The Drudge Report headline was "Google to Pay Gay Employees More than Straight Ones?," while Fox News online called its story "Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit." In the Fox account, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family complains, "How is offering more money to only one group to offset a perceived inequity not a form of discrimination against those groups not fortunate enough to receive such bonuses?"
In fact, Google is paying to cover the income taxes the government requires on health coverage provided to employees' same-sex spouses/partners. The federal government requires no such taxes to be paid on the value of health coverage provided to opposite-sex spouses (thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, the IRS can't recognize same-sex spouses). In other words. Google is ensuring that the take-home pay for employees with covered same-sex spouses is the same as that provided to employees with covered opposite-sex spouses.
Until the government recognizes same-sex spouses, private industry will continue to turn to this type of work-around in order to treat gay employees fairly, and to attract the talent needed to compete in the marketplace.
But if you want to talk about "unfairness," the people with a real gripe may be single employees, since (opposite-sex) married employees and employees with children have often been "paid more" than single and childless employees, in that U.S. employers traditionally subsidize the "family plan" health coverage employees purchase for their spouses and kids. But you won't see complaints from Focus on the Family, or headlines on the Drudge Report and Fox News, about that.
Equal time: The Democrats who control Congress rejected an amendment to their trillion-dollar health care "reform" that would have made the tax treatment of employer-provided health coverage for same-sex spouses/partners equal to that of opposite-sex spouses. But they did manage to placate the unions by passing special breaks for union-negotiated health coverage. Who's got the power? Not the LGBT lobby that provides its support unconditionally to the business-bashing party, that's for sure.
17 Comments for “Is Equal Treatment Discriminatory?”
posted by Bobby on
Well, for once I don’t disagree. Single employees are not only paid less but they’re often asked to work more. As a former CD used to tell me, “Bobby, neither of us are married, what else are we gonna do?”
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be better if salaries weren’t based on marital status, having kids, being a former veteran, and lots of other qualifications that have no bearing to the job? If I own a company why is it my business if my employees are married, single, gay, straight, black, white? Who cares?
posted by Hunter on
I’m really puzzled as to why you would take a report on Google’s attempt to help gay couples and turn it into a rant on how unfair we are to single people — particularly since under federal law gays are single no matter what their real status might be, which is the point of Google’s new policy.
WTF?
posted by another steve on
Hunter, Miller is not “ranting” about employers being unfair to single employees; he’s making the point that (a) they are in effect paying more to nonsingles, and (b) that seems fine with Focus on the Family and the social conservatives who are making a fuss over employers supposedly (but not really) paying more to those with same-sex partners. In other words, he’s noting the hypocrisy of the family-values crowd. What’s intersting about you post is how you could have missed that.
posted by Jimmy on
” If I own a company why is it my business if my employees are married, single, gay, straight, black, white? Who cares?”
So, out one side of the conservative mouth comes the stuff about how families are the bedrock of civilization, and we must do everything to protect the sanctity therein; but they would prefer not to give families any deference as they pertain the “The Market.”
It is why I’m so glad the the founders, in their wise foresight, created a nation, endowed by great constitution, that gives power to the American people, and only the people, to decide the destiny of this country, not any market – plutocrat – church or political party.
posted by Lymis on
Red Herring here. In this particular case, bringing up singles who feel this is unfair is overlooking the fact that the only people who are getting this “extra pay” are people who are already paying more for the insurance on their domestic partner.
Is it unfair for the single person to be paying less for their insurance, simply because they are the only person covered? Of course not. So therefore, it’s hardly unfair to singles to balance the tax burden so that the gay couples are taking home the same amount as the married ones – which is already less than the singles are taking home.
Which is more true? That the company is “paying more” to some employees, or that the company is ensuring that all employees take home the same amount?
Would the singles (or married straights) really be okay if their pay doubled but their taxes went up so much that their take-home pay actually went down? Would they see that as a raise? No?
Then why don’t they see this the same way? The (partnered) gay couples aren’t keeping any more than the straight ones.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Is it unfair for the single person to be paying less for their insurance, simply because they are the only person covered? Of course not.
Actually, it is, since you’re paying people more based on their relationship status — which is also illegal.
Meanwhile, I would simply bring up this point:
— For gay men, the median household income is $83,000 per year (gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, according to US census data.
— For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000 per year (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000)
Now, as I understand it, the argument of the Obama Party and the gay-sex liberal movement that supported it is that people who make more should be required to pay more in taxes for their health insurance coverage.
