It is also good news for the Jewelry Industry. More engagement rings, more wedding rings, and more jewelry for oral you know what.
As a famous comedian once said, “Good, that they too can be miserable like the rest of us married people”
I have a serious question that I do not think has been addressed.
For gay couples to obtain the various benefits of a married couple (employee and tax benfits), do they officially have to get married (and assumably have to prove they are married)?
Some employers have domestic partner benfits already in place and I do not know how they monitor it. Do they have to be a couple for a month, six months, a year to “qualify”?
If companies provide benefits for domestic partners that are not married, shouldn’t they also be required to offer benefits to heterosexual domestic partners? Maybe they already do…I don’t know. If not, they are being discriminated against.
I can easily see people trying to tke advantage of tax laws by “saying” their married, but really are not.
Has anyone (CBO) figured out the tax implications of the marriage credits that are going to be claimed now and the impact of the deficit?
As I said in previous posts, the devil is in the details.
I don’t know who disliked my comment, but I have to ask, why?
I ask a serious question and pose some obstacles that will surely take place. Do you dislike the truth in it or do you just not like to deal with reality??
have some courage and respond and show your viewpoint.
I am surprised that someone disliked your comment. You seemed to be geniunely interested in understanding the situation.
While I was surprised you even had to ask some of those questions, I felt they are legitimate and that you asked them in a respectful manner. I am guessing that you are not married or you might have known (or surmised) some of the answers to your own questions. I also felt that BS gave very good answers in a respectful way. It is good to see positive discourse when the comments on IJ to often devolve into name calling.
Try not to concern yourself with IJ votes. Not only are they meaningless because a few people can manipulate the numbers (would you like 100 upvotes done at one time? I can do that :), but I’ve posted things where I have agreed with everyone and it still got down-voted.
I responsed on the other post, but thought I’d copy it here too. :)
“For gay couples to obtain the various benefits of a married couple (employee and tax benfits), do they officially have to get married (and assumably have to prove they are married)?”
Yes. Same as straight people.
“Some employers have domestic partner benfits already in place and I do not know how they monitor it. Do they have to be qa couple for a month, six months, a year to “qualify”?”
I could be totally wrong, but I *think* the domestic partnership benefits co-inside with civil unions in various states. I would imagine a couple would qualify if they registered their union with the state.
“I can easily see people trying to tke advantage of tax laws by “saying” their married, but really are not.”
I don’t think the ruling is going to make gay people more likely to commit tax fraud than they were previously. If you’re not married, but claim that you are, and take advantage of tax laws, eventually you’re going to be found out and have a date with the IRS. But that’s the same for gay and straight people.
integrity, from what I’ve seen, a company will define domestic partners however they wish. Any company offering benefits to partners may make their own rules for qualifying. There are no statutory limits or requirements on domestic partners.
BS nailed most of it. However, many companies have previously offered domestic benefits even where civil partnerships could not be registered. In those situations, what’s most common is proving common financial interests: joint bank accounts, joint mortgage/lease, etc.
Many companies started doing away with domestic benefits in the past year if they followed the federal changes under DOMA and were based in a state which allowed marriage for all. Since options for equality existed, they didn’t need the domestic benefits.
It is also good news for the Jewelry Industry. More engagement rings, more wedding rings, and more jewelry for oral you know what.
As a famous comedian once said, “Good, that they too can be miserable like the rest of us married people”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
God didn’t create everybody? Hmm… interesting.
Mickey Dee, you know what they do to gays in the Middle East? They better hope that ISIS does not take over in this country.
Pretty much the same thing the American Taliban does to them in Texas.
I have a serious question that I do not think has been addressed.
For gay couples to obtain the various benefits of a married couple (employee and tax benfits), do they officially have to get married (and assumably have to prove they are married)?
Some employers have domestic partner benfits already in place and I do not know how they monitor it. Do they have to be a couple for a month, six months, a year to “qualify”?
If companies provide benefits for domestic partners that are not married, shouldn’t they also be required to offer benefits to heterosexual domestic partners? Maybe they already do…I don’t know. If not, they are being discriminated against.
I can easily see people trying to tke advantage of tax laws by “saying” their married, but really are not.
Has anyone (CBO) figured out the tax implications of the marriage credits that are going to be claimed now and the impact of the deficit?
As I said in previous posts, the devil is in the details.
I don’t know who disliked my comment, but I have to ask, why?
I ask a serious question and pose some obstacles that will surely take place. Do you dislike the truth in it or do you just not like to deal with reality??
have some courage and respond and show your viewpoint.
Integrity Matters,
I am surprised that someone disliked your comment. You seemed to be geniunely interested in understanding the situation.
While I was surprised you even had to ask some of those questions, I felt they are legitimate and that you asked them in a respectful manner. I am guessing that you are not married or you might have known (or surmised) some of the answers to your own questions. I also felt that BS gave very good answers in a respectful way. It is good to see positive discourse when the comments on IJ to often devolve into name calling.
Try not to concern yourself with IJ votes. Not only are they meaningless because a few people can manipulate the numbers (would you like 100 upvotes done at one time? I can do that :), but I’ve posted things where I have agreed with everyone and it still got down-voted.
Hi Integrity Matters,
I responsed on the other post, but thought I’d copy it here too. :)
“For gay couples to obtain the various benefits of a married couple (employee and tax benfits), do they officially have to get married (and assumably have to prove they are married)?”
Yes. Same as straight people.
“Some employers have domestic partner benfits already in place and I do not know how they monitor it. Do they have to be qa couple for a month, six months, a year to “qualify”?”
I could be totally wrong, but I *think* the domestic partnership benefits co-inside with civil unions in various states. I would imagine a couple would qualify if they registered their union with the state.
“I can easily see people trying to tke advantage of tax laws by “saying” their married, but really are not.”
I don’t think the ruling is going to make gay people more likely to commit tax fraud than they were previously. If you’re not married, but claim that you are, and take advantage of tax laws, eventually you’re going to be found out and have a date with the IRS. But that’s the same for gay and straight people.
Thanks, BS.
integrity, from what I’ve seen, a company will define domestic partners however they wish. Any company offering benefits to partners may make their own rules for qualifying. There are no statutory limits or requirements on domestic partners.
Thanks, KY.
BS nailed most of it. However, many companies have previously offered domestic benefits even where civil partnerships could not be registered. In those situations, what’s most common is proving common financial interests: joint bank accounts, joint mortgage/lease, etc.
Many companies started doing away with domestic benefits in the past year if they followed the federal changes under DOMA and were based in a state which allowed marriage for all. Since options for equality existed, they didn’t need the domestic benefits.