Google to pay gay employees more than straight employees?

[Goshin]

If I'm not mistaken, most states have done away with common law marriages.

Mine hasn't. I don't know about other states. How do they handle it when people who live together and have kids and mutual assets "Divorce"? Do they treat it as if they were married and adjudicate it in family court, or do they just shrug and say "you were not married so it isn't our problem"?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Mine hasn't. I don't know about other states. How do they handle it when people who live together and have kids and mutual assets "Divorce"? Do they treat it as if they were married and adjudicate it in family court, or do they just shrug and say "you were not married so it isn't our problem"?

Well, if you do have common assets that are being disputed, the court can step in but one of the adults has to file a claim.
It can be handled in a family court but a lot of people don't go that route and just walk away.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

:shrug: Some people consider it an example of society choosing to reinforce and encourage a behavior that is a net-positive for society: namely the formation of families, a fundamental social building block used for the production and upbringing of children.

This is precisely the argument that I use successfully to prove the validity of GM. Just saying.

 

[Strelok]

Google is balancing out a systemic bias with a solution. They wouldn't be offering gays more pay if the tax code were different. They are balancing out unequal opportunity in the tax code and I see no problem with that.

Are you refferring to the tax breaks within heterosexually married couples? I disagree with tax breaks for any couples, personally. Either tax breaks being the same regardless of sexual orientation of the couple, or removing the concept from all sides (preferable to me).

 

[obvious Child]

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.

Except that after taxes they both end up the same. Effectively, Google is merely making up the difference between the tax benefits given to married and benefits denied to gays.
Why it is wrong to equalize the after tax dollars your employees get based on what the company perceives is incorrect policy. Note, they aren't getting paid more where it matters: after tax dollars. No one gives a crap about gross. It's all about net when it comes to pay.

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.

Except that not all blacks get scholarships (and many don't). Your analogy is poor because it is comparing the situtations of some and applying them to the whole. In Google's case none of those receiving boost pay to compenstate for taxes are getting different individual treatment.

 

[obvious Child]

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 doesn't appear so. Remember that there isn't a law that prevents discrimination on sexual preference thanks to the Republicans who I believe killed that bill. Furthermore, there is no such law that prevents discrimination based on your employees differing tax benefits unrelated to actual pay and position. While you cannot discriminate aganist officers and employees in things such as retirement, Google's policy is based on how the tax law treats you according to your capacity to get married. Furthermore, the fact that other firms having been doing this successfully suggests it is indeed legal or at least not explicitly illegal.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It doesn't appear so. Remember that there isn't a law that prevents discrimination on sexual preference thanks to the Republicans who I believe killed that bill. Furthermore, there is no such law that prevents discrimination based on your employees differing tax benefits unrelated to actual pay and position. While you cannot discriminate aganist officers and employees in things such as retirement, Google's policy is based on how the tax law treats you according to your capacity to get married. Furthermore, the fact that other firms having been doing this successfully suggests it is indeed legal or at least not explicitly illegal.

I placed in bold the key point. So, what you are saying is those that are/will be complaining about this the most are the ones that have allowed it to be legal. I believe that is known as self-pwnage.

 

[obvious Child]

I placed in bold the key point. So, what you are saying is those that are/will be complaining about this the most are the ones that have allowed it to be legal. I believe that is known as self-pwnage.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, it appears the latest reincarnation is still alive. The two Republicans who sponsored it in the past were not exactly "model" Republicans if you get my drift.

I actually don't know if the GOP killed it, "died in____" is hardly information. But I frankly wouldn't be surprised given their public stance aganist giving rights to homosexuals. But they have filibustered previous bills.

Here's a blog on it:
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/the_enda_whip_count.php

I don't know if it's valid, but it does make some sense.

 

[obvious Child]

:shrug: Some people consider it an example of society choosing to reinforce and encourage a behavior that is a net-positive for society: namely the formation of families, a fundamental social building block used for the production and upbringing of children.

And why can't gays do that? Furthermore, you know full well that many straights don't have kids. And many celebrities have used marriage as a publicity stunt. While I agree that marriage can function in that manner, it doesn't always and especially the children portion isn't quite relevant today.

