Gay Patriot Header Image

Discrimination Against Straight People At Google?

Sure seems that way. (h/t – GP Reader Peter Hughes)

Starting Thursday, Google will adjust paychecks for its gay and lesbian employees who opt for domestic partner benefits to cover for a tax those employees have to pay, the New York Times reports.

As it is now, Mountain View-based Google offers benefits to the spouses or partners of both straight and gay employees. However, the married straight employees don’t get taxed on those extra benefits — but the gay employees do as part of the federal laws.

The pay raise will be retroactive to the beginning of 2010 and will apply only to employees in the U.S. Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won’t see the pay adjustment, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished.

Please note that Google employees are now getting paid on TAX LAW and PERCEIVED TAX bias; not getting paid according to his/her abilities. 

Sign me up as completely opposed to this.  Shall I get paid more because I have three dogs to support?

Where does this madness end?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

65 Comments

  1. PeeJ,

    I am having a very hard time trying to read what you are trying to communicate. So much so, that I can not tell what you are saying.

    From my perspective, Google has the corporate right to do what it wishes with its money. I am neanderthal enough to allow them to NOT hire me because of my skin color. If they want their receptionists to look like Fox News cuties, I do not care. I would not support them leading a parade for ugly people at the front desk. On the other hand, if they want to put butt ugly and gross people at the front desk, I also support that decision. Clear?

    Google chooses to supplement gays with partners to offset the loses occurred because the gays can not marry and get the married tax rate. Fine by me. It is their money. Furthermore, if it attracts gays with partners who have great talent, I would call it a brilliant business decision. Clear?

    Single people pay more taxes because they can not get the married tax rate. How about them? What are they, chopped liver? Heteros who eschew marriage but couple up are not getting the Google extra pay boost. Why? Does Google have a special soft spot for gays?

    What is the operating premise at Google? Mind you, I really don’t care. They can set themselves on fire on days that come before a legal holiday, if they like.

    This is a “gay” site and the comments seem not to question why Google only moved to offset tax anomalies for gays when the tax code screws gays and non gays in lots of other ways as well.

    It appears to my homophobe, str8 self that Google is not fully clear in its own corporate mind about what it is doing and why.

    I anxiously await an edumacation.

    And, thanks, ILC. You understand my point perfectly.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 4, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - July 4, 2010

  2. You’ve got it exactly backwards: they are now effectively paying straight people more than they pay gays.

    No, they are not.

    Previously, Google was paying straight and gay people exactly the same amount.

    However, the gay-sex liberal Obama Party is charging people who aren’t married more in taxes. Furthermore, the gay-sex liberal Obama Party adamantly REFUSED to change the exemption in federal law and extend it to non-spousal beneficiaries, because doing so would reduce the amount of Federal tax revenue.

    In addition, the difference is not on the basis of sexual orientation. If a gay man and lesbian entered a marriage, they would receive the exemption as well. If an opposite-sex heterosexual couple wants DP benefits, they can get them, and they will pay the additional tax as well. In that case, you would have gay people being “paid more” and straight people being “paid less”.

    There are two problems with you, PeeJ.

    First, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between base salary and take-home pay. Two employees with the same base salary may receive very different take-home pay amounts due to their different CHOICES, such as their election of health coverage, their 401(k) contributions, their exemptions and deferrals, and so forth.

    Second, as a good Obama Party puppet gay, you are incapable of acknowledging that the problem could be easily fixed by changing the tax code. The reason why is twofold — one, you’re not as interested in fixing the problem as you are trying to use this as a red herring for gay-sex marriage, and two, you are incapable of criticizing your Obama Party for its REFUSAL to do so as part of the health care “reform” bill, because that would mean they were “homophobic”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - July 4, 2010

  3. Also, I would point out the flaw in the gay leftist “logic” here:

    — Gay leftists are screaming that only gay and lesbian employees are affected. Therefore, Google is paying people differently based on their sexual orientation.

    Illegal in the state of California, by the way.

