the cost of being gay, or, the high costs of anti-gay discrimination - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-03-2009, 11:57 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
the cost of being gay, or, the high costs of anti-gay discrimination

Quote:
The High Price of Being a Gay Couple
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD and RON LIEBER

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.

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s. So we gave the couple two children and assumed that one partner would stay home for five years to take care of them. We also considered the taxes in the three states that have the highest estimated gay populations — New York, California and Florida. We gave our couple an income of $140,000, which is about the average income in those three states for unmarried same-sex partners who are college-educated, 30 to 40 years old and raising children under the age of 18.

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not.

Our analysis is not exact science. Not every couple would get married if they could, and others would not want to have children. We also made a number of assumptions based on average costs, life spans, state of residence and gender.

Our gay family is made up of two women living in New York State in a committed partnership that lasts 46 years, until the first partner dies at age 81. We ran two sets of calculations: in the one that turned out to be our worst case financially, one woman earned $110,000 and the other $30,000. In our second couple, both partners earned $70,000. We started running the numbers when both were age 35.

We received assistance from Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, who performed our tax analysis, which required simulating more than 900 income tax returns, in part because we followed the partners for 50 years. We also decided to run all scenarios across the three states so that the results would not be skewed by different state taxes. We’ve outlined all the detail in a workbook linked to the online version of this column.

As for the emotional costs of living with these added complexities, they can’t be quantified. Frederick Hertz, a lawyer in Oakland, Calif., who works with same-sex couples, likens heterosexual marriage to being in the car pool lane. “Being part of a same-sex couple, it’s always stop. Wait. Pay a toll,” he said.

Harvey Hurdle, who lives in Philadelphia with his partner and their young son, said he was reminded of the disparities every time his Social Security statement arrived in the mail. “It’s pretty insulting,” he said. “It says your spouse would get this much. And it’s like, ‘Oh no he won’t!’ ”

Health Insurance

In our worst case, the lower earner’s employer did not provide health insurance and her partner’s employer didn’t cover domestic partners. So the lower earner had to buy coverage on the private market, while the higher-earning partner provided coverage for herself and the two children. All this cost the gay couple $211,993 more than their heterosexual married counterparts, who were able to take advantage of the higher-earner’s family coverage.

In our best case, health coverage cost the gay couple $28,595 more. We assumed both gay partners were eligible for employer-provided coverage. The higher-earner’s employer also provided domestic partner coverage, which covered her partner for the five years she stayed at home. When she returned to work, she used her own employer’s insurance.

Even though the couple paid nearly $29,000 more in premiums than an identical heterosexual married couple, it was cheaper than using domestic partnership coverage throughout because of the onerous tax implications, according to Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center. A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums, according to Todd A. Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits department of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

Social Security

All our hypothetical individuals started collecting Social Security when they were 66. Same-sex couples are not entitled to a variety of Social Security benefits, including spousal benefits (heterosexual spouses can receive up to 50 percent of a spouse’s benefits while the spouse is alive, if they are higher than their own); survivor benefits (surviving spouses can receive their deceased spouse’s benefits in lieu of their own, if they are higher); and a flat death benefit of $255.

In the worst case, the gay partner who earned $30,000 could not receive higher spousal benefits or survivor benefits from her partner’s much higher earnings record. Nor was she entitled to the death benefit. In total, the gay women collected $88,511 less in Social Security than a similar heterosexual couple. Some couples might try to buy life insurance in an attempt to replace the benefit.

In our best case, when the gay partners had largely identical incomes, neither was at a huge disadvantage because they ended up with about the same monthly benefits. So the only extra benefit a heterosexual married couple received was the $255 death benefit.

Estate Taxes

Heterosexual 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.

The gay couple in our best case had a smaller estate, in part because they were careful to title their home as tenants-in-common, so only the deceased partner’s half of the home was taxable. The estate didn’t exceed the federal or state threshold. So they owed nothing.

Childbearing

Two women who want to have a biological child together need sperm to do it. They may need to purchase sperm from a bank and use a medical professional to inseminate one of the partners. There are also adoption costs.

