×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google To Add Pay To Cover a Tax For Gays

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the same-sex-compensation dept.

Google 1036

GrApHiX42 writes "Starting on Thursday, Google is going to increase the salaries of gay and lesbian employees whose partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax they must pay that heterosexual married couples do not. Google is not the first company to make up for the extra tax. At least a few large employers already do. But benefits experts say Google's move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, because they compete for the same talent."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1036 comments

Why so discriminating? (4, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754252)

Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way? That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them. It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways...

Re:Why so discriminating? (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754298)

Christianity is a dumb one to mention, seeing as the bible is clearly anti-asspounding. You might as well complain about the government not giving special tax breaks for all the other "sins" too.

Re:Why so discriminating? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754370)

But its not a sin to ass-pound yo momma right?

So Much For Employee Privacy! (-1, Troll)

dammy (131759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754628)

So much for Google Employee privacy! What business does Google have to snoop into it's employee's sexual preferences? What about Google employees who are straight who live with someone who they are not married, they going to see extra pay? What is it with Google and privacy, don't they have any respect for their own worker's privacy? Guess that just underscores what little respect they have of user's privacy issues.

Re:Why so discriminating? (4, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754454)

Christianity is NOT anti gay, some (most) of the christian churches are anti-gay. They base this on a selective reading of the Old Testament which they use to justify an opinion they already held previously. The "christians" who use their faith to justify anti-gay bigotry should be told to read Leviticus in its entirety and fuck off. Especially those in US churches that look more like Old Testament eschatological cults than anything teaching the New Testament values of love and forgiveness.

Re:Why so discriminating? (4, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754528)

I always say, if people go to hell for sodomy, then you're going to hell for shaving and wearing a cotton-poly blended T-shirt - both things mentioned in Leviticus...I don't think it specifically mentions T-shirts though.

Re:Why so discriminating? (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754626)

Even the new testament criticises homosexual relationships (and the only laws of the old testament that were "updated" in the new testament were ones to do with sacrifices and what you could put into your body).

I just Googled to find passages and opinions on it. One site tries to say that the bible is simply criticising non-Christian worship practices when it complains about same sex relationships, but that's clearly a load of horse shit. It would just say so if that was the case.

It also tries to claim that the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah is nothing to do with Sodomy and that "know" literally means know rather than "have sex with", when Lot clearly offers his daughters to "do with what you will" instead of the men.

I don't believe in any of it any more, but like I said I find it pathetic when people try to twist their own scriptures to make them more politically correct instead of just manning up. If you don't agree with your scriptures, then stop worshipping your bigoted God.

Re:Why so discriminating? (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754560)

You can try to twist it all you want, but Sodomy has that name for a reason. There is also at least one passage in the New Testament that decries homosexual relationships, not to mention a few that denigrate women.

Note that I'm not even a Christian any more, but I find it pathetic that people are trying to twist the bible to suit their own agendas and make it more politically acceptable rather than just standing up for what it says. At least when I was religious I stood up for my beliefs. I can respect people who stand up for themselves in the face of oppression.

PS I've "read Leviticus in its entirety" several times.

Re:Why so discriminating? (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754612)

You can try to twist it all you want, but Sodomy has that name for a reason.

PS I've "read Leviticus in its entirety" several times.

Blasphemy also has that name for a reason.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Re:Why so discriminating? (1, Insightful)

unixcrab (1080985) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754300)

I'm pretty sure the inequality imposed on them is a direct result of the imposition of Christian 'morals'

far less than 50% (-1, Troll)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754304)

First of all, consider kids and old people.

Next, it is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period. That's a side effect of birth control. Go all natural, and you probably get a couple periods every couple years. You also get adorable little babies and an enormous reduction in breast cancer risk.

Re:far less than 50% (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754350)

are you some kind of moran... =p

HE''S RIGHT: PREGNANT WOMEN DON"T HAVE (dots) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754602)

The morons are those who are looking for morons. A pregnant woman won't, so once or twice a year is correct if this woman is anything like the women on the weather channel.

Re:far less than 50% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754392)

You clearly know nothing about "periods" (menstruation) and birth control. Menstruation should happen every 28 days in theory but this is not the case in practice and many women have an irregular cycle that is not normal. Birth control pills regulate the cycle and most of other birth control methods have no influence (eg.: condoms).

Re:far less than 50% (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754508)

I think the point was that if you "go all natural", you'll get pregnant way more often, and thus "get a couple periods every couple years."

