How will same-sex marriage affect SS/Pensions?

[Calico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethum [snip] As for the original question, any negative fiscal effect on the federal treasury will be trivial in the grand scheme of things. But the effects for individual same-sex couples or surviving spouses are potentially highly significant. The greater effect, however, is to make gay citizens equal to straight citizens, at least in those 13 states & DC where same-sex marriage exists. That's priceless.

+100

[WestLake]

In the vast majority of Anerica you can still be fired for being gay. You can be ostracized from your family, effectively excommunicated and if you look at somebody the "wrong" way, get your ass kicked. Most gay people are not going to be getting married or even coming out of the closet. So putting a percentage on the population is a dicey business.

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERhoosier But in a few narrow circumstances the "unlimited" marriage estate tax exemption could in be a net tax DISadvantage. IIRC, for 2013 the exemption is $5.25M. Two individuals worth $5M each could die & leave total $10M to their heirs without triggering estate taxes. However if those 2 marry, one dies & inherits all, then that remaining spouse soon dies the gov't gets to tax $4.5M of the total estate of these 2 folks.

Yes, if you are trying to pass on the estate to kids or someone else concentrating the whole large estate in the surviving spouse could be a problem. You can get around that by having the assets go into a family trust with the surviving spouse as executor holding authority to use the assets for maintenance during his or her lifetime. I don't know whether two unmarried partners can do the same thing. I doubt it or same sex couples would have been using that approach to bypass immediate estate taxes for years. In any event, 401ks and IRAs can't be handled with a trust. Spouses and kids are able to empty tax advantaged accounts over time so they don't take a huge immediate hit. Not sure whether that applies to a non-related partner who inherits.

[militaryman]

IMHO this will open up the whole idea to the entire population of exactly what the benefits and detractors are financially when two decide to marry (SS, pensions, healthcare etc etc)

The idea that two people that are married are necessarily romantically involved will slowly dissipate as folks realize that by getting hitched they can get healthcare, "protect" their nest egg and/or pass more on to their kids if they find "another" that has like interests of working the way our current system is set up to their advantage.

I would say in 10 years or less that two guys that are married and 65 years old would in no way be thought of as necessarily gay, just the same sex. Also you might very well see a gal of 27 years old "marrying" a 65 year old gal (possibly offering to help the older gal with elder care?) and then BOOM health coverage for life even after that older gal passes as long as the 27 yo does not remarry. Lots of scenarios like this will become the norm. is my guess and you (friends and relatives) of the two "gals" might never even know that it is occuring as it will be more of a business arrangement between two people than anything else.

Right now people probably do not think much of the financial benefits of marrying or not ( although I think the elderly population does more so ) But now that the legalization of same sex marraige is occuring I think that ALL people (not just 3-30% or whatever) will start to get educated on the advantages and disadvantages and in tough times people will use those advantages. And as more and more DO take advantage then others will pile on and realize that by not considering this route they are possibly giving up some serious benefits.
Since the whole of the population will then be considering the advantages of marrying for financial benefits then the adverse effects on SS, pension systems etc WILL be hugely effected but I think that within 30 years the laws will all have to be re-written so that being married or not has little or no benefit.

[Meadbh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadbh I predict a boom in the wedding industry, to be followed in a few years by a smaller boom in divorce litigation. At least that's what has happened here.

Guess how much the same-sex wedding industry is worth in Canada (think big) - The Globe and Mail

This timely article puts the impact at ~$567m in Canada. Just multiply by 10 to estimate economic impact in the US.

[Ready]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman IMHO this will open up the whole idea to the entire population of exactly what the benefits and detractors are financially when two decide to marry (SS, pensions, healthcare etc etc) The idea that two people that are married are necessarily romantically involved will slowly dissipate as folks realize that by getting hitched they can get healthcare, "protect" their nest egg and/or pass more on to their kids if they find "another" that has like interests of working the way our current system is set up to their advantage. I would say in 10 years or less that two guys that are married and 65 years old would in no way be thought of as necessarily gay, just the same sex. Also you might very well see a gal of 27 years old "marrying" a 65 year old gal (possibly offering to help the older gal with elder care?) and then BOOM health coverage for life even after that older gal passes as long as the 27 yo does not remarry. Lots of scenarios like this will become the norm. is my guess and you (friends and relatives) of the two "gals" might never even know that it is occuring as it will be more of a business arrangement between two people than anything else. Right now people probably do not think much of the financial benefits of marrying or not ( although I think the elderly population does more so ) But now that the legalization of same sex marraige is occuring I think that ALL people (not just 3-30% or whatever) will start to get educated on the advantages and disadvantages and in tough times people will use those advantages. And as more and more DO take advantage then others will pile on and realize that by not considering this route they are possibly giving up some serious benefits. Since the whole of the population will then be considering the advantages of marrying for financial benefits then the adverse effects on SS, pension systems etc WILL be hugely effected but I think that within 30 years the laws will all have to be re-written so that being married or not has little or no benefit.

