Google to Pay Homosexual Employees More than Heterosexual Employees

[Stop Making Cents]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070504.html


July 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A news release from Google says that the mega-search engine company will begin paying its homosexual employees more than their heterosexual counterparts.

Citing a tax law that says health insurance benefits paid to civil partners of homosexual employees are considered taxable income, while benefits provided to married spouses are not taxed, Google announced it will rectify the tax "discrimination" against homosexuals by paying them the difference.

On average an extra $1,069 per year will be given to homosexuals, according to a NY Times report.

[JamesButabi]

I think thats actually pretty cool. Even better would be to end tax discrimination all together by giving everyone a flat tax of 0.

[specsaregood]

I think thats actually pretty cool. Even better would be to end tax discrimination all together by giving everyone a flat tax of 0.

And we have a winner! by post #2 no less.

[RonPaulwillWin]

Nice!

[buck000]

Effemitive action? :)

[MelissaWV]

And we have a winner! by post #2 no less.

Yes, but I expect that to be short-lived as the title draws in... other types :p

At least the employer's seeking to be fair to its employees. Too many leave lop-sided policies in place regardless of what happens.

[specsaregood]

Yes, but I expect that to be short-lived as the title draws in... other types :p

Yes, well the title is one of those inflammatory, somewhat misleading lead-ins that we all hate so much in the media. I would have titled it: private employer makes pay changes to counteract discriminatory taxation system. But that's just me.

[phill4paul]

Lol. Who would want "equal" status.


Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171#ixzz0sqvr4wO8

[sevin]

If I were single and worked for Google, I might "come out" to my boss. That girl he saw me with? My sister. ;)

[Petar]

Google is bribing people to turn gay, and someone needs to stop them...probably Theo.

[low preference guy]

Melissa, your signature is a good reminder that there are wackos at RPF. When debating issues here, it's good to remember that a stupid or certifiably insane person might be behind the other keyboard.

As for the quote


There are some sins ... worthy of death. Homosexuality is one such sin

the expression that comes to mind is that maybe Theo "protests too much". I bet that when he is at church, there are times he doesn't completely close his eyes while praying. He can't help but keep them open, fixated by a man's bottocks in front of him.

[sevin]

Google is bribing people to turn gay, and someone needs to stop them...probably Theo.

Bibleman can stop them!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Mcz5hdLDEdw/SazvtjhYlRI/AAAAAAAAAX8/DHeDrDBucvI/s400/bibleman.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

Google is bribing people to turn gay, and someone needs to stop them...probably Theo.

I envision theo riding a chariot up to the google building, pounding on the front door with his fist in fury, and summoning the wrath of Yahweh upon the Google heathens. :D

[speciallyblend]

this should work out great for the metro sexuals!!!!

[thehunter]

Here's my problem with these sorts of measures. There might be an argument that government tax/company benefit systems favour married, heterosexual couples & their children, but by taking such steps, is Google not systematically discriminating against every single (as in, not married) employee in the organization? sevin alludes to this somewhat sarcastically further up in this post.

I say this with a great deal of sincerity but also to play devil's advocate here. The original justification for tax/benefit extensions to the other spouse was that the wife/husband (usually wife back in the day...) of the employee was the homemaker who had an equally important responsibility to properly nurture/raise the children, care for the home and handle the bills. I fully realize that a great deal of this justification went out with double-income families during the mid-20th century, but are there really that many gay men out there who aren't able to afford hospital insurance because they can't access benefits from their live-in boyfriend? Is it not more so these days that Steve and Jake both have separate careers? And even if I am mistaken in these first couple of questions, would this not essentially be companies/the government punishing citizens for remaining single -- a lifestyle choice more universally accepted by the population and hence a more obvious area we should be addressing?

[Vessol]

Am I the only problem who see's nothing wrong with this if it is a private companies decision and not something forced by the government?

