- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,379
- Reaction score
- 91
- Location
- Eastern Standard Time zone
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Mountain View, CA — Google plans to start paying gay employees more, as a way to compensate for an unfair tax structure that benefits straight people.
Currently, health insurance benefits Google provides to civil partners of gay employees are considered taxable income. The same benefits provided to spouses of straight employees are not taxed.
That means, effectively, that gay employees in civil unions lose approximately $1,069 per year, according to the New York Times.
So Google is planning to pay gay workers more to make up for the gap. The benefits will be paid retroactively to the beginning of the year.
Google's benefits -- including free lunch, five weeks maternity leave, and a doctor on site-- are legendary, and the company is constantly fielding ideas from workers on how those benefits should be expanded.
The gay pay raise was one of those ideas.
"We said, 'You're right, that doesn't seem fair,' so we looked into it," Laszlo Bock told the New York Times. "From that initial suggestion, we said, let's take a look at all the benefits we offer and see if we are being truly fair across the board."
Google employees 20,600 workers. Currently, 700 belong to the company's LGBT group, the "Gayglers."
Cisco, Kimpton Hotels and the Gates Foundation offer similar tax benefits for gay employees.
This is absolutely wrong and completely discriminatory. Gay benefits are taxed in civil unions because civil unions are not marriage, and thus do not recieve the legal benefits of such. Essentially, google wants to "legalize" gay marriage by giving homosexuals more money to offset costs that would be lowered if they were in a real marriage. This is not fair to other workers and is a discriminatory attempt at pushing for gay "rights." Shame on google.
So, would your solution be to alter government regulations and make THOSE regulations less discriminatory?
Nope, it would be to keep things the same. I don't believe a homosexual union has the right to be called marriage and receive the same legal status because homosexuality does not fit the definition of marriage. But that's another debate.
Essentially what is going on is this: Google gives gays more money because they believe policies aren't fair (not because they earned it).
Straight people are paid less because they "unfairly" receive marital benefits and tax breaks.
This would be very similar to a company paying white people with college age children more money to help aid their white child go to college because black students can get some scholarships simply because of their race.
It is when the legal definition does not recognize homosexual unions as marriage, or in cases where homosexual unions are banned from being recognized as marriage. One cannot extend marital benefits to a homosexual union based on opinion, they can only do it if the basis is set on the laws of that state.You are correct that it is for another debate, and completely incorrect that it does not meet the definition of marriage. It may not in YOUR opinion, but your opinion is not definitive.
I'm not sure if it violates any laws, but I do think it's unfair and a discriminatory action. I personally think it's more of a political gesture and not a nice one, because at the same time they are paying straight employees less for not being gay on the basis of "they already have their rights."On the surface, what Google is doing, though very nice, seems discriminatory to me. Not sure if what they are doing violates any laws. Perhaps someone with more legal expertise than I could answer that question.
It is when the legal definition does not recognize homosexual unions as marriage, or in cases where homosexual unions are banned from being recognized as marriage. One cannot extend marital benefits to a homosexual union based on opinion, they can only do it if the basis is set on the laws of that state.
I'm not sure if it violates any laws, but I do think it's unfair and a discriminatory action. I personally think it's more of a political gesture and not a nice one, because at the same time they are paying straight employees less for not being gay on the basis of "they already have their rights."
This is absolutely wrong and completely discriminatory. Gay benefits are taxed in civil unions because civil unions are not marriage, and thus do not recieve the legal benefits of such. Essentially, google wants to "legalize" gay marriage by giving homosexuals more money to offset costs that would be lowered if they were in a real marriage. This is not fair to other workers and is a discriminatory attempt at pushing for gay "rights." Shame on google.
does it also apply to straights in civil unions?
Why would a straight couple get a civil union in the first place?
Marriage shouldn't have fiscal benefits anyway. THATS where the discrimination starts. If you can't afford to live with a spouse and afford a honeymoon or wedding dress, dont get married.
These days quite a lot of straights "cohabit without benefit of marriage". In many states most of them would be considered "common law married", meaning they aren't really but are treated as such in the event of problems such as property/childrearing disputes or seperation.
How exactly this would apply to the tax issue, I have no idea. Can a common-law couple file taxes jointly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?