The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:43 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
This $90 a month comes out of the pockets of all of the city taxpayers....

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2144305/City- ... 2I.twitter

MyNorthwest.com wrote:
On Wednesday, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and members of the city council will announce a new benefit for gay and lesbian city employees who get married under the state's marriage equality law, according to multiple sources who work for the city.
The benefit to gay couples will cost taxpayers an estimated $162,000 a year. Sources say the expense has been worked into the city's 2013-2014 budget.

Starting Jan. 1, gay and lesbian city employees who get married will receive a monthly allowance of $90, or approximately $1,080 over a 12-month period. The money will help cover healthcare expenses for their spouse.

While the city already offers health coverage to employees in same-sex unions, the stipend is designed to offset federal taxes that those couples must pay due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Opposite-sex couples are not subject to federal income and payroll taxes on the value of their health coverage.

The coverage for same-sex couples is taxed at an average rate of 15 percent.

"The city wants to mitigate at least part of that by providing employees in same-sex marriages an allowance to help offset some of the extra taxes they pay the federal government," one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the changes, told KIRO Radio.

Currently, there are 150 city employees who have a same-sex spouse enrolled in a city-provided health plan. However, the stipend would only be given to those who marry once Washington's marriage equality bill takes effect.

According to the source, the specific numbers are preliminary and could change before the end of the year.

The source said figuring out how to implement the allowance was "incredibly complicated" and an "Interdepartmental Workgroup" continues to sort out details.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
So in the end, they're supposed to end up with the same take-home salary as any other married state employee?

I'm fine with it.

Interesting that they don't mention how much the tax breaks married couples get "cost" taxpayers.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:25 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
NephyrS wrote:
So in the end, they're supposed to end up with the same take-home salary as any other married state employee?

I'm fine with it.

Interesting that they don't mention how much the tax breaks married couples get "cost" taxpayers.

^ +1

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Which is why the Federal government shouldn't recognize marriage. Then we don't have to have convoluted remedies to offset Federal benefits to achieve equality as determined by the State.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:40 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
NephyrS wrote:
So in the end, they're supposed to end up with the same take-home salary as any other married state employee?

I'm fine with it.

Interesting that they don't mention how much the tax breaks married couples get "cost" taxpayers.

+2


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:45 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
+3

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:47 pm 
Offline
The King
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:34 am
Posts: 3219
I'm blinded by all the gayness.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:58 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Oh no! Gayz!

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Which is why the Federal government shouldn't recognize marriage. Then we don't have to have convoluted remedies to offset Federal benefits to achieve equality as determined by the State.


+1

My problem isn't with 'gayness'.. it's with Seattle taxpayers subsidizing federal taxes for married gay people.

Make it someone elses problem?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:01 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Which is why the Federal government shouldn't recognize marriage.

I revoke my other +1 and throw it behind this position.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:21 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
There are 150 city employees with same-sex partners enrolled in a city-provided health plan.

The monthly allowance adds up to $1,080 for a 12-month period.

Seattle has a population of 620,778.

So, the plan (if and only if every person with a same-sex partner currently enrolled in the program were eligible [i.e. to marry]) would cost a total of $162,000 per year.

This means each resident would be responsible for $0.26 cents. A year.

So, assuming a biweekly rate of pay...$0.01 per paycheck.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
ur gud at mathz


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
My objection isn't the money. I'm glad that equality is being meted out.

I'm annoyed that we have to concoct byzantine extra processes, exceptions, and bureaucratic loopholes to jump through to create it.

And I'm even more annoyed and concerned that the majority of people who are equally annoyed at the above believe the problem lies in something the Federal government lacks, rather than its already overblown excess.

And, yes, I get quite annoyed when my objection to that excess is misportrayed as some kind of latent bigotry or selfish objection over the money.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Midgen wrote:
ur gud at mathz


Not really, since we're including several flawed assumptions and neglecting hidden costs.

That said, I don't think the money would bother me so much as the principle.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Yes, several principles...

The city of Seattle is struggling with debt, just like every other government organization. It's not able to meet even some basic needs, streets are crumbling, hillsides collapsing into homes, the police department is horribly mismanaged and struggling with public perception issues. SDOT can't even deal with a minor snowstorm. The city was crippled during the last snow we had (last year). Parks are unsafe. Homelessness is as high as it's ever been, as is unemployment.

City taxpayers should not be subsidizing federal taxes so a subset of the community can feel better about their lot in life, I don't care who they are. These people already have jobs and healthcare coverage. There are many other priorities that those tax dollars should be going towards...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
Just out of curiosity, is there a tax break for married couples vs singles in Washington? And if so, do gay couples qualify?

