Civil unions I do believe give them the rights as married couples.
Maybe we'll find out what will happen and maybe we won't
2006-12-06 11:53:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by John 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Honestly, probably not a whole lot. The only thing that gay marriage does is allow more individuals to enter into legally binding unions. In which case, social security benefits would simply transfer to the spouse. Allowing those benefits to pay out over a longer period of time will cost the agency more money, but nothing so substantial as to kill the program any sooner. In fact, the population steadily increasing every year may be enough to offset this small increase.
Social Security is in danger because of the baby boom of the 1950s, not because more people are getting married. The ratio of married to unmarried people will likely stay relatively unchanged, even in light of gay marriage opening up the institution to more couples. As such, unless a massive overhaul of the system is conducted, the demise of the Social Security system is no more imminent now than it ever has been.
I hope that answers your question!
2006-12-06 04:33:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by klegaspifan 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
It would equal the taxation and representation. Right now, they are paying but not getting equal representation.
Equal rights for gay & lesbians to marry isn't about protecting marraige, it's about preventing them from accessing the 1051 rights afforded to married people for the price of a marriage license.
What is more concerning about the social security is that illegals use other peoples ss numbers, even folks that are deceased. The government knows they will never have to pay off on those social security numbers and is knowlingly keeping the money! It's Fraud!
If illegals get amnesty they will be entitled to all the benefits that many Americans vehimately deny to gay and lesbians.
Who has more allegiance to this country? Those born, bred raised here, earning a living here, spending their hard earned income here, and serving this country?
Or illegals that break into your homeland?
2006-12-06 04:29:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The federal regulation DOMA prevents gay marriage from being acknowledged in each state and because it fairly is a federal regulation, there at the instant are not any federal reward for gay marriages. besides the undeniable fact that it fairly is acknowledged in 7 states, it remains not acknowledged decrease than federal regulation. The DOMA has been challenged for its constitutionality and the superb courtroom is going to hearken to the case. so a approaches as economics, if a in the present day married significant other gets medical coverage, the different individual may well be lined yet that may not real for comparable-intercourse couples till their state or county supplies that. So each and each individual will could purchase their own medical coverage.
2016-12-11 03:24:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think you'll have to worry about as long as religious whack jobs are running the country and we continuing our policy of letting any idiot over 18 vote. Even if by some miracle it were made legal and got federal recognition, I doubt it would have much of an impact. A better question is should gay people be exempted from paying that tax since they don't get the benefit!
2006-12-06 04:34:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
This may seem like a dumb question, but it's not. As it stands right now the Homosexuals have no rights when it comes to Health Care for their loved one, or other benefits married couples share. Like being allowed to visit an extremely sick loved one in the hospital.
(Some insurance plans have been progressive and allowed same sex individuals to insure the other without benefit of being married, but that's only a small victory)
As for Social security. What married couples get is that if one of them die the living spouse gets they dead spouse share to keep them living at the same amount of income as when they both were alive.
So that's what Homosexuals will gain if they are allowed to get married.
(This is one of the reasons I have changed my view on the whole getting married thing. Since I felt it was afwul they weren't able to get theses basic benefits like a married heterosexual couple recieved.)
2006-12-06 04:36:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mikira 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
This is not a dumb question. Without knowing the numbers we're talking about, it's tough to answer.
In all likelihood, SS is in trouble after the baby-boomers retire, regardless, as we have been told our entire lives.
We should probably fix SS so it will be there for the needy in our age range before we add more dependents.
I take issue with the taxation without representation argument. As a single mother, who is self-employed, I could say the same thing. It's bogus.
2006-12-06 04:31:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
i dont think it will affect social security, i think you pay the same amount into ss if youre married or not.
however for taxes in general there probably would be less taxes getting paid. married couples can pay less taxes overall then two individuals, so if two men are married they would pay less taxes than if they were two unmarried individuals.
in the grand scheme of things i dont think it would have a large impact on the amount of taxes the govt. collects because gay couples make up only a small percentage of the population.
2006-12-06 04:28:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mr. O 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
The way the Democrats keep raping the Social Security Trust Fund, you won't have to worry about it. There won't be anything left anyway.
2006-12-06 04:23:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I`d be more worried about the fact that BUSH oked the bill for illegal aliens to draw our social security without ever even paying it in !!!! THATS SORRY AS H-LL.
2006-12-06 04:27:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