But, what do I know? I'll return to my basement now.

Re:far less than 50% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754400)

Discriminating against a small minority isn't really any better than discriminating against 50% of people

Re:far less than 50% (1, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754458)

It's much better. If you discriminate against 50% of people, they might vote you out at the next election. If you discriminate against a small minority, everyone else says 'well, I'm not one of those (Jews, Communists, Gays, Gypsies, whatever), so I don't care' and lets you stay in power.

Re:far less than 50% (0, Offtopic)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754494)

Next, it is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period. That's a side effect of birth control. Go all natural, and you probably get a couple periods every couple years.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that this lack of basic knowledge of the human female reproductive system is strongly correlated with the fact that you have a 5-digit user ID.

Unless you think the vast majority of women on the planet are being surreptitiously fed contraceptive pills by some clandestine government agency, the statistics point to an average 1-month menstrual cycle. Bear in mind that records began before we knew about such things as the corpus luteum, oocytes, and probably back when we all blamed Eve for original sin and the bleeding from her hoo-hoo was the punishment.

Abnormal levels of oestrogen is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, though.

Re:far less than 50% (1, Insightful)

indeterminator (1829904) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754616)

So what would you use that "human female reproductive system" for?

Parent's point being, there's no period when you're pregnant.

example for those who didn't get the point (2, Informative)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754640)

A woman gets one or two periods, and then she's pregnant.

Roughly 9 months go by with nothing.

A baby is delivered. I suppose you could call that a period, maybe.

Breastfeeding suppresses the menstrual cycle. The woman can almost certainly go 6 months without a period, and stands a decent chance of going 18 months or more.

So there you go. Regular periods are NOT natural. They are a side effect of birth control.

Each kid born, and each kid nursed, reduces the risk of breast cancer. It's a 5% drop and a 7% drop, or the other way around. Assuming every kid is nursed, that should be about 12% to 13% risk reduction per kid. A woman naturally has about a dozen kids. Breast cancer is quite rare in countries where women birth early and often.

BTW, another side effect specific to the pill: reduced sex drive.

Re:far less than 50% (0, Offtopic)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754644)

Next, it is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period. That's a side effect of birth control. Go all natural, and you probably get a couple periods every couple years.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that this lack of basic knowledge of the human female reproductive system is strongly correlated with the fact that you have a 5-digit user ID.

Hello? Slashdot? There are loud whooshing noises in my thread.

Re:Why so discriminating? (5, Interesting)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754336)

This is the angle I can never figure out. Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it. And, no, alternative sexual orientation is not a crime. The argument that a extending rights such as marriage to gay couples somehow lessens the social value of marriage is ridiculous. Following that same logical path, all those that do not practice christian marriage (Jewish, Islamic, Navajo) are also decreasing the social value of "christian" marriage.

I hope that Google's position in this matter will help influence other companies and eventually federal and state policies positively. If enough companies throw their weight behind this issue, it will become standard to offer a salary benefit for gay partners to cover the tax difference. Once it becomes standard, you can bet that companies will start lobbying congress to solve this problem in order to save them money.

Aside from the tax issues, how can anyone that appreciates the freedoms offered by our constitution and the rationale backing it in the declaration of independence, willfully discriminate against another based solely on private, personal preference? After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."

Re:Why so discriminating? (2, Insightful)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754514)

After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."

It's men and not people, and at the time of writing I'm guessing it really did mean actual males and not men as in mankind which includes women, since women couldn't vote then and clearly weren't equal. Even ignoring that, I've always found that sentence to be deeply suspect. When it was first written, they somehow managed to have it not include slaves.

Re:Why so discriminating? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754538)

That's all fine and well. They just shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, as such a practice might perpetuate a purely social lifestyle that has no biological or evolutionary purpose (other than to naturally remove each partners genes from the pool).

Re:Why so discriminating? (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754344)

Stop pretending. The "christian moral agenda" is only ever used retrospectively when it happens to agree with the laws of the day.

Re:Why so discriminating? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754390)

> Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way?

Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.

Since it is the job of the future generation to care about the current generation when it becomes elderly, people who do not contribute DNS to the future generation, shall be required to shoulder extra burden for the common good of the society.

In Europe and South America many countries actually had taxes for healthy 25+, who were unmarried and 30+ still without kids. You had to bring sworn witnesses to say you were refused engagement at least 3 times in the previous year, due to ugliness, if you wanted to skip the tax. The state provided funds to poor girls so they could marry and those having a medical excuse were offered to adopt a child or pay the tax.

