|
Post by robbase on Jun 15, 2011 10:39:49 GMT -5
Apparently NY is one vote away from approving same sex marriage
I was thinking from an economical point of view ONLY for the state / country that this might be a good thing
NY has major budget issues. Wouldn't this mean more marriage permits, etc for city hall (more $$$ generated)
Also the marriage penalty, generally speaking (I realize there are some exceptions but generally speaking don't married people pay more tax than if they each filed as singles?), the newly married same sex people would now pay slightly more federal tax (if the fed allowed this)
Again from the economic perspective ONLY am I tracking correct? Are there some second or third order effects or something else I am missing?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 15, 2011 10:56:05 GMT -5
I also think it's good - both weddings AND divorces pump plenty of money into the economy
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,146
|
Post by alabamagal on Jun 15, 2011 10:58:45 GMT -5
The cost to the gevernment are the potential payout of social security benefits to married partners. If you are not married, you get no spousal benefits. Probably the same with private retirement funds with spousal benefits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 11:36:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2011 11:01:28 GMT -5
I also think it's good - both weddings AND divorces pump plenty of money into the economy ;D
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 15, 2011 11:16:40 GMT -5
I imagine that "effect on government revenues" isn't a major point of contention vis a vis gay "marriage", for people on both sides of the issue.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jun 15, 2011 11:22:46 GMT -5
According to a friend who used to work for a gay publication (as well as my own experience), gays have MONEY, and they like to spend it on the finer things. The LGBT demographic is one of the most sought after because of this fact. If this is an economic move, it could indeed reap benefits.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 15, 2011 11:28:50 GMT -5
Strangely enough my suburb has been marketing itself as a 'gay friendly' place live, work, and spend money. I guess the LGBT demographics are that they are generally better off financially than the general public. By marketing itself to this community the city hopes to attract homebuyers who can pay more for homes (higher property taxes?) and who have more descretionary spending to boost the sales of stuff (hopefully upscale stuff!) within the city limits. The extra spending would encourage new businesses (got lots of old stock business districts/buildings available!) which would revive the city. I think it's kind of unsaid that the LGBT community would involve same sex couples buying houses together and then living together....
I suspect that the next generation will look back at the hoopla over the government providing same sex marriage liscences the same way we look back and smile about the past perceived horrors of mixed ethnic marriages (and how it would be the downfall of society - how can the End of Civilization be far away when Italians marry the Irish or when Catholics marry Protestants? The HORROR! <--- that's sarcasm) .
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 11:34:57 GMT -5
Because they have less children.
Those lucky bastardos.
|
|
|
Post by illinicheme on Jun 15, 2011 11:35:50 GMT -5
I suspect that the next generation will look back at the hoopla over the government providing same sex marriage liscences the same way we look back and smile about the past perceived horrors of mixed ethnic marriages (and how it would be the downfall of society - how can the End of Civilization be far away when Italians marry the Irish or when Catholics marry Protestants? The HORROR! <--- that's sarcasm) . A million
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 11:36:51 GMT -5
This is exactly what I believe, too. If you look at the statistics, there is a pretty radical drop-off of people opposed to gay-marriage right around the age of 35. Very few people younger than that care at all. Too bad they have the reputation of not voting.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 15, 2011 11:37:47 GMT -5
Probably the same with private retirement funds with spousal benefits Many employers already offer benefits for non married cohabitating people -- same sex or not. It doesn't matter if the employee wants to add someone they are in a relationship with (would that be getting Personal Benefits? from) or adding someone who lives with them (like a plutonic relationship in a 'roommate' type situation or a relative). You can specify who the beneficiarys are for you 401(k).
I think my employers pension plan also has a provision for an unmarried cohabitating long time partner... my employer is pretty progressive.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
I identify as a post-menopausal childless cat lady and I vote.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by cronewitch on Jun 15, 2011 11:39:20 GMT -5
The gender doesn't make any difference. Marriage for any couple is how the government divides people for taxes and benefits. If a couple is not married they can't file a joint tax return and if married must file jointly with rare exceptions. The marriage penalty is when two workers with roughly equal income need to file jointly. If a worker is married to a lower/no income person they benefit because of standard deductions and personal exceptions. Also things like tax the rich have higher income to be considered rich. Say you want to tax persons earning more than 250K as a single or 500K as a couple and you have a couple that one taxpayer earns 400K and the other earns 75K they aren't rich as a couple. As two singles one is rich and one isn't. The same at the bottom end of the pay scale a worker earning 75K married to one making 10K is moderate income. As singles the lower paid would qualify for some benefits like EITC as well as collect on the higher income persons SS if married.
A person who is always low income and never married will get almost no SS but if married more than 10 years can get very much more. Those rules were put in to encourage marriage and one spouse not expected to be equal earning.
Marriage is expensive for the government but great for people who can't earn a lot of money for any reason. To say you can't marry for one reason or another is unfair, marriage protects the financially weaker partner.
Besides all the marriage laws like inheritances, health insurance, pension rules and other things that acknowledge you are important in the life of your partner ahead of their parents, children and others.
