Gay Marriage and the Federal Budget

by on

If you haven’t heard much about the effects of DOMA’s downfall on the federal budget, that’s because there isn’t expected to be much of an effect. True, various benefits such as health and survivor benefits will now be paid to spouses of civilian workers and military personnel, and some gay persons will be entitled to Social Security benefits based on spouses’ earnings. On the other hand, it would not be surprising to see married gay couples’ income profiles falling more often on the “marriage penalty” rather than the “marriage bonus” territory on this interesting tax chart. And a host of benefit and subsidy programs, most importantly Medicaid but also other means- or income-tested programs, will save money once a spouse’s assets and income can be taken into account. All in all, a 2004 CBO study suggests the impact on the federal budget is likely to be very slightly positive. Josh Barro has the details here. He concludes:

The fiscal benefits aren’t a crucial reason to support same-sex marriage, but they do lend support to one of the “conservative” cases for it. Marriage is a structure through which people depend on each other, so they don’t have to depend on the government. For gay men and lesbians to take advantage of that fiscally friendly option, the government has to make it legal for us to marry.

5 Comments for “Gay Marriage and the Federal Budget”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    If you haven’t heard much about the effects of DOMA’s downfall on the federal budget, that’s because there isn’t expected to be much of an effect.

    Its true that marriage equality is not likely to have a significant budgetary effect, as the CBO study you cited and a number of other studies have pointed out.

    But I suspect that the primary reason why we haven’t heard much about the effect of DOMA’s downfall on the federal budget during the uproar from social conservatives is that social conservative opposition to marriage equality is religiously, not economically, based.

    And that is being charitable, in my mind, about what is behind the dreck we’ve been hearing since the decision.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I actually got this argument once from a conservative. He swore he wasn’t against gay rights but all his arguments were religious right talking points. His main argument was that it would be too expensive for the government to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples. Really? it was bizarre hearing someone who claims to be a conservative use an argument that sounded like communism to me: that citizens could only have those rights where were convenient for their government. Our system works the other way around. I don’t care if it costs the government more or less for gay couples to get married. We don’t use that rationale for marriage in general. It’s a stupid argument and I think even the morons who make other stupid arguments against gay marriage can see that. Most of them, anyway.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    [I]t would not be surprising to see married gay couples’ income profiles falling more often on the “marriage penalty” rather than the “marriage bonus” territory on this interesting tax chart.

    The chart you linked is fascinating, and thanks for linking to it, Stephen.

    Note that the “marriage penalty” applies almost exclusively to the poor (under #30,000 combined income) and the wealthy (over $300,000 combined income), while the “marriage bonus” benefits the middle class. If we had a similar chart showing the effects of the mortgage deduction, it would almost certainly show disproportionate benefit for the middle class, as well.

    That’s the dirty little secret about government benefits. For all the hoot and holler about government benefits to the poor bankrupting the courty, government largesse to individuals is showered upon the middle class.

  3. posted by Mark F. on

    Tom,

    Yes indeed, the government relies on the support of the middle class. And the middle class is hooked on various government benefits, especially things like the mortgage interest deduction, Medicare and Social Security.

  4. posted by Kosh III on

    IIRC 20 years or so ago when I lived in a mroe progressive place the city council considered benefits for domestic partners.
    One point of opposition was that the extra cost was too much.
    This argument has been around for years and is still total BS with the sole purpose to do damage to gay people.

Comments are closed.