Re:Why so discriminating? (5, Insightful)

rjch (544288) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754522)

Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.

Contributing children towards Planet Earth is something that governments in general are going to have to discourage. At least one country on Earth already does. The planet simply cannot sustain a growing population indefinitely.

I should also note that many gay or lesbian couples do adopt children, or undergo fertility treatment to have children.

Since it is the job of the future generation to care about the current generation when it becomes elderly, people who do not contribute DNS to the future generation, shall be required to shoulder extra burden for the common good of the society.

In general, the elderly that the current generation care for are their own parents, not other "generic" elderly people. Given your logic, then gay and lesbian people are doing themselves a disservice by leaving themselves without someone to care for them when they grow older.

In Europe and South America many countries actually had taxes for healthy 25+, who were unmarried and 30+ still without kids.

Whilst I've never heard of such a tax, I suspect that "had" is the operative word if such taxes did actually exist. We are already straining environmental resources significantly with the population we have. We do not need more to contribute to the problem.

Re:Why so discriminating? (2, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754646)

your reasonning
1- assumes children is the only thing people can contribute to society. How about the guy that decrypted Nazi communications in WW2, and so on ?
2- assumes all children are a good thing. They may all have the potential to be, but in the end, some are clearly not, and not only will not contribute anything to your retirement fund, but will take a faire bit from it, or kill you.
3- does not handle the case of heterosexuals who can't have kids.. same treatment for them, then ?
4- forgets that some or most homosexuals would like to have, or foster, kids, while at the same time plenty of kids are missing parents.

Other than that, it's a very good reasoning, not oversimplified at all...

Re:Why so discriminating? (2, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754398)

Yeah, tell me about it!

When I beget my girlfriend, we couldn't get benefits - I had to go and marry her!

The other thing that sucks in this society, you can't beget girls like you could in the Bible - you know, girls who just had their first period - 13 year olds. That's prime childbearing age! What the heck!

Anyway, I don't know why Google just doesn't save money and stone the gays to death just like the Bible tells us to!

Re:Why so discriminating? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754472)

When I beget my girlfriend

Your girlfriend is also your daughter that you gave birth to? That's pretty messed up.

Re:Why so discriminating? (0)

CProgrammer98 (240351) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754418)

it's less than 50% - young girls/old women don;t need them and the male population is slightly greater than the female population.

Re:Why so discriminating? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754600)

"It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways..."

Not in practice, by which one should judge religions. Religionists wish to be judged according to theory cherry-picked from their fantasy books, instead of what their movement does.

God Hates Fags, so reject religion.

Andrew (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754260)

... a tax for gays? w...why?

Re:Andrew (5, Funny)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754368)

Sure, why not? We tax alcohol and tobacco too. Are you suggesting that this is a sin tax error?

Re:Andrew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754518)

oh well done. well done.
you get the cheesiest joke in the thread award!

Re:Andrew (2, Insightful)

Nitage (1010087) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754380)

I think what happens is that health benefits to your spouse are tax free. Health benefits to your partner to whom you're not married are not - and gay couples can't get married. Of course this screws over the non-married heterosexual couples - maybe Google should just pay the tax for everyone who gets charged it.

Well, heck! We can all be gay! (0)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754276)

Got a friend? Want more money?

If need be, you can use half the money to rent a friend.

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay! (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754324)

This. All I see is an article about how the government intrudes into family lives, giving particular benefits to two heterosexuals living together in a particular sort of arrangement but not to singles, homosexuals or people living together under other arranegments. And Google has decided to follow the government's lead by discriminating against everyone whose lifestyle is not that of a particular steady homosexual partnership, e.g. people who remain single / practice polyamory / shack up in a massive commune / sleep around / anything else.

All this crap about the moving helping in "competing for the same talent" implies that everyone is either in a gay marriage[tm] or straight marriage[tm].

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay! (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754502)

That was pretty much my reading too. I think the correct solution is to give in to the Christians wanting the state not to recognise gay marriage and go a step further - the state should not recognise any kind of marriage. If you want to sign a contract for shared ownership of possessions and to cohabit with someone, that's possible without marriage law. If you want to get this agreement blessed by your favourite religion, that's not the state's business.