This seems like a radical way of thinking IMO. I'm sure that there is some percentage of the straight population that has used marriage as a business arrangement in the past. Nobody has ever seemed to be particularly concerned that this may be happening, as it is likely not a significant percentage of the population. If the same percentage happens in the gay population, so be it. I just don't see it being any more prolific in the gay population vs. straight.

But let's take the extreme point of view and say that it happens. So what? Even if two people form an arrangement of sorts without being in love, doesn't it still provide them with a form of protection that ultimately marriage was designed to encourage? In an ideal world, everyone falls in love and gets married and spends the rest of their lives together, and the couple helps each other out, thus creating the family unit. If some non-traditional family units are created that don't involve the romance part, but still provide some protections, what is wrong with that? We just have to stop thinking that the traditional view of marriage is the only way to do things. People are so quick to frame these issues as "right or wrong", as if there is only one proper way for people to behave, and anyone who deviates from that is not normal. I'm sure religion plays into this heavily, but at some point we have to separate church and state and let people live their lives as they choose, as long as they are not harming anyone else in doing so.

[Meadbh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ready This seems like a radical way of thinking IMO. I'm sure that there is some percentage of the straight population that has used marriage as a business arrangement in the past. Nobody has ever seemed to be particularly concerned that this may be happening, as it is likely not a significant percentage of the population. If the same percentage happens in the gay population, so be it. I just don't see it being any more prolific in the gay population vs. straight. But let's take the extreme point of view and say that it happens.

Historically, and currently in non Western societies, marriage as a primarily business decision has always been normal. The whole "romantic love" thing arose in Europe in medieval times and it was a major cultural disruption. At least that's what I recall from history lessons!

[militaryman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ready This seems like a radical way of thinking IMO. I'm sure that there is some percentage of the straight population that has used marriage as a business arrangement in the past. Nobody has ever seemed to be particularly concerned that this may be happening, as it is likely not a significant percentage of the population. If the same percentage happens in the gay population, so be it. I just don't see it being any more prolific in the gay population vs. straight. But let's take the extreme point of view and say that it happens. So what? Even if two people form an arrangement of sorts without being in love, doesn't it still provide them with a form of protection that ultimately marriage was designed to encourage? In an ideal world, everyone falls in love and gets married and spends the rest of their lives together, and the couple helps each other out, thus creating the family unit. If some non-traditional family units are created that don't involve the romance part, but still provide some protections, what is wrong with that? We just have to stop thinking that the traditional view of marriage is the only way to do things. People are so quick to frame these issues as "right or wrong", as if there is only one proper way for people to behave, and anyone who deviates from that is not normal. I'm sure religion plays into this heavily, but at some point we have to separate church and state and let people live their lives as they choose, as long as they are not harming anyone else in doing so.

My thoughts in no way said that what I thought might happen was right or wrong ....

The question in the OP's thread asked Does anyone know how this SCOTUS ruling will affect the future ability of SS/government pensions to pay additional benefits that they had not previously had to consider? I assume that there will be a negative impact on these funds.


Of course, no one "KNOWS" because there are too many variables and much depends on the publics behavior and reaction moving forward.

So one can only give their opnions and those of others.

I do think that the legalization will effect SS, pensions and healthcare dramatically as it will open up the entire populace to the benefits that marriage can have on their financial security and right or wrong it will remove some of the "stigma" that marriage is reserved for a certain group (intimately involved heterosexuals) -- All folks will begin to see the various angles they can use the system legally as written without regard to any gender.

Heck, for some it might just be the fact of knowing that marrying the same gender will guarantee them certain financial benefits without any possibility of off-spring from the "relationship"

Whether it takes 10 years or 30 years these changes will have a profound effect on the system as we know it and you will then see the laws changed to compensate.

Let's just get personal with this --- If my spouse passed away and my daughter was "living" with a man and had kids I would consider marrying that man on paper ( if I trusted him and in their relationship ) so that when I died my military survivor benefits plan would continue to pay him a check every month as long as he lives, thus providing an additional income stream for my daughter and grandchildren.

There you have it -- and there are soooo many other scenarios that exist

The can of worms is open -- For this discussion "right or wrong" are not the issue --

It is more legal or not legal and for some if it is legal and others are doing it and benefitting from it then that is enough to push them to also consider doing it and reaping any benefits. As that snowball rolls on folks will find it easier and easier to seriously consider it.

