Social Security Begins Making Payments To Some Same-Sex Married Couples

  • metta

    Posts: 39092

    Aug 09, 2013 8:56 PM GMT
    Social Security Begins Making Payments To Some Same-Sex Married Couples

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/social-security-begins-making-payments-to-some-same-sex-marr
  • metta

    Posts: 39092

    Aug 10, 2013 4:29 PM GMT
    USA: Social Security to Limit Payments to Couples in Marriage Equality States

    The Social Security Administration will not recognize valid same sex marriages if the couple lives in a state that doesn’t recognize marriage equality.

    http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/08/usa-social-security-to-limit-payments-to-couples-in-marriage-equality-states.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 2:49 PM GMT
    This is outrageous by being arbitrary. What if a widow was last married and still officially--only by history and therefore in name alone--domiciled in a state which recognizes same sex marriage but lives, say in retirement, as an expat overseas in a country (even a US territory--USVI, Guam, et al) which does not recognize same sex marriage. Will they lose their Social Security benefits too?

    And if they can keep their benefits because they are still officially domiciled in a state where they no longer live, then why wouldn't the same logic apply to someone who moved out of a state where marriage is legal to a state where marriage is not legal. And if that would apply to them, then why wouldn't it apply to those of us who simply visited to marry in a state where marriage is legal?

    Will this Supreme Court's legacy be human rights bound by borders?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 3:06 PM GMT
    Does seem a little odd that there's a distinction based on where you live. If you are legally married and recognized federally, why would your state's position on marriage equality make a difference?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 3:37 PM GMT


    It's a work in progress. Give them time to sort it out. icon_wink.gif

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/your-money/how-the-supreme-court-ruling-will-affect-same-sex-spouses.html?pagewanted=all

    "Gay married couples living in states where same-sex marriage is legal can apply for Social Security benefits on their spouses’ earnings records, as well as survivor benefits. The Social Security Administration typically looks to the states to determine whether a person is married, which could create problems for couples that move to a state where it is not."

    and..."“Unless the administration changes its practices and rules — and in a couple of cases, unless the law changes — then couples residing in a nonmarriage-equality state may not be recognized for some federal programs,” said Brian Moulton, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign. “Now that we have an opinion out, we will be anxiously awaiting what the administration will say about this and urging them to ensure that all married couples, regardless of where they live, are fully recognized.”

    White House officials said that they had already begun analyzing the hundreds of relevant laws and statutes at issue and were working with the Justice Department to make benefits available as swiftly as possible."

    Patience, my good and stalwart men. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 3:47 PM GMT
    SSA takes benefits from 100yo+ seniors to fund this so there's no additional cost to the government using Obama's new centenarian regulations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 3:48 PM GMT
    meninlove said ">Social Security Administration typically looks to the states to determine whether a person is married, which could create problems for couples that move to a state where it is not."

    Well that does make sense. I hadn't thought of that. They really have nothing else but the state's records to determine this.

    I agree, they'll figure it out eventually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 3:51 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidSSA takes benefits from 100yo+ seniors to fund this so there's no additional cost to the government using Obama's new centenarian regulations.


    Links to prove you're not pulling stuff out of your ass and reading it to us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2013 5:56 PM GMT
    I'm not certain but I believe what follows is the current IRS filing status...

    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-Same-Sex-Couples
    "NOTE: The questions and answers below do not reflect the Supreme Court's June 26 decision relating to DOMA. We are reviewing the important June 26 Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act. We will be working with the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice, and we will move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future.

    Q. Can same-sex partners who are legally married for state law purposes file federal tax returns using a married filing jointly or married filing separately status?

    A. No. Same-sex partners may not file using a married filing separately or jointly filing status because federal law does not treat same-sex partners as married for federal tax purposes."


    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Let's assume for a moment what looks to reasonably follow from DOMA's demise, that the IRS instead allows same sex married couples to file joint returns as long as they've been legally married.

    Then what...

    eb925guy said that
    meninlove said ">Social Security Administration typically looks to the states to determine whether a person is married, which could create problems for couples that move to a state where it is not."

    Well that does make sense. I hadn't thought of that. They really have nothing else but the state's records to determine this.

    I agree, they'll figure it out eventually.


    ...would not only not make sense but rather would compound what's wrong because you'd have it one way on the way up from state to fed (the fed's recognizing for tax purposes a marriage regardless of recognition by the state of domicile) but another way on the way down from fed to state (a federal program, Social Security, not recognized because the marriage is not recognized in the state of domicile).

    It would be like driving back and forth on the very same road from point A to point B only when you drove back from point B to point A, while staying on the very same road, you'd wind up instead at point C because point A no longer exists. It's bullshit.

    Further, don't states which tax income and inheritance get their information on marriage status from federal filings of taxes? I might not be familiar, living in Florida without state income taxes, but do those who do file separately to states or do the states get that from the feds?

    So then you have in one instance the feds taking direction of the legitimacy of a marriage from the states (ie social security) but the states not accepting the legitimacy of a marriage from the feds (ie income & inheritance taxes)?

    To compensate for some of the extra discrimination, will the American public be paying our additional accounting fees?