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay! (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754512)

Better yet auction it off on e-bay.
Have excellent health care plan, sell the partner part for extra cost plus 10-20%. Be sure to get a contract written up that they pay for any deductibles and you good to go.

Still unfair.. (4, Insightful)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754312)

Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against. They should get the same as the Gay/Lesbian couples, some people may not believe in marrage or may not want to get married for one reason or another. Why should they be forced to marry just to avoid a tax?

Re:Still unfair.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754338)

Damn straight, because it's all about the heteros, because they're so discriminated against and are lacking in lots of rights...

Two wrongs don't make a right (3, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754420)

Sorry,two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, spare me the BS please. He's not proposing to deny you gay marriage or anything, he's just just saying basically that compensating that tax for one particular slice is still leaving out a whole other lot of slices which, for all practical purposes, are just as married.

It seems strange to me to see reactions basically boiling down to "booyah, now it's your turn to suck it up." Unless he is one of those that actually did anything against you in the first place, two wrongs just don't make a right.

And basically you're trying to prove what? That gays can be just as much self-centered pricks as the fundies on the other side? We already knew that. After all the most vehement anti-gay preachers turned out to _be_ gay.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (0)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754570)

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but it can be used to balance it up (roughly) until the original wrong is fixed

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754648)

Nobody said not to balance. All that the OP was saying is that it still leaves a bunch of the population for which nothing is balanced.

Re:Still unfair.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754352)

"some people may not believe in marrage"

You don't believe in getting a certificate from a non-religious Justice of the Peace? Sorry, but suck it up, princess.

"may not want to get married"

Then don't. Straight people are being discriminated against? Forgive language better suited to sites other than Slashdot, but give me a fucking break. Oh, we poor heterosexuals, what with our option to actually get married if we choose.

Re:Still unfair.. (0, Troll)

Nitage (1010087) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754388)

Put a sock in it. Your government discriminates against unmarried people of all sexualities, Gogole discriminates against unmarried heterosexual people.

Re:Still unfair.. (5, Funny)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754466)

Just convince your employer that your girl is actually a dude. Photoshop could help out, but maybe it's not even needed.

Re:Still unfair.. (4, Insightful)

gutnor (872759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754486)

Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner : Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)

Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.

not really, because everybody benefits (4, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754510)

No law can be defect-free, but consider the fact that every member of a Gay/Lesbian couple was once a child.

Some mostly-correct assumptions are implicit in the law. Kids are known to do better in intact families. (even kids that grow up to be gay) Kids do better with a stay-at-home parent, traditionally the mom. Hetero couples generally produce kids. Legal issues related to kids (inheritance, etc.) are easier with a married couple.

Even totally single people benefit from marriage-related tax breaks. Oh sure, having benefited as a child it would be mighty nice (totally selfish) to throw away the tax advantages for the generation that follows. Your childhood is comfy, and screw the next generation, hmmm?

It's kind of like social security, moving wealth across generations. The kids are at least a good investment; they cost less and aren't just waiting around to die. Better food or additional at-home parental time would do some good.

Think of the children, Gay ones included.

Re:Still unfair.. (0, Flamebait)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754516)

Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against.

Nothing prevents an unmarried hetero couple from entering a civil partnership with each other (just go to city hall and have a judge do it). The real victims here are the overwhelming majority of slash-doters, that are 30+ years old that are still living with their mom, and that couldn't get laid with a female (or a male) even if their very lives depended on it (unless it's on some virtual MMORPGs).

And unless marriages in MMORPGs become legal, with all the legal fringe benefits of marriage, without the scary prospect of ever having to meet your virtual wife (or gay partner/husband) in real life; I'm afraid most of us will always be discriminated against.

Re:Still unfair.. (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754624)

If you don't believe in the sanctity of marriage, getting married becomes just an administrative task. And complaining about it is protesting against unefficiency and wasted time (opinion with which I wholeheartedly agree) but this is not discrimination.

Re:Still unfair.. (3, Interesting)

Xarius (691264) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754636)

In your country, a heterosexual couple can actually get married.

A gay couple can't, the unmarried heterosexual couples are depriving themselves of the benefit this type of contract provides by choice.

Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (5, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754314)

Boy, do I see a lawsuit brewing here. How can they legally justify paying straight people less than gays, if all other factors are equal? I don't care about any tax issues. Does Google pay an apartment dweller more just because they don't get a mortgage write-off? Do they pay a single person more because he can't claim to be a head-of-household under IRS rules like a married person does? Do they pay a blind person less because they get two personal exemptions rather than one on their ISR 1040? If their pay policy doesn't address these and a lot more tax inequities, then I hope that they get sued big time for a pay policy that actually favors gays over straight people. In short, it's not for Google to start correcting the unfairness of the tax system, and to do so in a discriminatory manner that favors gays over straights just isn't right or smart.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (5, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754328)

So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754478)

No, the idea is that employers should not be able to discriminate to make up for some other discrimination the employer perceived. Two wrongs don't make a right. The heterosexual employees are not discriminating against the gay employees, so why should they pay the price?

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754492)

So a private-sector company can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but a private-sector company cannot discriminate on the basis of "race"?

The answer is the same to both questions and the relevant term is "protected class" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class [wikipedia.org].

Like it or not, we are not all equal under the law and the relevant law that defines when we are not equal is different in different jurisdictions.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754558)

No, the government can't and you should collectively stop them doing it.

Wait, you're not gay and don't care about gay rights unless you're on the losing end? Hypocrites.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754564)

So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?

The government does have the advantage of making the rules...

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754638)

Actually, that's probably true in more-or-less any country that gives tax breaks to married couples but doesn't allow gay couples similar breaks.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (4, Insightful)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754444)

OK. So, you are upset google is compensating gays in long term relationships for a tax code that is discriminatory against gays and you wish to eliminate unfair wages based on sexual orientation. So then by implication I can assume you are also wishing to legalize gay marriage so that we can eliminate the federal tax code discrimination against long term gay relationships in order to stamp out google's wage discrimination which is based on countering the federal tax code discrimination against gays?

Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (3, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754500)

consistent logical argument
US politics abandoned that quaint idea decades ago.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (0)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754540)

Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.

I doubt you really believe that. How about pedophiles in a kindergarten?

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (2, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754572)

Minors can't (by definition) render legal consent so I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (1)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754664)

The point I'm making is that I'm guessing you are not in favor of employing pedophiles in kindergartens, even if they promise not to engage in inappropriate conduct with the children. I could be wrong about that, but suppose I'm not. Then you are promoting a form of sexual discrimination that applies only in particular for pedophiles, which is inconsistent with your previously stated position.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (1)

Burpmaster (598437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754652)

Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.

I doubt you really believe that. How about pedophiles in a kindergarten?

Keeping pedophiles out of kindergarten isn't sexual discrimination. Try again.

In Reggae (no pun intended) terms... (1, Interesting)

Anyd (625939) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754504)

Legalize it... Fixes the whole problem (and makes us look a little less like rednecks to the civilized world.)

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754548)

Let's hope there is a lawsuit. This has nothing to do with homosexuality. If the state does not recognize your marriage, the IRS will tax your benefits from your partner. This is a tax on your beliefs and is unconstitutional.

Maybe Google can put an end to this 22 year old IRS ruling when Clinton could not.

Old news (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754346)

It's just another way to hilight what Google feels is a better place to work. Sweeten the pot and hire workers before your competition. Nothing new in that regard - just publicity.

At someone's expense, of course, but hey, you can't owe your soul to the company store if it's not open..

Five months maternity leave? (3, Interesting)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754364)

From the article:

Working for a company as rich as Google comes with an incredible number of fringe benefits: the free food, the free laundry, the doctor on duty at company headquarters and the impressive five months of maternity leave with full pay and benefits, to mention a few.

Five months is impressive? 26 weeks (almost 6 months) is a legal right [direct.gov.uk] over here. In some countries it's much, much more [wikipedia.org]!

Re:Five months maternity leave? (3, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754408)

Maternity leave is one area where the US is particularly behind the rest of the world. In general US labor laws are tilted in favor of the business you work for, what will be most profitable for them, unlike much of Europe where the employees actually have more power in many situations than their employers (as it should be).

Re:Five months maternity leave? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754610)

Oh the US isn't that far behind in maternity leave. It's still pretty substantial.
Where the US is behind is in paid vacation and paid sick leave. The US is the only industrialized nation in the world
that does not guarantee either by law. Your employer in the US doesn't have to give you any paid vacation and thus what
you usually get isn't much. Many companies only give 10 days, and you're considered lucky to get an absurdly low 15 days with no separate sick leave either! In Europe 25+ days paid vacation is the standard and you aren't forced to use up your vacation days when you fall ill.

