Should gays get paid more?

[chanel]

A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners' health benefits – but only if they’re gay.

The company said in its blog Thursday, that it will be “grossing-up imputed taxes on health insurance benefitsfor all same-sex domestic partners in the United States.”

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

FOXNews.com - Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit

 

[sparky]

are they hiring?

~S~

 

[JBeukema]

Simple answer: equal pay and equal benefits for equal work and (in the case of benefits granted after a given period of employment) seniority. I don't care what colour you are, what's between your legs, or what's between your partner's legs.


It's that fucking simple, now can we please stop all the bullshit?

 

[chanel]

It's sounds completely illegal to me, but for some reason I bet they get away with it.

 

[JBeukema]

Wanna bet if they'd done it only for the straights, the ACLU would be up in arms? Since the discrimination favours the gays, though, I'd be surprised if we heard a peep unless they're confronted about it.

 

[Article 15]

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

But under Google's new policy, the company isn't offering any extra pay to heterosexual domestic partners, because it says heterosexual employees have the option of avoiding the tax by getting married.

Sounds to me like they are getting hosed by the gov't and Google is making up the difference.

 

[Article 15]

Though I think it's lame they aren't extending it to heteros with domestic partners.

 

[Article 15]

Just give gay couples the same rights heteros have and this stuff goes away.

 

[Ravi]

Though I think it's lame they aren't extending it to heteros with domestic partners.

Here is their reasoning:

The extra compensation to cover the domestic partner tax will apply only to same-sex domestic partners, Mr. Bock said, because heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying. (Same-sex couples can make their unions official in several states, but their relationship will not be federally recognized.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/your-money/01benefits.html?_r=1

 

[Article 15]

Wanna bet if they'd done it only for the straights, the ACLU would be up in arms? Since the discrimination favours the gays, though, I'd be surprised if we heard a peep unless they're confronted about it.

lol ...

This policy is a result of discrimination against homosexuals.

Lose that discrimination first.

 

[sparky]

Just give gay couples the same rights heteros have and this stuff goes away.

yuppy, no reason they shouldn't suffer along with the rest of us A15......~S~

 

[Article 15]

Though I think it's lame they aren't extending it to heteros with domestic partners.

Here is their reasoning:

The extra compensation to cover the domestic partner tax will apply only to same-sex domestic partners, Mr. Bock said, because heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying. (Same-sex couples can make their unions official in several states, but their relationship will not be federally recognized.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/your-money/01benefits.html?_r=1

I get the reasoning and it makes perfect sense but some heteros also choose to not get married and because of that the company has opened itself up to attacks even though they should prolly be commended for this.

 

[Article 15]

Though I think it's lame they aren't extending it to heteros with domestic partners.

Upon further review, I retract this statement.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners' health benefits – but only if they’re gay.

The company said in its blog Thursday, that it will be “grossing-up imputed taxes on health insurance benefitsfor all same-sex domestic partners in the United States.”

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

FOXNews.com - Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit

They should do this only if they agree to also pay taxes for heterosexual couples who shack up.

.

 

[Article 15]

A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners' health benefits – but only if they’re gay.

The company said in its blog Thursday, that it will be “grossing-up imputed taxes on health insurance benefitsfor all same-sex domestic partners in the United States.”

In other words, the company will be paying homosexual employees who include domestic partners on their health insurance plans more money to make up for the federal taxes they pay on that benefit. (Married couples don't have to pay taxes on spousal health benefits.)

FOXNews.com - Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit

They should do this only if they agree to also pay taxes for heterosexual couples who shack up.

.

Why?

If they want to duck the taxes all they have to do is make the CHOICE (the one gay couples don't have) to get married.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

FOXNews.com - Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit

They should do this only if they agree to also pay taxes for heterosexual couples who shack up.

.

Why?

If they want to duck the taxes all they have to do is make the CHOICE (the one gay couples don't have) to get married.

Not everyone wants to get married, sometimes they just prefer to shack up, just thought we need to make everything equal in the tax area if we are going to start changing laws.

.

 

[Article 15]

They should do this only if they agree to also pay taxes for heterosexual couples who shack up.

.

Why?

If they want to duck the taxes all they have to do is make the CHOICE (the one gay couples don't have) to get married.

Not everyone wants to get married, sometimes they just prefer to shack up, just thought we need to make everything equal in the tax area if we are going to start changing laws.

.

Simple solution. Get things equal under the law. If that were the case, Google wouldn't be doing this.

But if you are trying to say that it's not cool for any married couple to get a tax break simply because they are married ... gay or straight, I understand that.

 

[random3434]

My 2 Gay friends, Rob and Joe, moved to FLA from Indiana years ago to go work for Disney because of them being so "Gay Friendly" to their employees.

Isn't Google a Private owned Company, or is it owned by the Government?

If they are Private, shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want?

But yes, I also think they should offer the same benifits to the straight non-married couples too. Again, it's their company do what they wish. If some don't like it, they can work elsewhere, eh?

 

[editec]

I find this report rather hard to believe.

 

[chanel]

My 2 Gay friends, Rob and Joe, moved to FLA from Indiana years ago to go work for Disney because of them being so "Gay Friendly" to their employees.

Isn't Google a Private owned Company, or is it owned by the Government?

If they are Private, shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want?

But yes, I also think they should offer the same benifits to the straight non-married couples too. Again, it's their company do what they wish. If some don't like it, they can work elsewhere, eh?

No EZ. Discrimination laws apply to private businesses as well. From the article:

There’s a potential for a reverse discrimination suit because of the equal pay for equal work statute which says that if I’m doing the same job as the person next to me that my marital status or sexual orientation shouldn’t be taken into consideration. It’s my work performance that should be taken into consideration,” Wiehl told FoxNews.com.