How will same-sex marriage affect SS/Pensions?

[youbet]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[youbet]

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.

.

I think you're making an assumption that all same sex marriages will be between gay people. I don't think so.

Like you, I believe "gay people who can and will now marry are just as "romantically in love" as straight people. But whether they are romantically in love or not, it would be best to recognize any additional obligations on systems that provide spousal benefits and prepare as needed.

Additionally, there are "marriages of convenience." And the SCOTUS has now opened the door for "marriages of convenience" between same sex folks (not necessarily gay) as well as heterosexual folks.

I haven't interpreted any of the posts as being against gay marriage. I have read posts (and written some) that respond to OP's question as to whether the SCOTUS decision could lead to increased pressure on SS and other financial benefits where marriage status can be a determining factor. As expressed, I think there will be additional pressure on benefit programs, such as SS, Medicare and pensions that allow for spousal benefits. But that is entirely different than expressing opinion on the concept of gay marriage in a moral sense.

Things change in society. It's better to make plans and have systems that are prepared to deal with increased financial pressure (even if only a small increase incrementally) than to blindly assume "it'll all be OK."

Subjectively "feelin' da love......" for folks of some status is OK. Pragmatically promoting being prepared to deliver promised benefits, such as spousal SS, is better. Just MHO.

 

[FreqFlyer]

My understanding is that the state if marriage in the USA is poor, poor in the sense that divorce is much more common (which implies shorter term marriages) and many couples choose to not get married even when children are involved.

There are a multitude of factors affecting marriage in the USA and I think the discussion here overstates the impact of granting same sex unions. My theory would be that marriage has been affected to a FAR greater extent by changes in divorce laws (e.g. no fault) than same sex unions.

If some perceived economic benefits drive marriages of convenience (of either sexual orientation or format) I doubt the economic impact would be material. The data will tell. Do we have any studies of what's happened in other countries?