Benefits of Gay Marriage
Many gay couples may not know this, but married folks get treated better ― a whole lot better — than single folks by Social Security. Specifically, Social Security provides spousal and survivor benefits to one’s spouse. And you only have to be married one year to get spousal benefits and nine months to get survivor benefits. Moreover, if your partner has a child below age 16, you can collect spousal benefits regardless of your age.
To illustrate the potential financial benefits of gay people tying the knot in one of what will surely be called The Original 13 States, I just hopped onto my company’s ESPlannerPLUS financial planning program and ran the case of Jerry and Ken, who are both 55 and live in CA. They both earned middle class salaries up till now, have a modest home with a mortgage, and $500,000 in regular assets. But Ken just retired because Jerry got a big raise and is now pulling down $200,000 a year. Jerry likes his job and will stick with it until 65.
If Ken and Jerry play their Social Security cards right, they can rake in an extra $60,000 in Social Security spousal benefits ― for free, just for getting married! Playing their cards right entails having Jerry file for his retirement benefit at 66 and suspend its collection, permitting Ken to take just his spousal benefit based on Jerry’s earnings record. When Jerry and Ken reach 70, they both begin taking their retirement benefits, which thanks to Social Security’s Delayed Retirement Credit, will start at the highest possible values.
Getting married has another financial advantage for Jerry and Ken at least for a while. The couple lowers their income taxes by $3,000 to $5,000 over the next 9 years because Jerry would otherwise get nailed filing as a single, given his high earnings. So for this couple, there is a singles penalty, not a marriage penalty during the years Jerry works.
More from Larry Kotlikoff: If they get divorced after ten years, they can double their lifetime gain!
We don’t intend for this kind of thing to exist, right? Wouldn’t it be better just to have a simple system, free of loopholes?
I would say it is probably just due to incompetence or lack of coordination of our political system.
That may account for some of it, but I think the majority is because of favors granted to certain groups. The inequality in the system exists because individual groups get favors that are important to them. Fixing it could be political suicide.
“Many gay couples may not know this, but married folks get treated better ― a whole lot better — than single folks by Social Security.”
Discrimination against single people, huh? Don’t put the pickets away just yet!
Exactly right.
Interesting stuff!
“play their Social Security cards right, they can rake in an extra $60,000 in Social Security spousal benefits ― for free.”
-I wonder how many people actually play their cards right?
Kotlikoff says “And it’s now time for the other 37 states to fall in line.”
– I disagree with this line of thinking 100%. If a state wants to allow gay marriage, that’s fine by me. If a state doesn’t want to allow gay marriage, that’s also fine by me. Let people decide where they want to live according to the laws of the state. Let the democratic process work the way it was intended to in these states. Federalism seems to always get lost in the fray.
States denying choices made by individuals is fine. Being homosexual is not a choice. Why should we differentiate individuals based on things that have no choice in them?
But, even if it were a choice, unlike, say, religion, which confers incredible cultural and spiritual benefits, the “gay” community does not even come close to the same basis.
What do you mean by states denying choices is fine? We have to be careful of these powers granted to government. Who decides which choices are unwarranted and why? I agree that there is no proof that homosexuality is a choice, however.
The states having the rights to determine if abortion or capital punishment should be legalized. These would be voted upon by the people within the state themselves.
That should be a state’s rights issue, not a federal issue, so there is no problem with giving “power” to government.
What gets lost is that we are allowing a religious institution (marriage) to provide extra federal benefits to certain groups and not others.
Not allowing homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is egregious.
But there’s a simple solution. Civil unions for all, with all the attendant benefits that the government wants to provide. Marriage confers no additional benefits, and is only a moniker applied to those who want to engage in it in their respective religious institution.
So, if you want to get married, you have a civil union and a religious marriage. But the same benefits as a couple who solely engages in a civil union.
Exactly. It doesn’t matter if it is a choice or not or even if it is moral or immoral. The government shouldn’t give benefits to certain groups over others.
Very true. It’s not the government’s business to get into the whole marriage debate when that’s a religious concept. The government can recognized couples wanting to live together for a lifetime in civil unions, I completely agree. The issue on benefits would become much easier and potentially save the state money.
I am single. I am going to advocate for singles’ rights!
I’m not an advocate for gay marriage. Having been married myself, I wouldn’t want to wish that turmoil on anybody. Social Security was designed in an era when women didn’t work outside the home and they accumulated no Social Security benefits from their own labor. In the modern age I think the regulations should be changed so that married couples (regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) cannot game the system.
+1
And they don’t even have to have any kind of sex. They don’t even need to to kiss or live in the same house/apartment. They just have to say I do.