The worst case here totaled $40,000. It included 12 months of sperm and insemination costs, but the big wild card was the possible need to move to a state where same-sex second-parent adoptions were legal. While this may seem extreme, couples often do it, according to Joyce Kauffman, a lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., who has worked with many of them. We estimated a minimum of $20,000 for this cost, including real estate brokerage fees to sell a home and moving costs.

In the best case, there might be no cost at all: the couple could use sperm from a relative of the partner who isn’t bearing the child or from a friend, inseminate at home and take their chances with free legal forms on the Web. Ms. Kaufman does not recommend such a cavalier approach to vital documents.

The cost for men to have a biological child would be much higher if they used a surrogate.

Pension

We assumed that one partner, in both best and worst cases, received a small pension. In both cases, the partner with the pension plan died first.

Employers do not have to provide survivor pension benefits to a same-sex spouse, but many do anyway (which would put our best case at $0). In our worst case, however, the higher-earning partner died first and did not work for such a company. So the surviving partner got nothing. A similarly situated heterosexual surviving spouse would receive $32,253 before dying herself several years later.

Spousal I.R.A.

You generally need to earn income to contribute to an Individual Retirement Account. But heterosexual married couples can contribute up to $5,000 annually to a spousal I.R.A. for a nonworking spouse. Stay-at-home gay partners, however, cannot make these contributions. So they end up with smaller retirement accounts.

We assumed that all the couples would have either saved 7 percent of the stay-at-home parent’s previous year’s salary, or $5,000, the maximum contribution. So the gay couple with one partner who started out earning just $30,000 would have saved less (had she been legally able to) than someone earning $70,000. In both cases, that five-year gap in savings early on in the partners’ lives haunted them later because they weren’t able to benefit from decades of compounding returns.

The couple with the lower-earning partner at home ended up $48,654 behind by the time that partner died, assuming she invested in a portfolio mixed equally between stocks and bonds that returned 5.94 percent annually. The surviving spouse from the gay couple with equal incomes ended up $112,192 behind.

Tax Preparation

Instead of filing one joint federal tax return and one state income tax return, same-sex couples must file two sets of returns. In both best and worst cases, those couples paid an additional $12,300 in tax preparation fees over the 46 years they are together.

Financial Planning

Even married same-sex couples are encouraged to create a number of documents that try to replicate the protections and rights of heterosexual marriage because their unions are not universally recognized. In the worst case, our gay couple spent $5,500 more than their heterosexual counterparts on their additional paperwork. That included a revocable living trust, which is more difficult to contest than a will, and what is known as a pour-over will, which ensured that anything left out of the trust would be included. They also each set up financial powers of attorney, health care proxies, living wills and a domestic partnership agreement.

In the best case, our couple didn’t spend any more than a prudent heterosexual couple would. Both couples created two wills, financial powers of attorney, health care proxies and living wills.

Income Taxes

Married heterosexual couples with two working spouses with similar incomes often pay more in federal taxes than if they remained single because of the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than they would have been in if they filed as singles. But some couples — especially those with a wide disparity in income or with a stay-at-home parent — usually pay less when they file jointly. They benefit from what’s known as a marriage bonus.

In our worst case, where one gay partner earned $110,000 and one earned $30,000, the couple paid $15,027 less in taxes over their lifetimes than their heterosexual counterparts.

Though the gay and heterosexual married couple had identical salaries, the married couple collected more income in retirement — a direct result of their marriage status — and thus owed more in taxes (though they still benefited from the marriage bonus). For instance, the married couple collected higher Social Security spousal benefits and survivor benefits, pension income and income derived from a spousal I.R.A. The gay couples weren’t entitled to any of these benefits.

In our best case, where the partners each earned $70,000, the gay couple paid $112,146 less in income taxes. “That is the marriage penalty rearing its ugly head,” Mr. Williams said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/yo...gewanted=print


