The High Price Of Being Gay
In The New York Times, Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber tallied up all the extra health, legal and other costs gay couples have to bear. Worst case? $211,993. Best case: $28,595.
Much of the debate over legalizing gay marriage has focused on God and Scripture, the Constitution and equal protection.But we see the world through the prism of money. And for years, we've heard from gay couples about all the extra health, legal and other costs they bear. So we set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number -- a couple's lifetime cost of being gay.
One example from the piece:
Estate TaxesHeterosexual married couples can transfer an unlimited amount of assets to each other during their lives and at death without paying estate taxes. Everyone else, including married same-sex couples, must pay federal estate taxes on amounts that exceed the 2009 exemption of $3.5 million. Many states also levy their own estate or inheritance taxes, though same-sex couples may be shielded from those in states that recognize their unions. Our couple lived in New York, where the estate tax exemption is $1 million. And though New York recognizes marriages performed elsewhere, that recognition does not extend to state income or estate taxes.
In our worst case, the gay partner who died first in 2055 left an estate that exceeded the state's threshold by $171,528. That meant a tax bill of $43,378, according to Ron L. Meyers, an estate-planning lawyer with a significant same-sex clientele at Cane, Boniface & Meyers in Nyack, N.Y.
Meanwhile, their identical heterosexual counterparts owed nothing.
This is such sophistry.
"Their identical heterosexual counterparts" are not identical. Society is entitled, and wise, to recognize, and incentivize, the greater value inherent in stable male-female relationships.
By this same illogic, every unmarried couple could make the same claims about "discrimination."
Rather than whining about "validation" and privileges, gay and cohabiting straight couples should be grateful that these behaviors -- recently considered a serious threat to social order -- are no longer illegal.
Jay R at October 3, 2009 11:48 PM
> Everyone else, including married
> same-sex couples, must pay federal
> estate taxes on amounts that exceed
> the 2009 exemption of $3.5 million.
[Emphasis mine.]
Did you hear that? Just now, from the western sky? That thunderous, yet somehow crystalline sound, like a mountain of marble landing on a desert of steel?
It was my heart breaking for the unfairness.
Our president's signed us up for $10 trillion of new debt over the next ten years. Where do you suppose that money will come from?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 3, 2009 11:50 PM
We are so screwed on the debt anyway.
Regardless, there shouldn't be a death tax anyway. You were taxed when you earned it. Your family shouldn't have to pay it again.
Jim P. at October 4, 2009 6:01 AM
My heart does not bleed. Almost all of the benefits of marriage are contractual - and can be had by writing a contract. The few that cannot be? I agree with Jay R. - society has an interest in having a next generation. Encouraging stable heterosexual partnerships, and children in those partnerships, is the way to do this. Not that society does a very good job here - but something is better than nothing.
Back to our homosexual couple: if they have the brains god gave a sheep (or a decent tax advisor), they can get around most of inheritance tax. If they do nothing until one partner dies, well, being stupid about tax law costs anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
There absolutely should be an inheritance tax. The reason that: wealth tends to concentrate. It is in society's interest to work against this - to try to keep the middle class large, and the numbers of very rich and very poor small. You earned your millions or billions - not your kids, or anyone else. If someone inherits that money, it is unearned income should be taxed as such.
bradley13 at October 4, 2009 6:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/04/the_high_price_6.html#comment-1670911">comment from bradley13As somebody who's in a seven-year relationship, I'm all for ending the tax breaks, etc., and other marriage-privileging.
Amy Alkon at October 4, 2009 6:51 AM
bradley13, let me know how well that works. Kennedy, Heinz, Walton, etc.
No "need" for Joe Farmer's family to keep the farm when he dies, right?
Bull. Inheritance taxes force estate sales regularly. It keeps the middle class in line.
That's what you want, right?
Radwaste at October 4, 2009 8:28 AM
And you didn't earn it so your children and grandchildren could have a better life. You didn't scrimp and save. You went out and spent all the money right away.
Oh wait, you did put it into savings. You did intend that your children inherit the business and grow it even more.
And your children worked alongside you to grow the business. But they were just employees, right?
Conan the Grammarian at October 4, 2009 10:44 AM
What about the marraige penalty?
My wife and I file separate so we pay less to the state (because of a progressive state rate).