Th
 

Re:Five months maternity leave? (2, Interesting)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754530)

I notice you posted a link but I will jump at a chance to promote my country anyway:

Norway: ONE YEAR! Thats right, one year on your ass if you pop one out. And if that's not enough, we got paternity leave too. Daddy gets to take time off! It is teh win.

Hush now dear! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754556)

They are from United States of America.

It is not nice to make fun of disadvantaged people like that.

Re:Five months maternity leave? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754608)

Yep, in Brazil it is 12 months maternity leave and 6 months paternity leave WITH FULL PAY. And unemployment over there is only 5% while in the US it remains above 12%. And don't come with all the BS about Brazil being poor and such. They are not poor, they used to be. Now they are the safe harbor of worldwide investors and they are the second country in number of billionaires after the USA.
I know that because Brazilian billionaires just bought the company I work for and are buying all the companies here in South Florida, and they got this incentive plan if we want to learn Portuguese and work in Brazil for 1 year.

Women & social security benefits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754410)

Women live longer than men, and therefore on average receive more social security benefits than men (because it starts at the same age for both). Therefore, should it not be OK to pay men more to compensate them for the missed benefits? (The benefits received is not based on amounts paid in after a very low threshold is met.)

Yeah!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754438)

All the late night anal rodeos with my co-workers is finally going to get me somewhere! Mmmm, anal massacre.

Is there a way to exploit this? (1)

Liambp (1565081) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754462)

I am not familiar with US taxation and benefit systems but I wonder is there a way to fiddle this by pretending to be gay just to get a pay rise?

Re:Is there a way to exploit this? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754542)

Well, if youre not already married to a lady, then I dont see why not. Its not like theyre gonna come round to your house and check that you are indeed in it for the bumsex.

Re:Is there a way to exploit this? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754568)

Sure! Just start having relationships with men while secretly lusting for women, and you'll be good to go!

Good luck staying sane. Oh, and if you get found with a female hooker you'll probably be done for tax fraud.

Health care taxes done rigght & not an issue (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754480)

People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government. Anything otherwise is discriminatory. It isn't necessarily discriminatory to give write offs to family though over individuals. We live in a welfare state and certain benefits are provided to you. Schooling, tax write-offs to your parents, etc. You received these once too even if it was indirectly. If I create a family with another man (I'm a guy) and raise a child with him than why shouldn't I also be entitled to the same tax write-offs and health benefits that any other hetrosexual family is entitled to? And the same thing basically applies to other write-offs for many other things like disabilities, etc. There may be things that the government allows you to write off that you shouldn't be able to write off or is discriminatory against the poor/rich classes. For instance if they allowed only high ticket items to be deductible for tax purposes and only taxed the lower part of your income. In effect making the poor pay the taxes and the rich pay nothing. Or possibly the exact opposite. In any case this issue is clear cut. Gays shouldn't pay more than anybody else. That's just wrong. If you want to tax the childless population- because they have a larger disposable income-maybe we can figure something out- but don't do it based on the Gay population- there is an identical family structure here that is utterly discriminatory.

Re:Health care taxes done rigght & not an issu (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754584)

People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government.

Um, no.

I'm with Google on doing what we can to alleviate the discriminatory burden, but it's really you who is missing the point. The only "government recognition" of a "family" that should occur is establishing who is legally responsible for any minor children (and then only if there is a practical issue that needs to be resolved). Past that, the government needs to stay the hell out of "recognizing" *anything*.

There is no way for the government to "recognize" families in a non-discriminatory way, because there's always going to be a situation that doesn't conform to the government's view on what constitutes a "family", no matter how broad that view tries to be. The correct solution is to eliminate the recognition entirely.

Re:Health care taxes done rigght & not an issu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754592)

You're missing the point. Everything you say about how it "should" be may be correct. But it isn't that way, and it's not for Google to discriminate one way to counteract the way it is vs. the way it should be. Why should *I* personally pay for the sins of *our* government?

It pays to be gay (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32754490)

Sods law!

Flawed marriage law - Google isn't helping much (2, Interesting)

Alien1024 (1742918) | more than 3 years ago | (#32754576)

Either legalize same-sex marriage, or just do away with any kind of legal marriage at all. The latter is what I would do if I had my way. Why does the state meddle in what should be a commitment between two people?

And Google isn't helping same-sex couples much. Sure, they are making up for some tax exemptions those couples don't have, but in a wider view they are helping maintain the status quo of marriage laws that are flawed in the first place, in addition to discriminating against heterosexual unmarried couples.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...