as ever, it's all solved by federal marriage equality.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 12:10 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Sorry, but this is flawed analysis. It seems to fail to take into account the costs of raising children, which are surely more than the tax benefits in most cases. This is not a homophobic point - the reality is that most heterosexual couples have kids whereas most homosexual couples do not. Also, including the costs of 'sperm and insemination costs' as a cost of being gay is just silly.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 12:12 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Sorry, but this is flawed analysis. It seems to fail to take into account the costs of raising children, which are surely more than the tax benefits in most cases. This is not a homophobic point - the reality is that most heterosexual couples have kids whereas most homosexual couples do not.
What this fails to take into account is that a heterosexual married couple can refuse to have children entirely, and a homosexual childless couple will be worse off. There's no need to add in an unnecessary variable here.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 12:23 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Sorry, but this is flawed analysis. It seems to fail to take into account the costs of raising children, which are surely more than the tax benefits in most cases. This is not a homophobic point - the reality is that most heterosexual couples have kids whereas most homosexual couples do not. Also, including the costs of 'sperm and insemination costs' as a cost of being gay is just silly.
I guess the point was to make an "apples to apples" comparison between 2 couples; if you compared a gay couple with no kids to a straight couple with the average 2 kids it's not really fair. The costs of raising childer don't need to be accounted for because they're going to theoretically be the same; but the cost of actually having children will not. I do think it would have been worthwhile to do a comparison between gay and straight no-children households, in conjunction with the comp they did.
__________________
CTU2fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 06:29 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Sorry, but this is flawed analysis. It seems to fail to take into account the costs of raising children, which are surely more than the tax benefits in most cases. This is not a homophobic point - the reality is that most heterosexual couples have kids whereas most homosexual couples do not. Also, including the costs of 'sperm and insemination costs' as a cost of being gay is just silly.



did you even read the article?

it's also not "silly" when you have to fucking pack up and move to a state where you're allowed to have a child. sometimes you have to pay twice to adopt a child.

why do you think that "most" gay couples do not have a child? could it maybe have something to do with costs and with the vastly greater challenges posed to gay couples, only one challenge being the financial discrimination?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 07:03 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
did you even read the article?
I have to ask the same thing
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 04:17 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why do you think that "most" gay couples do not have a child?
Biology and physiology.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 04:19 PM   #8
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 04:36 AM
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 05:32 PM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Biology and physiology.


and the enormous costs of overcoming both, added to the expense and lack of legal recognition of their relationships. that's all changing, of course, and the % of gay couples with kids will continue to climb.

but don't worry, many gay couples will continue to adopt the children straight people continue to shit out into the world and leave in trash cans. we got your back.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 05:46 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Now that you have even diamond on your side (marriage as we define it can change) I guess we are making real progress here.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 01:33 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:36 AM
A debate about "why" homosexual couples tend not to have kids is irrelevant to the point in question. I prefer how CTU2Fan stated the point -- the cost of getting married (higher tax brackets) and having and raising children (is the average cost now $200K?) is much higher, for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which, if one of the spouses is a full-time stay-at-home parent (as my wife is), the household earning potential drops dramatically.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 02:17 PM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
A debate about "why" homosexual couples tend not to have kids is irrelevant to the point in question. I prefer how CTU2Fan stated the point -- the cost of getting married (higher tax brackets) and having and raising children (is the average cost now $200K?) is much higher, for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which, if one of the spouses is a full-time stay-at-home parent (as my wife is), the household earning potential drops dramatically.


would any of these variables not apply to any gay couple that chose to have children, combined with the numerous other costs that apply to gay couples (adoption or surrogates, having to adopt twice, etc.)?

so, if a gay couple and a straight couple were to follow the same path -- choose to have two children, one partner stays at home -- it seems that the gay couple has significantly more financial obstacles to overcome by virtue of the fact that they are unable to get married.

further, you could say that an advantage a male/male couple has is having two male incomes, since men still tend to make more than women. a straight couple has at least one male income. but what about lesbians, especially considering that they are far more likely than a male couple to have children?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 01:37 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
would any of these variables not apply to any gay couple that chose to have children, combined with the numerous other costs that apply to gay couples (adoption or surrogates, having to adopt twice, etc.)?
Those costs apply to a significant number of straight couples too, however. For this to hold water, you'd have to compare adoption situations to straight couples who adopt, pursue IVF, whatever. The data would have to be sorted at an even higher level, since two gay men who adopt a child, or even use a surrogate, don't have to pay the health care costs that an opposite-sex couple would have to (or, for that matter, a lesbian couple).

