasn't a sin.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I know a guy who's a former rabbi and is currently a professor of religion. He told me that the Sodom and Gomorrah story is about hospitality law and not homosexuality. Basically, you don't just rape strangers. You take them in, feed them, and so on. Even offer them one (or some) of your women. He told me a lot more about it, but I'm afraid that I can't recall all of it. I'm not offering this as a counter-argument, just as a possible interesting avenue to consider.
Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda...
Actually, Jesus was a tree killer, not a tree huger.
Matthew 21:18: Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
Just sayin
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.