Perhaps it also makes tax stuff a little easier since couples filing jointly means fewer tax returns to process.

But joint itself creates a fair amount of extra work in a return. I think it depends more on the complexity of the items rather then the status.

Personally I've never been fond of the government using the tax code in an attempt to manipulate behavior of any kind.

So you think that tax breaks to nuclear power are bad? How about tax breaks to small business stock meant to boost investment? I don't deal with section 1244 on a regular basis (I think I saw it once this busy season), but it does help boost investment. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Of course the real tax breaks actually come from having kids.

More like mortgage. Kid tax breaks are not really large. Especially with phase outs.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, it appears the latest reincarnation is still alive. The two Republicans who sponsored it in the past were not exactly "model" Republicans if you get my drift.

I actually don't know if the GOP killed it, "died in____" is hardly information. But I frankly wouldn't be surprised given their public stance aganist giving rights to homosexuals. But they have filibustered previous bills.

Here's a blog on it:
The ENDA Whip Count | The Bilerico Project

I don't know if it's valid, but it does make some sense.

Based on the House Bill Summary, the Frank bill (HR 3017) was apparently referred to four committees (the House Education Committee, the House House Administration Committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Labor House Judiciary Committee on 6/24/09 for discussion and determination of which committee will have jurisdiction. It seems that the House Education and Labor Committee got it and had meetings about it on 9/23/09. This is it's last status.

A similar bill was presented by Merkley in the Senate (S 1584). This bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on 8/5/09 and hearings were held on 11/5/09.

As there has been no further action on either bill, they are not law, so indeed, it seems that what Google is doing is entirely legal.

House bill:

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.3017 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Senate bill:

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - S.1584 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[kaya'08]

:shrug: Some people consider it an example of society choosing to reinforce and encourage a behavior that is a net-positive for society: namely the formation of families, a fundamental social building block used for the production and upbringing of children.

I dont see why marriage is necessary in the formation of a family, or the upbringing and "production" of children. I dont see why its a must. And i cant see family units breaking down just because a few tax exemptions and benefits have been removed. I CAN see an economy that could use that money elsewhere.

Perhaps it also makes tax stuff a little easier since couples filing jointly means fewer tax returns to process.

Personally I've never been fond of the government using the tax code in an attempt to manipulate behavior of any kind. If taxes were not so high, and tax codes so complex, would it really matter? Probably not so much, no.

Of course the real tax breaks actually come from having kids.

I still dont think married couples should be exempt from certain taxes either. As a household there net worth increases. As for kids, that's a totally different issue.

 

[Singularity]

This is a great move by Google. It's nice to see many companies stepping up when it comes to homosexual couples. Hopefully more will follow suit.

 

[Gipper]

They're a private industry, so if that's what they want to do, so be it. Similarly, if a business decided not to hire skirts because they could get knocked up and be out of commission for several months or hang out a sign that says "N*ggers need not apply", I'll support that too. You either support all discrimination, or no discrimination. Otherwise, you're a worthless hypocrite.

The corporate structure is more important than discriminatory beliefs.

 

[Kali]

They're a private industry, so if that's what they want to do, so be it. Similarly, if a business decided not to hire skirts because they could get knocked up and be out of commission for several months or hang out a sign that says "N*ggers need not apply", I'll support that too. You either support all discrimination, or no discrimination. Otherwise, you're a worthless hypocrite.

The corporate structure is more important than discriminatory beliefs.

What in the world? You would really support that kind of thing?

 

[liblady]

Yeah, sounds discriminatory...until you read why. (I'll admit, it's a terrible headline, but I didn't come up with it...so don't blame me)

Google to pay gay employees more than straight employees (ChicagoPride.com : Mountain View, CA News)

good for google.

 

[liblady]

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.

no, it's discriminatory because we don't allow gays to marry, so google is simply putting them on equal footing. how in the world is this not fair to other workers?

 

[liblady]

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.



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.

how can this be discriminatory when no one is harmed?

 

[Gipper]

What in the world? You would really support that kind of thing?