    — Gay leftists are screaming that only gay and lesbian people who are partnered are getting salary increases. Therefore, Google is paying people differently based on their relationship status.

    Illegal in BOTH California and under Federal law.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2010 @ 5:31 pm - July 4, 2010

  4. Single people pay more taxes because they can not get the married tax rate. How about them? What are they, chopped liver?

    Single gay people don’t get paid any more than single straight people. Married people (may, but not necessarily) get more in benefits than single people. If that’s discrimination, then Google is discriminating against single people regardless of sexual orientation.

    Heteros who eschew marriage but couple up are not getting the Google extra pay boost. Why?

    Does the company pay DP benefits? If the straight couple wants to receive beenfits which are excluded from federal taxes for married people then they should get married. If the company were to provide DP benefits for hetero couples, those benefits WOULD be taxed, just like the gay couple’s. Many straight couples qwho would otherwise divorce do not legally dissolve their marriages to exploit that very fact. The issue is completely tied to marital status, it has nothing to do with sexuality – except that gays can’t get married.

    Does Google have a special soft spot for gays?

    Perhaps, though they dont’ seem to obsess about gays nearly as you do.

    Comment by PeeJ — July 4, 2010 @ 5:54 pm - July 4, 2010

  5. Second, as a good Obama Party puppet gay, you are incapable of acknowledging that the problem could be easily fixed by changing the tax code.

    Yes, changes to the tax code are easily made, overnight even, at the whim of individuals. It’s the easiest thing in the world, everyone knows how easy it is to change the tax code. I am stunned that I did not realize how incredibly simple and easy it is to change the tax code. And apparently, it can be done by the administration, completekly without any involvement by Congress. F—ing legistlaures – how do they work?

    Comment by PeeJ — July 4, 2010 @ 5:58 pm - July 4, 2010

  6. Single gay people don’t get paid any more than single straight people. Married people (may, but not necessarily) get more in benefits than single people. If that’s discrimination, then Google is discriminating against single people regardless of sexual orientation.

    Which it now is, because it is paying people more IN CASH based on their relationship status.

    Again, PeeJ, if you weren’t so desperate to be a good Obama troll and defend your Obama Party for opposing the repeal of this provision in tax law, you might be able to admit that this is a really idiotic response.

    Also, I would point out the following:

    – For gay men, the median household income is $83,000 per year (gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, according to US census data.

    – For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000 per year (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000)

    So since gay-sex liberal PeeJ and his fellow “health care reform” supporters insist that people who make more should be taxed more on their health care benefits, what they are doing is exactly opposite what they advocate in the first place.

    Since gay and lesbian people make more, they should be taxed more. Isn’t that right, PeeJ? Or are you going to be a good little hypocrite now and argue that gay and lesbian people should be taxed less? Since the gay and lesbian community overwhelmingly endorses higher taxes, why do they scream that paying higher taxes is “unfair”? Is it because gay and lesbian people like you are hypocrites?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - July 4, 2010

  7. Jeez! Peej gets more confusing as he goes along. If only he’d actually answer questions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2010 @ 10:04 pm - July 4, 2010

  8. And also, I would point out that the Obama Party, which owns and commands the vast majority of gays and lesbians in this country, has established the following mantras.

    — Richer people should be forced to pay higher taxes to pull the poor out of poverty

    Paying higher taxes is your patriotic duty

    Therefore, gay and lesbian people who rail against paying higher taxes, such as in this case, are unpatriotic and hate poor people.

    Now watch how quickly Rob Tisinai, Evan Hurst, and their fellows reverse themselves and argue that it’s the patriotic duty of gays and lesbians to pay higher taxes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 5, 2010 @ 12:00 am - July 5, 2010

  9. – Richer people should be forced to pay higher taxes to pull the poor out of poverty

    – Paying higher taxes is your patriotic duty

    Which is why they’re taxing wounded veterans for medical equipment via the ObamaCareless healthcare bastardization.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 5, 2010 @ 3:23 am - July 5, 2010

  10. Like I said elsewhere, Google does discriminate against unmarried straight couples. I’m all for letting them, but hten people who don’t have an issue with it should never comment about private businesses discriminating.