So what’s wrong here? Why are gay-sex liberals whining and screaming that they have to pay more in taxes? Isn’t that what they demanded happen?
posted by Bobby on
“Of course not. So therefore, it’s hardly unfair to singles to balance the tax burden so that the gay couples are taking home the same amount as the married ones – which is already less than the singles are taking home.”
—Are you saying that because I don’t have a boyfriend I should pay more taxes? Why? I work just as hard if not harder than any married or partnered guy, why should I make less? I work for myself, not for the community, and certainly not the government.
If we’re going to pay taxes, it should be this: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
The way we’re taxed today is completely unamerican, this whole idea of different tax brackets, marriage penalties, deductions, it only creates corruption in government.
Besides, as a single man I make less money than a married guy or guy with a domestic partner. think about it. If two guys make $45,000 that’s a $90,000 household, think how cheaper is paying rent or sharing a mortgage when you’re boyfriend makes as much money as you do, or more.
I on the other hand, am completely alone. So why the hell should I be paying more taxes?
posted by Tom on
Tax policy in the United States has been driven, for the most part, by social and economic objectives, and it has made a mess out of our taxation policies.
The one thing that Jimmy Carter was indisputably right about was that our income tax laws were a disgrace to the human race. Were then, remain so now.
I’m not sure that it can be done, but I think that it would be a good thing to disentangle our tax policies from social and economic incentives by refocusing the tax code on individual net income and that alone, removing the charitable deduction, home mortgage interest deduction, medical and medical insurance deductions and all the rest, and removing “status” tax differentials such as joint filing rates, and other similar ways of differential taxation.
While I don’t have a problem with a progressive income tax — the wealthy, after all, pay taxes out of their surplus, and the poor don’t — I think that the income tax code should be very simple: net income times rate equals tax due.
Doing anything like that would set up a howl, of course, because by definition a significant number of taxpayers — probably including Bobby — would find themselves paying more taxes rather than less, but in the long run it would be fairer to refocus the income tax code on income rather than social or economic incentives.
posted by Bobby on
“The one thing that Jimmy Carter was indisputably right about was that our income tax laws were a disgrace to the human race”
–Why? He wants us to pay more taxes? Who are we working for, the government? No, I’m sick of the Democratic logic when it comes to taxation, first they spend too much and then they tell you “sorry, we’re broke, we need more of your money.”
With the Fair Tax the only tax people would pay would be at the point of purchase. That means if your salary is $45,000 you get to keep every penny and only pay taxes when you buy something. It’s a brilliant idea, and it would also eliminate the property tax.
posted by Jimmy on
“It’s a brilliant idea, and it would also eliminate the property tax.”
It’s a lousy idea. It would have nothing to do with property taxes as those are assessed at the state/local level. In many cases, it would amount to a double tax on goods, after state sales taxes are added.
States that don’t have a sales tax would likely enact them as revenue from the fed dries up. It adds extra hardship to the under-class.
posted by Tom on
Because, in Carter’s view, the tax code was neither simple nor equitable. I think he was right, then, and nothing much has changed since then to improve things.
The government began using the tax code to shape economic and social behavior shortly after World War II.
Over a relatively short period of time, the tax code became convoluted to the point where it is almost impossible for a normal person to navigate (witness the fact that almost everyone who files a IRS Form 1040 uses either a tax calculation program or a tax preparation expert to do so) and inequitable (witness the argument in this thread about the inequities inherent in the differential taxes between married and single taxpayers).
Our present tax code is a near-perfect example of good intentions paving the road to hell, a myriad of economic incentives and special interest motivators, ranging from home mortgage interest deductions (brought into the Code as an incentive for people to buy rather than rent in order to spur housing industry growth) to capital gain differentials, investment credits, depreciation/depletion allowances, green energy credits and so on, all of which distort economic and social behavior, often in unanticipated ways.
Almost nothing in the tax code bears a direct relationship to revenue generation at this point, and as often as not, the good intentions have turned on themselves, as illustrated by the seemingly endless “marriage penalty” arguments and counterarguments.
I would suggest to you that the tax code has created a nation of citizens dependent on the government largess for the essentials of daily life — how many people could afford the homes they live in without the mortgage interest deduction, for example?
It is so bad that we’ve gotten to the point where we tolerate our government using the tax code to bribe people to give money to charity, and religious and charitable organizations have high-paid lobbyists paid to make sure that nothing happens to the charitable deduction. Not to be too snarky about it, but what the fuck would Jesus say about that?
I suppose that we could live with having become a nation of dependents on government largess if the system were fair, in the sense that everyone more or less got bitten by the same dog more or less in the same part of the anatomy. But the tax code is also inequitable.