Who can blame them

Marriage for all!! Yipee

[Ready]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman My thoughts in no way said that what I thought might happen was right or wrong .... Let's just get personal with this --- If my spouse passed away and my daughter was "living" with a man and had kids I would consider marrying that man on paper ( if I trusted him and in their relationship ) so that when I died my military survivor benefits plan would continue to pay him a check every month as long as he lives, thus providing an additional income stream for my daughter and grandchildren. There you have it -- and there are soooo many other scenarios that exist The can of worms is open -- For this discussion "right or wrong" are not the issue -- Marriage for all!! Yipee

So prior to the recent Supreme Court ruling, if your son was "living" with a woman who had kids, would you have considered marrying her on paper so that they would receive your military benefits? And if not, why would you suddenly do differently after the ruling?

[donheff]

So, 5% of the population can now start doing what 95% of the population has been doing forever and suddenly the whole world is going to change? Straight people who used to marry for other reasons will start drawing up marriage business plans. Straight widows and widowers will start hooking up with same sex partners to ease the retirement budget. All of this because the SC dumped DOMA? Lets get real folks.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman My thoughts in no way said that what I thought might happen was right or wrong ....

I wouldn't take your thoughts as judgmental at all militaryman. A few comments in this thread, however, seem to be from people drifting away from the objective, dollar and cents question OP put forward.

Quote:

The question in the OP's thread asked Does anyone know how this SCOTUS ruling will affect the future ability of SS/government pensions to pay additional benefits that they had not previously had to consider? I assume that there will be a negative impact on these funds. Whether it takes 10 years or 30 years these changes will have a profound effect on the system as we know it and you will then see the laws changed to compensate.

I agree fully. The tax code, SS and pension rules, Medicare/Medicaid eligibility rules and regs, etc., that exist today were primarily written with traditional families in mind and were mostly appropriate at the time. But things change in society and things will need to change in the way we legally share resources such as SS, pensions, medical coverage, etc. in the future.

The "ten year rule" where folks need to be married for ten years to establish rights to spousal SS and Medicare and many state and private pensions, as long as that rule exists, will have some dampening effect on the "business considerations" of marriage. But eventually this is likely to change.

[militaryman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff So, 5% of the population can now start doing what 95% of the population has been doing forever and suddenly the whole world is going to change? Straight people who used to marry for other reasons will start drawing up marriage business plans. Straight widows and widowers will start hooking up with same sex partners to ease the retirement budget. All of this because the SC dumped DOMA? Lets get real folks.

Nope --- I do not think that anyone said "suddenly"

It will take time in the USA just as it has taken time for the culture to begin to accept a different definition of marriage to date.

The 5% you are referring to is trying to box this issue into a small protion of the populace but this ruling affects the whole populace as long as your mind is open enough to believe that a marriage no longer has to be between two people "romantically in love" whether male or female/ same sex or not. Once that assumption is gone then it becomes a merely a contract as many countries already see it as. (as others have already posted above) A contract that is made between two parties because it is mutally benefitial in a financial/benefits perspective.

And this will cost money and affect changes to the system in the future to adjust for this reality

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff So, 5% of the population can now start doing what 95% of the population has been doing forever and suddenly the whole world is going to change? Straight people who used to marry for other reasons will start drawing up marriage business plans. Straight widows and widowers will start hooking up with same sex partners to ease the retirement budget. All of this because the SC dumped DOMA? Lets get real folks.

Some of the examples, such as "marriage business plans" have already started. Now, with an event such as the SC decision driving popular discussion of possible financial benefits to marriage, I expect those things to accelerate. And the idea that a marriage between same sex partners who are not necessarily in a "committed relationship" (in the two people in love sense), can be appropriate, will promote these "business - driven" couplings.

It's already common for a elderly, retired man and woman, who are in a relationship after losing their original spouses, to take SS and pension considerations into account when considering re-marriage. Going forward, same sex couples will do the same. And, I'm sure, folks of the same sex who are not homosexual will look at the opportunities of being married, instead of just close friends, if there are financial and other legal benefits. Why not?

Recall the discussion on this board regarding the SS rule that allowed people to start SS early and then, if they chose, pay back the money without interest and get a "re-do?" I was counting on that when I started SS at 62 and might have repaid and re-set. But the rule was discovered by the popular media and began to be widely discussed. More people started doing it. And SS changed the rule and now paying back and resetting is no longer allowed past one year.

Things change. Things will keep changing.

[DallasGuy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman The 5% you are referring to is trying to box this issue into a small protion of the populace but this ruling affects the whole populace as long as your mind is open enough to believe that a marriage no longer has to be between two people "romantically in love" whether male or female/ same sex or not. Once that assumption is gone then it becomes a merely a contract as many countries already see it as. (as others have already posted above) A contract that is made between two parties because it is mutally benefitial in a financial/benefits perspective.

The overturn of DOMA doesn't make that assumption go away. There have always been marriages of "convenience". Nothing is changing that.

[militaryman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ready So prior to the recent Supreme Court ruling, if your son was "living" with a woman who had kids, would you have considered marrying her on paper so that they would receive your military benefits? And if not, why would you suddenly do differently after the ruling?