Many times we lose some federal tax benefits in the process.
When I look at how much lower our liability would be if we could each file as single, I contemplate divorce.
GARY at October 4, 2009 5:22 PM
Outside of Gates, Dell, Jobs, Ellison and a host of other tech "gods" how much is truly new money?
Ford, Bush, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Kennedy, and the list of PBS sponsors are generally old money.
Buffett is sort of an exception.
In other words all the old money is already protected. The new money will find ways to protect it as well. Its the mid-level guys who will get screwed.
We have mid-level corporate farmer, in my area, that is about to get screwed because he uses migrants a week early of the quarter and a week after the end of another quarter. He paid yearly taxes over $500K on them over seven years. But because he didn't pay them as quarterly estimated, the government is trying to fine him $500K.
He is now considering paying off the fine and just shutting down. All that will do is cost the local economy in higher food, less employment, and less taxes.
Is that a benefit?
He is now con
Jim P. at October 4, 2009 6:57 PM
"Almost all of the benefits of marriage are contractual - and can be had by writing a contract. "
If only, Bradley. Statute trumps private contracts every time. That's the biggets problem with pre-nups - they're basically unenforceable. Private contracts have no force when it comes to pensions or Social Security and the more than on thousand other statutory benefits that accrue to married couples, such as the ones GARY mentions:
"Many times we lose some federal tax benefits in the process."
"stable male-female relationships"
Jay, really - WTF? What connection is there? If you want stable male-female relationships, work on those directly - repeal the "he-don't-make-me-drip-no-mo" no-fault divorce laws (I characterize them this way, since at least in the US, wives file for divorce in much greater numbers than men) rather than connecting that problem to this completely unrelated issue.
Jim at October 5, 2009 9:51 AM
Amy writes: "As somebody who's in a seven-year relationship, I'm all for ending the tax breaks, etc., and other marriage-privileging."
I understand what you're getting at, Amy, but I still think there is a social interest in encouraging stable relationships. I think a better answer would be to privatize marriage. Let couples write whatever kind of marriage contract they want. (One caveat: I define marriage as two consenting adults. And no, I don't specify the sexes of the consenting adults.) You and Greg could write a contract that specifies your current arrangements, and allows either party to terminate the contract at any time, if that's the way you want it. I'd grant the tax breaks to anyone who shows that they have a marriage contract in force.
Cousin Dave at October 5, 2009 10:07 AM
Jay R - interesting point about unmarried couples claiming discrimination - although unmarried heteros DO have the option of marrying, while same-sexers do not. I do get it though; I see cases at work where it's fine for parents to leave early because little Johnny has a ballgame (and I'm cool with that), but the childless are looked down upon for leaving early for their chosen pursuits.
Bradley 13 - my wife and I could not have kids; should our marriage license be revoked? Sounds like one of the tired biblical arguments about why there should be no "Adam & Steve"; I respect your right to have your viewpoint; just keep it out of my legislature. Give me a sound Constitutional basis to deny the stae-provided marital benfits based on gender. Don't pray in my school, I won;t think in your church.
have a good'un!
Mr. Teflon at October 5, 2009 3:05 PM
Rather than whining about "validation" and privileges, gay and cohabiting straight couples should be grateful that these behaviors -- recently considered a serious threat to social order -- are no longer illegal.
Removal of an inappropriate threat isn't the same as granting a legal right. That is like me walking up to you in a parking lot, putting a gun to your head and demanding your wallet and then telling you to be thankful that I didn't shoot.
Cohabiting straight couples have less room to complain IMO. They have the option of legalizing their relationship and choose not to. That choice has consequences. Gay couples have no such option.
There absolutely should be an inheritance tax. The reason that: wealth tends to concentrate. It is in society's interest to work against this - to try to keep the middle class large, and the numbers of very rich and very poor small. You earned your millions or billions - not your kids, or anyone else. If someone inherits that money, it is unearned income should be taxed as such.
If I earned that money, why is it not mine to to with it what I want, including giving it to others when I no longer have a use for it? If the government has the ability to keep you from disposing of your property as you see fit, are there really any true property rights? If people want to be rich, they should do the work required to get there.
Julie at October 7, 2009 11:56 AM
Leave a comment