    Funny that PeeJ wants to have his partnership method recognized, but demands two straight folks get married to get the benefits he thinks he deserves.

    Liberty for thee and not for me PeeJ?

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 5, 2010 @ 9:18 am - July 5, 2010

  11. Wanted to add this bit.

    PeeJ wrote:

    If the straight couple wants to receive beenfits which are excluded from federal taxes for married people then they should get married.

    So if the same sex couple wants to receive benefits, one of ’em should get a sex change operation, then they can get married to get benefits. Right PeeJ?

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 6, 2010 @ 7:43 am - July 6, 2010

  12. Peej – Your rant at #48 is one of the stupider things I’ve read on this blog, doing nothing whatever to answer my points. Perhaps it was therapeutic for you, although I would doubt even that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 6, 2010 @ 10:26 am - July 6, 2010

  13. As an example of your stupidity, Peej, take this:

    How does “lobbying for tax changes” – which you presume they aren’t already doing – fix the inequity?

    It works like this, Peej. The problem that Google wants to fix, is that when they give partner benefits to a gay couple, the Federal tax codes taxes it as “imputed income”. Which the Federal tax code wouldn’t do for a gay couple. Now, if the Federal tax code were changed to recognize gay civil unions, and so to NOT tax the gay couple – that would fix the problem. And you know what? It would fix it for all gay couples. Not just the ones who work for Google.

    Now is that explanation clear enough for you, Peej? Or are you too PLAIN STUPID to understand it? There’s also this:

    You just can’t stand the thought of those icky gays getting as good as you.

    How very little you know about me, Peej. Please scroll up to my comment #7. Then read the lead sentence of my second paragraph. Then reflect on how completely, utterly stupid your comment was. Thanks!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 6, 2010 @ 10:31 am - July 6, 2010

  14. Sorry, typo – “The problem that Google wants to fix, is that when they give partner benefits to a gay couple, the Federal tax code taxes it as ‘imputed income’… which it wouldn’t do for a -straight- couple.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 6, 2010 @ 10:32 am - July 6, 2010

  15. Bruce, just a couple of thoughts:

    Shall I get paid more because I have three dogs to support?

    Of course not. Because under the tax code, your dogs are irrelevant whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. Which sort of gets to this other comment:

    Please note that Google employees are now getting paid on TAX LAW and PERCEIVED TAX bias; not getting paid according to his/her abilities.

    I get what you’re saying, but I disagree. I think Google’s point is not that there is a “perceived” tax bias for their partnered GLBT employees. The tax code is biased – toward married couples. Nothing wrong with that per se, but in the end it means that this particular business, which chooses to offer benefits to partnered gay employees, ends up with employees getting paid less after taxes than their heterosexual counterparts.

    Let me attempt to turn your statement around to offer another way to look at it: Partnered gay couples are paid less for the same abilities because the tax code imposes a higher burden on them. I don’t think this is a statement of perceived biases at all. It’s simply a fact of the tax code.

    This has been an interesting discussion to read in the comments. I do think there’s something we’ve missed here though – the symbolism of Google’s action. In much the same way that chaining yourself to the White House fence accomplishes little immediate affect on DADT but can have enormous symbolic value in raising awareness, you can look at this action by Google as having power to bring attention to an inequity in the tax code. It’s a statement (in some ways) by Google that their GLBT employees are just as valuable as their heterosexual employees and can bring awareness to the clueless that the tax law treats them differently.

    I admit to being a bit biased on this issue, since I work for a large company that offers DP benefits, and it does impact my taxes negatively. It’s a trade-off I willing made when my partner was self-employed because the astronomical cost of private health insurance for him was far higher than my added tax burden.

    Comment by Neptune — July 6, 2010 @ 12:21 pm - July 6, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.