[phill4paul]

Am I the only problem who see's nothing wrong with this if it is a private companies decision and not something forced by the government?

No. I don't have a problem with it.

[thehunter]

Just as a point of clarification, I agree that private enterprises should be allowed to set up their benefits as they see fit, but as the recent scandal with Rand Paul showed, people are very selective on what sort of discrimination is permissible, and I still see Google's actions as discrimination!

[specsaregood]

And for those that didn't parse it correctly. They aren't paying them more, they are simply reimbursing them for taxes they have to pay on health insurance benefits paid for their civil partners. ie: no additional take home $$$ over their coworkers.

[Danke]

What if you don't pay taxes or take the deduction? Do you get the extra pay too?

[specsaregood]

What if you don't pay taxes or take the deduction? Do you get the extra pay too?

Well you would have to ask them, but it doesn't sound like it. since its explicit purpose is to compensate employees for taxes owed.

[low preference guy]

So the net effect of Google's policy is that they don't discriminate in the amount of money post-taxes they pay. It will be nice if someone sues a company that pays the same to both groups for de facto discrimination.

[silus]

Yes, well the title is one of those inflammatory, somewhat misleading lead-ins that we all hate so much in the media. I would have titled it: private employer makes pay changes to counteract discriminatory taxation system. But that's just me.
THis.

...people are very selective on what sort of discrimination is permissible, and I still see Google's actions as discrimination!
WTF are you talking about? The discrimination is already taking place. Google is seeking out to negate its effects. How difficult is it to understand that?

[low preference guy]

WTF are you talking about? The discrimination is already taking place. Google is seeking out to negate its effects. How difficult is it to understand that?

newbie.

[silus]

newbie.
...says the newbie. :rolleyes:

[t0rnado]

All Christians should boycott Google immediately since it's paying people around $1000 to become gay.

[Kregisen]

A private business should be able to do whatever it wants, but from a business standpoint: WHY?

Why would you pay someone so much more money if they're just as good as someone else who is married?

[thehunter]

THis.

WTF are you talking about? The discrimination is already taking place. Google is seeking out to negate its effects. How difficult is it to understand that?

silus, in order to see where I am coming from, don't look at it from the post-tax perspective but from the pre-tax view. I am following this through that if a married employee can have the additional net benefit of providing coverage for his/her spouse, and (post-change) a gay employee can now provide that extra net benefit to his/her partner, Google is now paying more to employees who are not single. This flows from the view that any benefit a company provides is a redistribution of salaried benefits through the company -- in other words, to pay for this change, Google will have to have lower salaries for some of its employees than it otherwise would, including single employees who will not directly enjoy any of the benefits that Google is proposing to provide.

[silus]

silus, in order to see where I am coming from, don't look at it from the post-tax perspective but from the pre-tax view. I am following this through that if a married employee can have the additional net benefit of providing coverage for his/her spouse, and (post-change) a gay employee can now provide that extra net benefit to his/her partner, Google is now paying more to employees who are not single. This flows from the view that any benefit a company provides is a redistribution of salaried benefits through the company -- in other words, to pay for this change, Google will have to have lower salaries for some of its employees than it otherwise would, including single employees who will not directly enjoy any of the benefits that Google is proposing to provide.
Ah, so your entire argument is based on the assumption that Google will lower salaries for some of its employees. I'm sorry, but economic principles are not meant to be applied blindly to specific cases as fact, especially when you lack most of the details.

I see what you're trying to say, but the bottom line is that the government is the originating source of discrimination that Google is compensating for. It may not be a perfect solution, but its a private company doing what it can. If people don't like it, then don't whine at what Google is doing, because there might be a shit load of other companies trying to create their own fixes. Go after the source. This is a Ron Paul forum, yet there is more criticism of Google here than the discriminating policies of the government.

[erowe1]

The free market will work this out.

