How much would it cost Taxpayers annually if every allegedly "gay" Federal, State, and Municipal Employee were suddenly allowed to cover their "spouse" under Taxpayer-Funded benefits program?
How would you propose that Governments determine cases of fraudulent "marriage" claims?
2007-08-13 05:48:10 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It would cost America a lot. Not only in lost revenue, but also with the increase in payroll to hire people to investigate fraudulent claims. As everyone knows, single people pay more taxes then married ones do.
The government gives married couples tax breaks because they assume that they will have kids. And kids are the future of our country. Kind of like an investment for the future. If same sex couples are allowed to marry and thus receive these tax breaks, what's going to stop straight, single people from getting married just for the tax breaks? Two examples.
Kids just getting out of high school. Low wages, high auto insurance, high taxes, etc. can barely make ends meet. Two friends become roommates. They now share rent and utilities, but are still just scraping by. The solution, get married. Now you not only get taxed less, but you can claim deductions no single person can. How about single moms? You can have two single moms get married, claim earned income credit and actually get more money back than they paid in.
Second example. The elderly. Right now you have people in nursing homes getting married just to scam Medicare and Social Security. What would happen if same sex couples would be allowed to marry? Guys wouldn't have to find a female willing to get married. Just get your poker buddies together and have a wedding. And I can hear everyone already, "You'll have to prove that you are gay." How do you prove that you are gay? Go down on your partner in front of a judge? Give me a break. Illegal aliens have been marrying legals for years in the US and getting away with it. And they have it tougher. They have to live together. Have the same address. Well guess what? People in nursing homes live together and have the same address. They don't have to lie to prove cohabitation. Same goes with roommates.
As for your second question, it can't be done. How are you going to tell the difference between a Homosexual, Straight or Bi couple? If two straight guys are caught with women, they can just say that they have an open marriage and they are Bi. And when either one wants out of the arrangement to marry someone of the opposite sex, then get divorced. You can fill out your own divorce papers and file them yourself for as little as $200.
2007-08-14 14:57:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is unclear how much it would cost taxpayers to cover gay Federal, state or municipal employees. However, all marriages in which benefits are paid cost the governments (tax payers), and excluding one group over others is simply unfair. It would save more money to refuse to cover spouses of employees who marry after age 50, since that is when most medical expenses are incurred. However, once married and recognized by the Federal government, the spouses would then become subject to the taxation marriage penalty, which they avoid as single individuals. My guess is that this would bring in more than enough money nationwide (government & private employees) to offset benefit expenses caused by the comparative smallish number of government employees who are gay.
Since marriages are a licensed institution, there would be no "fraudulent" marriages. The greater opportunity for fraud is created by restricting marriage, making each personnel department determine whether a relationship is eligible for domestic partner benefits. Gay marriage would eliminate such questions.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-08-13 06:12:59 · answer #2 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Answering from a "purely secular" perspective...
First question...many already ARE eligible to cover their "domestic partner". I work for a government entity (State university) and we can already extend health and some other coverages to a "domestic partner". Personally I think this is totally discriminatory because to qualify as a "domestic partner" the person MUST be a "same sex" partner. So if someone that is heterosexual (like myself) wishes to enter in to a partnership arrangement with someone (for example, if I wanted to team up with a male friend so he could care for our children and home while I worked) the government FORCES the two parties to get MARRIED (and suffer all the other legal consequences of marriage) if they want to provide benefit coverage! That is WRONG...if the purpose of domestic partnership coverage is to allow two people to share the responsibilities for home and child care, gender OR marital status shouldn't matter!
Second question, the same way they do now which is, except in the case of immigration, THEY DON'T! I know any number of opposite sex "marriages" that are "in name only" and the government does NOTHING to prevent extension of benefits in those cases. If the parties have a marriage license and it is filed with the state, they are married...the reasons aren't the government's business now nor should they be if the government chooses to sanction same-sex marriage.
I like UFO-C's perspective...personally I don't think that the government should sanction marriage in any way! It is highly discriminatory for the government to spend MY money to support someone else's choice to marry!
2007-08-13 06:05:59 · answer #3 · answered by KAL 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
All told, it would probably cost less, because the partners would have insurance coverage. They'd be able to get proper medical treatment when needed, rather than waiting for a situation to become life-threatening and run to the ER.
As for fraudulent claims, probably the same way they determine cases of fraudulent heterosexual "marriages of convenience."
2007-08-13 05:57:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
As Typos said, "since most gay couples don't have kids, they are already subsidizing straight couples' health care costs."
Now you're on the "It's gonna cost us money" tack. You know there's a billion-five in the budget - our tax dollars! - to promote hetero marriage? Just to promote the idea! As if all the breeders are forgetting that they have the right and need to be reminded. So spare me the financial lecture.
2007-08-13 05:58:22 · answer #5 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no marriage is fraudulent if neither party is married to someone else at the time.
if marriages are costing taxpayers money each year i will be the first to vote to outlaw any and all marriages.
2007-08-13 05:54:05 · answer #6 · answered by ♨UFO♨ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These two valid issues are really beside the point! Gay + marriage do not go together. Marriage is the term used to describe a heterosexual union of two people. Gays need to come up with their own word and arrangement. Can you imagine the dictionaries that would have to be changed if the word "marriage" could also include homosexuals? Geez....
2007-08-13 05:54:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