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
The benefits of Fair Tax are becoming more manifest the more I read.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:30 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Midgen wrote:
My problem isn't with 'gayness'.. it's with Seattle taxpayers subsidizing federal taxes for married gay people.

Make it someone elses problem?


Midgen wrote:
City taxpayers should not be subsidizing federal taxes so a subset of the community can feel better about their lot in life, I don't care who they are. These people already have jobs and healthcare coverage. There are many other priorities that those tax dollars should be going towards...

The root issue is that the federal tax code grants married straight employees a $90/mo. subsidy which it refuses to gay married employees. If you're really all about eliminating subsidies, the equitable solution is to slash the salaries of all straight married employees by $90/mo. while leaving gay married employee salaries where they presently are.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
It looks like the State got involved and decided this was against state law.

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2144794/Plan- ... -employees

MyNorthwest.com wrote:
After receiving the memos, KIRO Radio reached out to the mayor's office for comment. Here, in full, is the statement Mayor Mike McGinn provided:

Based on written advice from the law department, we have been working with Council on a proposal that would help to mitigate the discriminatory impacts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Up until 4:01pm today, we were expecting to announce our work on this publicly tomorrow afternoon at a press conference at City Hall, as reported accurately by KIRO Radio earlier today. At 4:01 today, all of that changed. That's when we received an email from the law department that was contrary to their previous advice. The law department informed us that this effort would be in violation of state law and that we should not host a press conference with councilmembers. Based on this latest advice, we are not holding a press conference on this work tomorrow and are now evaluating our options for next steps in our work to help address these inequalities.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:08 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
A victory for straights everywhere!

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Corolinth wrote:
A victory for straights TAXPAYERS everywhere!


Fixed it for ya


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:53 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Maybe we should tax gay couples more.

http://fox8.com/2012/12/06/study-gay-pe ... -owe-less/

Quote:
Study: Gay People Earn More, Owe Less


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.

They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.

Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes — $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 — but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.

A combination of factors play into this, said Michele Meyer-Shipp, chief diversity officer at Prudential. To start, LGBT individuals are generally well-educated, with more than half of respondents receiving at least a bachelor’s degree, and tend to live in higher-income areas, she said.

“It flows down — you have a higher level of education, access to higher paying jobs in areas where there are good salaries, and more disposable income to allocate to things like saving and retirement,” Meyer-Shipp said.

Uncertainty about the future of gay rights likely also prompts many members of the LGBT community to be especially prudent with their money, Meyer-Shipp said.

Among their top financial concerns, respondents cited a lack of Social Security or pension survivor benefits, legislation that negatively affects LGBT finances and unfair tax treatment.

Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, same-sex couples are barred from getting many of the same federal benefits that opposite-sex married couples receive, including survivor benefits and certain tax exemptions.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear a DOMA case for the first time, and if it strikes down the law, these benefits would become available to married same-sex couples.

“The LGBT community has unique concerns, so when you’re planning you’ve got to be more cautious about where you’re putting your money and how much you’re saving,” Meyer-Shipp said.

According to the survey, LGBT people build up significantly more equity in their homes — a median of $77,000 compared to the national median of $62,000. And, among LGBT pre-retirees ages 55 to 68, about 65% are currently saving for retirement in employer-sponsored retirement accounts, compared to 53% of the overall population. Yet, a mere 14% say they are confident about their financial preparedness, versus 29% of the general population.

Other studies conducted by the Census Bureau and Experian have come to similar conclusions about the strength of LGBT Americans’ finances, but a recent Gallup poll of more than 120,000 adults conducted this summer actually found that LGBT individuals tend to have lower incomes and to be less educated than the general population.

Most will agree, however, that the LGBT community is a largely untapped — and potentially lucrative — customer base when it comes to financial planning because of the complexity of their finances and unique needs.

While many financial firms are beginning to take steps to cater to this group, Prudential found that the majority, or 63%, of respondents feel underserved by financial firms, saying that the financial industry’s attention to their needs is below average.

“There absolutely is an opportunity here,” said Meyer-Shipp.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Not that married gay couples ought to be subject to continued discrimination, but it's amazing how much better people do at planning for retirement when they can't expect the government to take care of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:22 am
Posts: 5
If the city have more debt then why they offering allowance to gays.I think first they reduce their debt first than announced for the allowances.Its mean they are going to increase the debts and effect the economy?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 301 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group