I have been in a relationship 25 years but not married, if he died his half sister would have more rights than me. I might not even be allowed to plan is funeral or sell his truck and his pensions and SS would end. Even a three day leave at work wouldn't be a right when not related.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 11:42:46 GMT -5
Quick google search says that 253 out of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partnership benefits to their employees. I suspect those companies may be able to afford to do things that smaller companies cannot. I would be surprised if 50% of companies did offer this benefit. There will be a "real" cost for extending marital privledges. I'm still all for it. Given the small number of people we are talking about here - I think it is worth the cost. If nothing else, at least to make the issue go away. I mean - that little minority population sure makes a heck of a lot of noise. If you watched the news and sitcoms you would assume that 40% of America is gay.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 15, 2011 11:50:27 GMT -5
to tie this all back to the OP, with same sex marriage it might make marketing to that segment of the market easier - not so many hoops to jump thru in order to obscure the 'couple' part or sexuality part. Since the government collects taxes (as well as giving out benefits) is part of the deal, opening up or maybe just making/allowing a more visible an existing consumer market might boost income/sales taxes.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 15, 2011 11:54:34 GMT -5
I don't think the economic benefits would be huge, in fact I think if there were any they would be negligible. I don't think the government raises tons of revenue from marriage liscenses.
I think it would cost money now they could start drawing on each other's SS, medical benefits, and other things.
As far as spending money at businesses, gay people live together and spend money regardless of if they're married or not. I don't think it'd have much impact on businesses in the community.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 11:56:05 GMT -5
Just ban marriage all together. It doesn't do much for society since we pretty much think it is a joke anyway.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,989
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 15, 2011 12:03:25 GMT -5
Just ban marriage all together. It doesn't do much for society since we pretty much think it is a joke anyway.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 15, 2011 12:03:55 GMT -5
As far as spending money at businesses, gay people live together and spend money regardless of if they're married or not. I don't think it'd have much impact on businesses in the community.
Yes, gay people spend money regardless of whether they are married or not - what I think it comes down to is WHERE and WHAT businesses get the money. The gay people I know tend to support gay or gay friendly businesses. When they need a plumber or a roofer or a restaurant to go to - they don't necessarily pick the closet or best bid - they tend to support the one's that are gay friendly. Even if it means going out of their way to do it. My suburb wants the gay community to spend money within the city limits so they want the gay friendly plumber/roofer/restaurant IN the city not two suburbs over...
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,476
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 15, 2011 12:19:39 GMT -5
I imagine that "effect on government revenues" isn't a major point of contention vis a vis gay "marriage", for people on both sides of the issue. with all due respect, this is YM. the OP specifically wanted to look at it from a financial perspective. as far as your opinion on the topic overall, I think that those on this board that haven't read your posts on this topic in P&M can figure out where you stand simply from the quotation marks. robbase, you've included everything I would have come up with. I wonder how the numbers crunch as far as health insurance goes - now you have more married couples that are able to obtain "family" policies instead of individual "single" ones.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 12:25:32 GMT -5
If they could prove mathematically that it would increase or decrease government spending, this would be a totally different debate. Because the money effect would be negligible to society as a whole, no one is bringing it up.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Jun 15, 2011 12:46:08 GMT -5
<< Because they have less children. >>
They certainly have very few unplanned children. What a great system! Too bad it doesn't work that way for everyone.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,412
|
Post by phil5185 on Jun 15, 2011 12:50:57 GMT -5
The gay people I know tend to support gay or gay friendly businesses. When they need a plumber or a roofer or a restaurant to go to - they don't necessarily pick the closet or best bid - they tend to support the one's that are gay friendly. Even if it means going out of their way to do it. IMO the mathematics shows that any effect would be negligible. The gay issues are elevated by controversy and media attn which gives the illusion that the issue is huge. But the gay population is about 1.7% - and the spending patterns of that small 1.7% segment probably wouldn't shift much one way or the other due to marriage.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 15, 2011 12:58:56 GMT -5
1.7% seems awfully low to me. I thought it was estimated to be around 10%? Let me see if I can find a source. ETA - Looks like it's about 7-8%... at least according to the National Survey of Sexual Health & Behavior. www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 12:59:43 GMT -5
I heard 10% too. Same as gingers.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 15, 2011 13:00:31 GMT -5
10% We have several gay friends, but I don't think anywhere close to one in ten people I meet are gay.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 15, 2011 13:01:21 GMT -5
I could see 5%, maybe.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 15, 2011 13:02:08 GMT -5
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 15, 2011 13:04:44 GMT -5
So, the explanation for the 10% number is that it's really old and has been controversial since it was released, while several more recent estimates put the number at 3% or lower?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 15, 2011 13:06:29 GMT -5
Well in the link Thyme posted, it only counted "same-sex couples"... not people self-identifying as gay. Plenty of people - gay and straight - are not part of a couple, it doesn't render them asexual.
And the link I posted puts it around 7%, which seems reasonable to me. I'm sure it's hard to get solid numbers on this subject - just look at the "down low" community. Plenty of people are unwilling to admit their sexuality, even to themselves.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,476
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 15, 2011 13:14:18 GMT -5
well said, jd. Dark, another thing to think about is that you really can't tell a person's sexuality by their looks (well, except those really flamboyant guys...) and you've never needed to know that detail about the people you meet. IME, I've learned these details about people that I'm closer to. this includes the women in my locker room, since we pretty much see each other naked after hockey games. you tend to be a little more open with people after that. anyway, there are women I've found out were lesbian that I don't think I ever would have guessed that about. it was a great reality check that what I might assume about someone else could be so drastically inaccurate. just another thing to think about.
|
|