Gay employees now cost Google more than straight ones do. This added cost portends to become an increasingly large financial burden to Google, as gay job seekers will have more incentive than straight ones to take a job at Google over other opportunities. Meanwhile, straight job seekers will have the opposite incentive. And Google's competitors will find it increasingly easier to woo away those straight employees by offering them more than they get at Google, while still costing those companies less than gay employees cost Google.

If I had Google stock, this news would be a big red flag.

[erowe1]

I still see Google's actions as discrimination!

Of course it's discrimination. So what? It's their company. If they want to pay people bonuses for being left handed or having widows peaks or being alcoholics, or Democrats, or whatever they want, that's their right.

[silus]

The free market will work this out.

Gay employees now cost Google more than straight ones do. This added cost portends to become an increasingly large financial burden to Google, as gay job seekers will have more incentive than straight ones to take a job at Google over other opportunities. Meanwhile, straight job seekers will have the opposite incentive. And Google's competitors will find it increasingly easier to woo away those straight employees by offering them more than they get at Google, while still costing those companies less than gay employees cost Google.

If I had Google stock, this news would be a big red flag.
You're really exaggerating the effects of this. Google will offer these benefits to gays and nothing will change.

[specsaregood]

The free market will work this out.

Gay employees now cost Google more than straight ones do. This added cost portends to become an increasingly large financial burden to Google, as gay job seekers will have more incentive than straight ones to take a job at Google over other opportunities. Meanwhile, straight job seekers will have the opposite incentive. And Google's competitors will find it increasingly easier to woo away those straight employees by offering them more than they get at Google, while still costing those companies less than gay employees cost Google.

If I had Google stock, this news would be a big red flag.

Maybe they have found that gay workers are better workers? For one, they might have less kid issues forcing them to take time off work. Or kids on their health plans....

[Jeremy]

What about the discrimination against single people?

[erowe1]

Maybe they have found that gay workers are better workers? For one, they might have less kid issues forcing them to take time off work. Or kids on their health plans....

But of course, if that's the point, then they could just offer to make their workers' pay commensurate with their productivity without a special gay clause. Then, if what you say is true, those gay workers would still get more on those grounds.

What they're doing now is paying a gay premium that is disconnected from the financial benefits to the company.

But you made me realize that this rule could end up having no effect. They can still pay all employees of equal productivity the same amount and simply give the gay ones their gay premium, which includes within it any raise for productivity that they otherwise would have been able to afford to give them if they were straight, while they give their equally productive straight coworkers a raise for productivity that happens to be the same as what they could get if they were gay. In other words, you might have two equal workers who each cost Google $100k/year, with the only difference being that the gay worker's salary would include within that 100k his special gay earmark and the straight one wouldn't.

It's kind of like what used car dealers do when they have sales but everybody ends up paying the same amount as they would have been able to negotiate on the non-sale days.

[erowe1]

nothing will change.

You're right. I just realized that. See my post above.

In the end, nothing will change. Every Google employee will still end up taking home the exact same amount as they would have before this rule. Only now the gay ones will think they're making more than they would have without the rule, even though they really won't be. It's a purely symbolic move that will either turn out to be smart or stupid for Google share holders based on how that pro-gay symbolism ends up getting received by people.

[silus]

I don't think anything will change because I think its a very small percentage of gays working for Google, not enough to cause rifts in other areas. And even if the number is high, its only a matter of time before gays are allowed to marry, so in the end, nothing will change.

[specsaregood]

I don't think anything will change because I think its a very small percentage of gays working for Google, not enough to cause rifts in other areas.

I dunno, they are pretty close to san fran.


And even if the number is high, its only a matter of time before gays are allowed to marry, so in the end, nothing will change.
Of course they are in Cali, where they now have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I'm not so sure it is right around the corner for them.

[Danke]

Apartment dwellers should get paid more than home owners with mortgages.

[MelissaWV]

What about the discrimination against single people?

No, that's still allowed. Also: married people with no children.