Quote:
further, you could say that an advantage a male/male couple has is having two male incomes, since men still tend to make more than women. a straight couple has at least one male income. but what about lesbians, especially considering that they are far more likely than a male couple to have children?
You've just proved my point -- it's impossible to do an apples to apples, automatic straight/gay comparison on the costs of the relative lifestyles. Especially not without exploring the fact that gay people tend to be better educated and have higher incomes.

There are lots of challenges that my gay friends face on a day to day basis, challenges I have never had to face. Economic inequality, however, seems to be something of a straw man, particularly since the far-more salient economic equalities of gender and race muddy these waters as well.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:25 PM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Those costs apply to a significant number of straight couples too, however. For this to hold water, you'd have to compare adoption situations to straight couples who adopt, pursue IVF, whatever. The data would have to be sorted at an even higher level, since two gay men who adopt a child, or even use a surrogate, don't have to pay the health care costs that an opposite-sex couple would have to (or, for that matter, a lesbian couple).

and this is why the article put parenting aside -- it introduces too many variables that are, as you say later, contingent upon specific situations and tied more to gender than sexual orientation. that's why the direct comparison of the financial costs of marriage inequality remains the best way to measure the very real financial discrimination that gay people face on a daily basis.

also, most gay men who have a surrogate pay for *all* of the surrogate's medical needs.

and married individuals don't need to adopt twice.


Quote:
You've just proved my point -- it's impossible to do an apples to apples, automatic straight/gay comparison on the costs of the relative lifestyles. Especially not without exploring the fact that gay people tend to be better educated and have higher incomes.

herein lies an important point. it's a stereotype that most gay people are educated and wealthy. many *out* gay people are educated and wealthy, and they're surely the most visible, since that tends to translate to an urban environment where it's quite safe to be out and visible. but gay people are found in all strata of society, rich and poor, black and white, secular and religious, and their numbers are remarkably consistent. it's simply easier to be out when you have the wealth to survive should your family pull out the rug from under you.

i also reject the notion of "lifestyle." from what i can see in my own life, my lifestyle has very little to do with my sexual orientation. aside from various pop culture interests and the restaurants/bars i might go to, in addition to where i can and cannot vacation (can't go to Jamaica, for example), i really don't see how my life would be any different than if Memphis were a woman. we'd probably be officially married, so i suppose that saves us $25K? but then, were we allowed to get married, we'd probably spend that as well. we might be thinking about getting pregnant, but if one of us were infertile, or there were any other contingent fertility situations, they're in the same boat as we are. many straights choose not to have children as well.

i simply think it's a poor assumption to assume that there's either a straight or gay lifestyle, and that children are a part of one and not a part of another.

my understanding, anyway, is that 50% of lesbians have children, and that number will grow.


Quote:
There are lots of challenges that my gay friends face on a day to day basis, challenges I have never had to face. Economic inequality, however, seems to be something of a straw man, particularly since the far-more salient economic equalities of gender and race muddy these waters as well.

economic inequality seems fairly easy to address, yes? we have marriage equality, and then most of these things fly straight out the window.

further, the more incentives you give gay people to create stable partnerships with one another, the more likely they will be to want to adopt children. isn't that a good thing? fewer kids in the foster care system? a pregnant 17 year old will have more adoptive parents to choose from? possibly fewer abortions? more wanted kids?

seems pretty win-win all around.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:40 PM   #15
The Fly
 
TheShootist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 37
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
but don't worry, many gay couples will continue to adopt the children straight people continue to shit out into the world and leave in trash cans. we got your back.
How true this is! I love it when someone makes statements like this, which are savagely true. I may not be the most pro-gay marriage person in the world, but people in the gay life-style do tend to be much more responsible citizens.
__________________

__________________
TheShootist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We've identified this strain of HIV that is difficult or impossible to treat Dreadsox Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-31-2005 10:57 AM
Gay Marriage in the Interests of Mental Health A_Wanderer Free Your Mind Archive 49 05-28-2005 12:57 PM
wounded, heroic gay soldier too gay to serve Irvine511 Free Your Mind Archive 168 04-18-2005 08:42 AM
N.Y. to Open 1st Public Gay High School Dreadsox Free Your Mind Archive 45 08-03-2003 04:21 AM
High Cost of Ticket Prices MBH Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 54 05-06-2002 06:47 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com