Sure would. Doesn't mean I'd agree with it, but you have no right in the say of a corporation's business structure. If you don't like it, you can boycott or protest it. Private enterprise is private enterprise.

no, it's discriminatory because we don't allow gays to marry, so google is simply putting them on equal footing. how in the world is this not fair to other workers?

So if I'm single, should I make more money then married people because they are applicable to tax benefits that I'm not? Same argument.

Gee, so sorry that the world isn't fair. I'll shed a tear.

 

[JustineCredible]

Caine: Just ones who are partaking in Domestic Partner Benefits offered by Google to their employees who are in Domestic Partnerships. Those who are not taking part in Domestic Partner Benefits don't NEED the tax break and therefore are not compensated for it.

 

[JustineCredible]

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?

Actually most states have done away with "common Law" marriages entirely. I don't know where you live, but in the two states where I have spent most of my adult life, there is no such thing as a "Common Law" marriage. It's required a couple be legally married or they are legally single. There's no inbetween, there's no benefit of time spent together.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

how can this be discriminatory when no one is harmed?

Those who are receiving less pay from google because of their sexual orienation are harmed.

 

[JustineCredible]

Mine hasn't. I don't know about other states. How do they handle it when people who live together and have kids and mutual assets "Divorce"? Do they treat it as if they were married and adjudicate it in family court, or do they just shrug and say "you were not married so it isn't our problem"?

I know in Illinois and in Pennsylvania, there is no such thing as "Common Law" marriages anymore.
You claimed "Most states" I and Harry corrected your assumption of "most states."

In such states where there is no such thing as Common Law marriage, those states also happen to have "No Fault" divorce. Where all mutual assets are equally distributed, regardless of any "fault" since proving "fault" in those states is extremely arduous. With regard to children, those couples have several avenues of figuring out custody, parental rights...etc.

I was married in Virginia, where at the time, there were Common Law marriages, but they were in process of doing away with them. Their divorce courts were also still getting used to the idea of "No Fault" divorce. My husband attempted to claim "abandonment" which was immediately thrown out because I 1) had full physical custody of our son 2) my spouse and his father both helped me pack the moving truck. 3) We had a hand written division of assets that was co-signed and witnessed by both his own father and a neighbor.
Legally the hand written division of assets actually stood up in court because we had the forethought to have it witnessed by one familial and one disinterested party!
Our divorce was set as "No Fault/irreconcilable differences."

 

[JustineCredible]

They're a private industry,...

No they're not, they're publically traded, therefore they are NOT a Private industry.

 

[JustineCredible]

Those who are receiving less pay from google because of their sexual orienation are harmed.

My bank account showed I was being discriminated against and therefore harmed when I had to pay taxes on income I never actually recieved!

This is how it was broken down on my pay stub:
(These are NOT the actual amounts as my personal finances are none of anyone's business but my own)

Hourly wages: $19.00
Pay period: 14 days
Hours worked in pay period: 80
Gross pay: $1,520.00
Imputed Income: $320.00
Adjusted Gross income: $1,840.00
Federal Withholding: $***
State Withholding: $****
​

Do you see how I was taxed on the "Adjusted Gross Income and not the original Gross income?
The "imputed income" was the amount my employer assigned to the value of the Domestic Partner Benefits I was recieving for my partner alone. My employer actually paid the taxes on my benefits as required by law, but the value of the benefits extended to my "non-legal spouse" was added on and I paid the taxes on that assigned value.

What Google is going is doing would be to adujust my original gross income by a percentage that would cover the "imputed income" added value of the extra benefits my patner was getting from my employer, if my employer were Google.

My actual employer did NOT increase my personal pay to compensate for the added value of my partner's benefits. Therefore I paid for it!~
I wasn't living with a friend, or some other non-spousal relative, I am/was living with my life partner. Just because the Federal Government (ie DOMA) refuses to acknowledge her as my spouse, I am taxed more for benefits any other employee would get as 'spousal' benefits.

 

[obvious Child]

No they're not, they're publically traded, therefore they are NOT a Private industry.

Uh, you do realize that publicly traded merely means that anyone can buy shares and become as part owner no?

That's still private industry. Public is when the government owns the activity.