I like to job-hop a bit, working contracts or similarly short assignments, so I have seen a lot of bosses in various types of work. To a man (well, mostly to a woman, actually), they give more time off to the people with kids. To muddy matters worse, the people with children (married or single) tended to believe that since I was married, but had no children, I pretty much deserved zero time off. If I got the sniffles, I needed a doctor's note. If someone said their kid had the sniffles, they took the day off to tend to their child and needed no verification. Single people without children, too, were viewed in a similar fashion. The implication is that single people or married people with no children have no responsibilities and leave work to go sip drinks and have dinner parties, or something, and the people with children only live and breathe for the precious future.

During two unfortunate stints in life where I was researching shelter at charities, I came across the same thing. With limited beds, no one wanted to house a married couple with no children. Many of the shelters were gender-segregated. When it was time to look for shelter for just a married woman, the beds were full unless I had kids.

* * *

As others have pointed out, Google is not paying homosexual employees "so much more." In the grand scheme of ideas, this is not a bullseye. This isn't even on the target. It's kind of on the wall that the target is hanging on, where other ideas have fallen short entirely. It's in the right direction to realize "hey! These taxes are kind of moronic and discriminatory!" but it hasn't really fixed the problem for other categories, I'd wager.

Ultimately yeah, it's their business, but this might open a really crummy can of worms.

[Krugerrand]

It still sounds like an invasion of privacy to me. Are they assuming I'm straight unless I tell them otherwise? Am I obligated to declare this information one way or the other?

[specsaregood]

It still sounds like an invasion of privacy to me. Are they assuming I'm straight unless I tell them otherwise? Am I obligated to declare this information one way or the other?

The additional money is just compensation for extra taxes owed for benefits paid out to cover a civil union partner. No addtional take-home pay. You don't have to declare it, but then your partner won't receive the benefits.

[osan]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070504.html (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070504.html)

Why is this a problem? Google is a private enterprise. If they want to do stupid things such as this, it is their prerogative. All companies attempt to make PR hay. In this case Google is doing so a-la-moron. Their business, and if we are indeed liberty minded, we keep out of it - short of our opinions.

[Krugerrand]

The additional money is just compensation for extra taxes owed for benefits paid out to cover a civil union partner. No addtional take-home pay. You don't have to declare it, but then your partner won't receive the benefits.

I guess 'declare' is a tax term ... but I did not intend it as such. I meant declare to Google. That's strikes me as an inappropriate question for an employer to ask an employee.

[Daamien]

Good for Google.

[brandon]

This is very cool of them.

Highlights all the double standards in society....

[specsaregood]

I guess 'declare' is a tax term ... but I did not intend it as such. I meant declare to Google. That's strikes me as an inappropriate question for an employer to ask an employee.

Doesn't matter. You would have had to already "declare" it to the HR department in order to get your civil union partner covered under your company insurance plan. You can't exactly get somebody on your insurance coverage without telling the person providing the coverage. :) If you don't add them to your health insurance coverage (declare it) then it isn't an issue, since this is only applying to benefits paid out.

[Krugerrand]

Doesn't matter. You would have had to already "declare" it to the HR department in order to get your civil union partner covered under your company insurance plan. You can't exactly get somebody on your insurance coverage without telling the person providing the coverage. :) If you don't add them to your health insurance coverage (declare it) then it isn't an issue, since this is only applying to benefits paid out.

Alright ... now I'm understanding it. It's been a long weekend. My brains taking a few extra clicks to get it going.

BTW, Are civil union partnerships only open to gay couples? I guess that could very by state.

[erowe1]

That's strikes me as an inappropriate question for an employer to ask an employee.

It's up to the parties involved to decide what questions are inappropriate. And it's up to them to respond however they feel is appropriate if the other party commits what they consider a breach of etiquette.

[specsaregood]

BTW, Are civil union partnerships only open to gay couples? I guess that could very by state.

It varies by state, in NJ they are only available to gay couples.