- Biden to lead $600 million work force training effort
- Atheists’ Easter taunt to Christians: ‘Jesus is a myth’
- Miley Cyrus hospitalized, cancels Kansas City show
- Josh Romney swipes Harry Reid with photo tweet of dad paying taxes — ‘your paycheck’
- Despite Obamacare problems, some Dems want Sebelius to run for Senate: report
- Angry New Yorkers shred gun registrations in deadline day protests
- Uninsured rate dropping faster in places that embraced pillars of Obamacare, survey shows
- Hawaii, D.C. give residents two more weeks to sign up under Obamacare
- Climate change causing fish to lose their minds, researchers say
- Great Britain tops World’s Most Sexist Nation list
Same-sex ‘marriage’ likely to prove costly
Employers, insurance companies, consumers and the government would foot the bill for the financial benefits that homosexuals would gain if same-sex “marriage” is legalized nationally.
Insurance and tax costs would drop for the partners, while spousal benefits would increase.
AGeneral Accounting Office report lists 1,138 federal laws in which marital status conveys benefits, rights or privileges. The benefits include Social Security, disability payments, food stamps, Medicare and welfare.
“Won’t this just break the bank?” said Rep. Spencer Bachus, Alabama Republican, during a House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee hearing last week on same-sex “marriage.”
Health care and retirement benefits for domestic partners of federal employees would cost the government about $1.4 billion from 2004 to 2013, according to a Congressional Budget Office report that was cited by Mr. Bachus.
Like President Bush, he supports a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The exact cost to the government if same-sex “marriage” benefits were extended nationally has not been tallied, although government officials say it would be high.
“It would undoubtedly have a significant impact on the budget through lower revenues and higher spending,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.
Massachusetts yesterday began allowing same-sex “marriages,” and other states are considering it.
However, only the federal government can decide who can file joint tax returns, receive Social Security or get other federal benefits.
“For tax purposes, it doesn’t matter what the states rule,” said Tara Bradshaw, spokeswoman for the Treasury Department.
Manyunmarried homosexual couples pay significantly more in federal and state taxes than their married counterparts, according to a National Gay and Lesbian Task Force report released last month.
The report profiled a homosexual couple that paid $1,929, or 25 percent, more per year in state and federal taxes than a heterosexual couple earning the same amount. The homosexual couple could not file a joint tax return.
As with opposite-sex couples, the sliding scale of tax rates would create the biggest advantage of a joint return for same-sex “married” couples with greatly different incomes. Equal incomes would create no advantage for a joint return.
Greater financial advantages also would come from insurance and Social Security benefits, which married people can receive when their spouses are sick, injured or die.
By returning to Christian roots, the nation can achieve greatness once again
- Fuel-filled wings, ability to swarm: Pentagon offers glimpse at future of drone fleet
- Secret U.S. assessments show Afghanistan not ready to govern on own
- CARSON: Recovering Tocqueville's vision of American exceptionalism
- 'Culture of intimidation' seen in Nevada ranch standoff
- GOP writes legislation to deny Attorney General Eric Holder his salary
- Nevada Bundy ranch standoff could leave dirt on Harry Reid reputation
- WEBER: Obamacare cuts home healthcare for millions of seniors
- HURT: Wilson and Obama ... 100 years apart, but so alike
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- Al Qaeda mocks U.S. in 'extraordinary' Yemen gathering; experts fear CIA caught flat-footed
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.