With marriage equality in the forefront of the news this week, what better opportunity to spell out some of the myths and facts of the big picture.
Marriage equality is more than just the "right" to marry someone you love. It isn't just about being able to hold the same documents that our heterosexual counterparts can. It's about being treated equally and fairly in the eyes of our government. However, being treated equally and fairly will cost our government a considerable chunk of change.
Let's take my relationship for example. I have always worked a modest job. I am in my middle forties. I have been partnered for over fifteen years. My partner makes a better living than I, but our household income falls around the median for our area. By all accounts, we live a married life. We still have one child at home. She is biologically mine. Using the most raw and simplified data, I came up with some scenarios to show just how unfair lack of equality is on same sex partners, and essentially what the government stands to lose if that is overturned.
According to the Social Security benefit calculator, if I died today, my family would be entitled to about $2,000.00 a month in survivors benefits. That is IF I were legally married.
Because I cannot legally marry, my partner would not be entitled to $1,100.00 of that monthly money, the spouse benefit. As a dependent, my daughter would be entitled to $900.00 of it, however it could not legally go to my partner for her care, she is not her legal mother. Based on these facts and the assumption that my daughter would stay with my partner until she reached the age of maturity and that my partner dies at the average age of seventy eight, the government stands to keep approximately $355,000 in benefits that in the eyes of equality should be paid to my family.
Social security is only one area where the government stands to make money off of inequality practices.
Let's look at some tax examples. In our situation my partner owns our home. I am not on the title. Should she die, her wish, according to her will, is that the house go to me. Should the house go to probate, any blood relative can contest the will and possibly take possession of the house. I have no legal ties to it. If no one contests it, and the house is transferred to me, I, as a nonlegal spouse, would be subject to estate taxes that legally married widows would not be. Based on low and rough calculations, I could be looking at paying approximately $15,000 - $20,000 in inequality taxes.
One way to combat this is to make title changes. Both parties can hold title under Joint Tenants with Rights to Survivorship, which guarantees the property gets left to the surviving title holder regardless of wills or probate court. However, changing a title to JTWROS means that the newly named holder needs to have proof of paying for half of the property. In our case, I do not make direct payments to the mortgage company. We lump a bunch of household bills into one and I write her a check for half. She is the house bookkeeper and does what she needs to with that money. In addition we take on other financial responsibilities individually in the house. There would be no way for me to "prove" I contributed half to the house.
Even with a will, there is little guarantee my partner's wishes will be upheld without a lot of expense and heartache.
Bank accounts and retirement funds are also ways that marriage inequality pays off for the government. Transferring financial assets to a same sex partner is registered as a taxable gift. This is not true of married partners. Let's say my partner has $50,000 in the bank. Because we are not legally recognized I could pay upwards of $8,000.00 in taxes alone even though her wish is for me to have HER money. Again, the government gets a piece of the pie by keeping our relationship unequal.
Fortunately our retirement plans, 401K and 403B can be transferred free of charge as of a 2010 ruling. That being said, same sex partners are considered non spousal beneficiaries and must take distributions immediately whereas married spouses do not. Hypothetically my 401K is worth $100,000. Rolled into a married spouse's account and saved, that could yield a decent return, for my company 8% this year. However a non spousal beneficiary has to start using the money immediately and draws little interest, essentially saving the institutions thousands of inequality dollars in the end. And if a same sex partner was inadvertently left off as a beneficiary and there is no will stating the assets should be transferred to the surviving partner, the state is left to decide. I am pretty sure we know how that turns out.
So next time you think of marriage equality as just the "right" to marry, think about the enormous amounts of money being withheld in Social Security benefits, taxes demanded on property transfers to committed couples and asset use that is dictated by the government. Then stop and realize that the government might just have more incentive to keep the inequality than to recognize the injustice.
Comments