The tax code, as it presently exists, can be “worked”, or more accurately, perhaps, “scammed”, simply by shaping investment strategy and economic behavior to fit the tax code, to the point where millionaires often pay significantly less taxes, as a percentage of income, than middle class wage-earners. I benefit from that, but even I know that it sucks.
No tax code is ever going to be perfect. But we could do a lot better than we are doing, in terms of making the tax code simpler and more equitable.
By the way, Bobby, you might want to study the Fair Tax a bit more before you fall in love with it. It is a complete turnabout in our tax structure, a change from taxing income to taxing spending. It will be a difficult transition to make, economically, and I’m not sure that we gain much — I don’t have any doubt at all that by the time the lobbyists are done with it, the “simple” part of the Fair Tax will be a national joke.
I suppose that it would have one advantage, in the long term, after all the economic adjustments had worked through the system — just about everyone who has looked at the idea believes that a uniform national sales tax would do a lot to bring American consumer spending more in line with economic reality, encouraging less spending and more savings/investment.
But, I think, after looking at the Fair Tax on and off over the last few years, and in particular the experience of countries that have tried a national sales tax or something similar (like VAT) that we’d be a lot better off simplifying the income tax.
posted by Bobby on
“But, I think, after looking at the Fair Tax on and off over the last few years, and in particular the experience of countries that have tried a national sales tax or something similar (like VAT) that we’d be a lot better off simplifying the income tax.”
—Those countries haven’t tried the Fair Tax because people are still paying lots of other taxes. If the Fair Tax was applied as suggested, the only tax would be at the point of sale. So, if GM needs to make cars and they need to buy 50 different components, they don’t pay taxes on that, which saves them lots money that can either be use to create more jobs or pass the savings to the consumer, and then when you buy the car of your choice, you’ll only pay 15% to 25% in taxes.
So no, VAT is not a Fair Tax, VAT is an additional tax. We don’t need it because it would cripple us.
As for charity, I don’t think Americans give to charity just to get a tax deduction.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I benefit from that, but even I know that it sucks.
But, of course, not enough to actually make you pay more.
And why is that, Tom? Why don’t liberals like yourself who whine about tax loopholes pay what you think you should be paying? Practice what you preach. Instead of Warren Buffett whining about how his secretary is allegedly taxed at a higher rate than he is, why doesn’t he just write the Treasury a check for the difference?
Answer: Because this is not about fairness. Range, Geithner, Sebelius, Solis, and others have demonstrated quite nicely the Obama Party’s belief on taxes — that they are for other people to pay, not them.
Why don’t you state what a “fair tax” amount is, Tom, and then pay it? You say your taxes are too low. Take matters into your own hands and write a larger check to the government. In fact, I would be wholly supportive of a law that pushes the tax rate for Obama Party members such as yourself to whatever you want to impose on everyone else. Shall we say 50% of income?
posted by Bobby on
I don’t mean to generalize, but I think liberals like being forced to pay more taxes and give money to charity while conservatives and libertarians like having the choice.
The irony of it all is that if Warren Buffet was forced to pay more in taxes he would find ways to cheat the system and move more of his money offshore.
posted by Jimmy on
“The irony of it all is that if Warren Buffet was forced to pay more in taxes he would find ways to cheat the system and move more of his money offshore.”
Precisely right. One thing wealthy people, like Buffett and Rangel, Geithner, Sebelius, Solis, etc, understand is how to avoid paying their taxes. Meanwhile, middle class people don’t have the luxury of concocting ways to hide what little taxable income they might have, so they end up paying a larger portion of their earnings in taxes at the end of the day. Tax evasion is most certainly unpatriotic.
posted by Bobby on
Damn Jimmy, we agree for once. As a libertarian I believe that low taxes lead to more people paying them. It’s just like tobacco, the higher the price goes the more profitable it becomes to smuggle it. In Europe I have a friend who buys Marlboros in the black market for a dollar (cheap immitations of course). In New York there have been arrests for cigarrette smuggling. Sell a pack of cigs for $5 and it makes no sense to smuggle it because the profit isn’t there. After all, who smuggles sugar across the border? So, if we keep taxes low than more people will pay them, more money will stay in America, more people will go shopping, more businesses will grow and everybody will be better off.
posted by Jimmy on
Regardless of the rate, low or high, those that have the will and way, will do what they can to pay even less, sometimes illegally.
People will pay their fare share when we remove loopholes and get serious about enforcement