YES SIR! If it was Legal, Ethical and Culturally acceptable --
However I do not know if those are all covered yet.

I do think that the ethics of it all are in flux and certainly what is culturally acceptable has and is changing dramatically.

But certainly, if I were able to benefit my family in some way that would otherwise disappear if I died then yes, I would do so if legal and ethical.

I am not so sure I would have even dreamnt of such a thing ten years ago but Hey Jack! , if I am going to be paying much higher taxes so others can have Federal Benefits and I have the opportunity to take advantage of those benefits for my own loved ones by marrying my son's "live-in" then why not? Why should there be any negative feelings attached to that?
Afterall, isn't that what it is all about ....
Folks that love each other being able to provide benefits to each other ?

[haha]

Incentives change behavior, always have and always will. Especially today when public opinion or community reputation is no longer much of a factor in how people act.

Ha

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DallasGuy There have always been marriages of "convenience". Nothing is changing that.

I think you're hitting the nail on the head DallasGuy. Heterosexual marriages of convenience will continue. And now same sex (whether homosexual partners or just folks who happen to both be guys or gals) marriages of convenience will come into play.

In terms of whether the practice of same sex marriages of convenience (business arrangements) become common, it's a matter of how quickly our culture changes. I recall years ago (I'm a full fledged geezer), it was a negative to collect unemployment benefits if you weren't really looking for work. Now, that seems to have turned completely around. It's fairly common for someone who gets on a voluntary RIF list at MegaCorp, and is really FIRE'd, to apply for and collect 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, be respected for doing so, and be considered a fool if he/she doesn't do it. Things change in society and eventually rules change to accomodate.

Or, years ago it was commonly a negative for a geezer couple to just "live together" and not marry in order to not have SS benefits cut. That cultural taboo seems to be history. Folks understand that if marriage would cancel a spousal benefit, based on a previous marriage, for one of the partners, it's OK to just "live together." No finger wagging these days........

I suspect that same sex legal marriages of convenience between "friends" (as opposed to true homosexual couples) will become more culturally acceptable as pragmatic advantages to these arrangements become more well known, featured in the media and commonly discussed among friends and interested parties.

But only time will tell....... Like trying to guess what SWR will work best for each of us, only the passage of time will tell us what actually happens.

[Calico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman Nope --- I do not think that anyone said "suddenly" It will take time in the USA just as it has taken time for the culture to begin to accept a different definition of marriage to date. The 5% you are referring to is trying to box this issue into a small protion of the populace but this ruling affects the whole populace as long as your mind is open enough to believe that a marriage no longer has to be between two people "romantically in love" whether male or female/ same sex or not. Once that assumption is gone then it becomes a merely a contract as many countries already see it as. (as others have already posted above) A contract that is made between two parties because it is mutally benefitial in a financial/benefits perspective. And this will cost money and affect changes to the system in the future to adjust for this reality

I don't understand this train of thought. Gay people who can and will now marry are just as "romantically in love" as straight people who have been getting married ever since the concept of "romantic love" was established as one reason to marry.

There seems to be an underlying assumption in some of the posts in this thread that the SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA will somehow open the door to some kind of "scam marriages" that are not "valid" for some reason, but rather are being entered into for devious financial reasons - the implication being that this has never happened before in this society.

Some straight people have always married for financial reasons, some have married for romantic reasons, some have married for companionship, or for a whole host of other reasons. I know two straight women who very openly married much older, wealthy men for strictly financial reasons. It is nothing more than a business arrangement.

The idea that same-sex marriages will be any less valid, or entered into in some attempt to "game the system" in any greater numbers than opposite sex marriages are, is frankly offensive.

Speaking as a never married, straight person, I applaud the SCOTUS decision for extending to same-sex folks the same right to marriage, with the same responsibilities therein.

Personally speaking, I am not willing to do the work required or make the compromises necessary for a successful marriage. I applaud anyone, gay or straight, who can manage to craft a successful marriage.

[Calico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff So, 5% of the population can now start doing what 95% of the population has been doing forever and suddenly the whole world is going to change? Straight people who used to marry for other reasons will start drawing up marriage business plans. Straight widows and widowers will start hooking up with same sex partners to ease the retirement budget. All of this because the SC dumped DOMA? Lets get real folks.

This.

[militaryman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I think you're hitting the nail on the head DallasGuy. Heterosexual marriages of convenience will continue. And now same sex (whether homosexual partners or just folks who happen to both be guys or gals) marriages of convenience will come into play. I suspect that same sex legal marriages of convenience between "friends" (as opposed to true homosexual couples) will become more culturally acceptable as pragmatic advantages to these arrangements become more well known, featured in the media and commonly discussed among friends and interested parties. But only time will tell.......

This