The Cost of Being Gay
This New York Times article discusses the cost differences of same-sex couples in terms of federal 
benefits and taxes. Federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships, even if the state a couple resides in does recognize the relationship, and give the same-sex relationship legal status. Same-sex couples with with one spouse whose employer offers benefits for the other spouse are in terms of the federal tax law required to report the spouse's benefit as taxable income. This is not the case if the couple were heterosexual.
There are also very distinct differences in terms of things like social security benefits. Same-sex couples do not receive the social security death benefit; nor, if one person makes more than the other, can the lower-income earning spouse receive benefits based on the income earned by the higher-salaried spouse. This is not the case with heterosexual couples.
The article calculates a "life-time cost" of being being in a devoted single-sex relationship for a hypothetical lesbian couple in a relationship that lasted 46 years.
In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.
These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.
I know elderly same-sex couples who have been together for 40+ years. They have to file income tax separately. One of the women stayed home for twelve years to raise the other woman's children from a previous relationship, while her spouse earned an income. She has no right to her spouse's retirement pension, or social security benefits. She and her spouse were restricted to the lower amount allocated for non-married people for her spouse's IRA. A heterosexual couple can contribute more money to an IRA based on their status as a couple, even if only one of them earns income.
Had they been working when same-sex partners were covered by some health insurance partners, that insurance would be taxed as income, though it isn't for heterosexual domestic partners or married couples.
Isn't it is merely sound fiscal policy for the federal government to essentially treat same-sex relationships that are recognized by the individual states as they treat heterosexual relationships in terms of income tax, estate taxes, social security benefits, health insurance, medical savings accounts, and retirement investment? Think of the increased income from couples who can suddenly invest more in long-terms savings like IRAs and 401s, and medical savings plans, and the benefits of the "marriage penalty," wherein couples filing jointly pay more than they would filing separately, if one person makes substantially more than the other.
It also seems to me to be the right way to treat people who have earned income and pay taxes.
Filed under:
Comments
Being gay sounds expensive.
Being gay sounds expensive.
Shouldn't be expensive
The point is that being gay is being made expensive.
That gay couples are footing the bill for tax benefits they don't receive, even. That they are essentially "taxed" more.
It's bad fiscal policy. By extending identical taxes and benefits to state-recognized couples the country would earn more money, and be fairer than its current fiscal policy.
Its even worse than that -
Its even worse than that - being gay in a healthy, monogamous, stable, productive relationship is what is penalized.
You're right
. . . it is worse.
Maybe part of the reason same-sex couples are not given federal tax recognition, even if their state of residence recognizes them, is a fundamental objection to the idea of a stable, monogamous, and productive same-sex relationship even existing?
An objection that is in part because such relationships pretty much kill the standard objections to "the lifestyle" as a reason to prohibit same-sex couples from gaining legal status and rights?
As federal fiscal policy, it baffles me in the extreme.
It is completely baffling as
It is completely baffling as fiscal policy. As social policy, it seems to be a standard keep-group-x down vicious cycle. Some are perfectly content to point out that "The lifestyle" is so unhealthy - they point to drug use, look at suicide rates, look at promiscuity - all the while being totally oblivoius to the fact that alienating a group, treating them as second class citizens, and denying basic rights goes a long way to perpetuate all of the above. Perpetuating myths and discouraging people from living completely integrated healthy lives in this society seems to trump any financial common sense. Then again, much the same can be said for war, poverty, health care....
I'm always baffled by
I'm always baffled by references to "the lifestyle," period. The lesbian commune of my teens is now two sets of monogamous spouses in their late sixties and early seventies. With roughly 10% of the population attracted sexually and romantically to the same sex, there's enough of a population to have tremendous variety; there is no "life style."
Actually, now that I think of all the couples I know that are same sex couples, there are a few "life style" traits I can identify--they love their partners. They love their children. They want to be able to love, and cherish and care for their partners and children, and provide for them in the future.
In short, they're like couples everywhere of every race, creed, culture and orientation.