Andrew Lee has an op-ed up today on SF Gate:
Gay men and lesbians took a serious hit in the 2004 election. Republicans drew strong support from conservatives and like-minded independents opposed to same-sex marriage. Voters in 11 states passed ballot initiatives to reject such unions. Yet aspects of the Republican agenda could be advantageous for the gay community. Gay activists can make gains for same- sex partner benefits through Social Security privatization.
As it is now, same-sex couples cannot receive Social Security survivor benefits or dependent benefits because they are not married under federal law. If Social Security were privatized, however, the federal government could not regulate the beneficiaries of private accounts. Same-sex partners, like any other beneficiary, could receive survivor benefits or dependent benefits.
Nevertheless, the gay community is not quite ready to embrace President Bush's plan. Social Security privatization places the gay community at a crossroads of its traditional Democratic affiliation and increased benefits for same-sex couples ...
As the saying goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows. (groan) I think issue by issue affiliation is a big advance over mindless Bush hatred - and it's smart politics, too.
UPDATE: By the way, it's great to see so many young adults across the political spectrum thinking seriously about policy issues and getting involved. I know, I know - that dates me, but some of you have already seen that I have ... um .... 'silver' hair so I'm already busted on that account.
Ah, but teaching keeps you young, Robin.
Lee's entire premise is utter nonsense. Spouses receive very favorable treatment with existing private IRA, 401(k) and 403(b) accounts (the surviving spouse can roll the deceased's account over with taxes deferred until his or her own retirement) that is not available to same-sex couples, nor to unmarried heterosexual couples. There are also special provisions for married couples' accounts in case of divorce. One can't be certain since the Administration refuses to submit any actual legislation, but I can not imagine any reason why in this political climate new Social Security private accounts will not be set up the same way, with the same special treatment for (traditional) spouses.
What lame and tangential argument is next for Social Security privatization? That the increased number of financial statements will help solve the deficit of the United States Postal Service?
hmmm .... AJL, given that there are no concrete proposals, as you say, it's probably a stretch to infer what will be in any final bill. However, Bush has said:
"Owning your own personal savings account & allows you to pass on your savings to whoever you choose. You can't do that in Social Security today. If you pass away earlier than expected, that money that you put in the system is gone."
So I'd say that Andrew Lee's take is perfectly justified.
Robin, the question is can you pass your savings along to anyone you choose with the same tax treatment as if you choose your (traditional) spouse.
E-mail me if you want to make a small side bet on this.
Not getting the finer point of all this but why do you want to have personal savings account with you pension plan?
a,
I don't. I want my "pension plan" to disappear (along with the taxes that fund it) so that I can manage my own damn money instead of flushing it down the toilet in accordance with the law.
Bush's non-proposal promises to make that wish come partially true.
Oh, and AJL, you're right about the tax treatment. But an inheritance with less-favorable tax treatment is still better than nothing at all.
However, I'd like to point out that the SS gay-marriage problem could probably be solved at the state level. Since SS benefits go to one who would be eligible to take by intestacy in the event of a "spouse's" death, I think that altering the intestacy statute in a state would make gay residents of that state eligible for SS. (This permits SS to function smoothly despite differences in marriage laws). Anyone know if I'm wrong about that?
Is it any wonder that Social Security is looked at by the young as a loser's game? Even the rosiest estimates of current trends don't show the system lasting long enough for me or anybody my age to get one thin dime out of it.
In the meantime, I'm paying fifteen percent of my income, with absolutely jack in the way of exemptions or progressive rate (ah, the joys of contracting) in order to give money to the elderly, some of whom are actually needy, but most of whom possess several times my net worth.
It's entirely possible - no, LIKELY - that I'll go on paying that, or an even higher rate, right up until the time when the system becomes totally unstable, meaning that the whole thing will collapse and I'll get precisely nothing anyway.
If you'd like a welfare scheme for the elderly, that's not itself objectionable, though I've got real questions of whether the federal government should administer such a program. But in its current form, the Social Security program takes money from people who do not have much wealth, and gives it to people who DO have wealth; the old may not have income, but they're asset-rich, whereas most of the young are asset-poor. Even more infuriatingly, the income cap on the SS tax means that the SS tax is perversely regressive.
I don't know if there's an easy fix. Means-testing is a good idea, sure, but it also encourages the elderly to transfer their assets away or otherwise conceal them. Personal accounts may not save the system, but like a 401(k) versus a traditional pension, at least I can be sure the money is there and mine. My retirement won't be subject to the whim of a company (or a government) that might not decide to pay up when the day comes...
Rob, are you confusing the one-time SS death benefit with the insurance part of the plan? AFAIK, only (standard heterosexual) spouses and children collect under that, so that survivors of an unmarried and childless person get nothing beyond the one-time payment, irrespective of whether he or she would prefer that it to go to a same-sex partner, his or her parents, or nephews and nieces. The original article is trying to take the argument that the Bush plan is better than SS for the unmarried and childless and bedeck it in lavender. Leaving aside whether this is true for the unattached in general, no GOP-sponsored plan is going to allow the remaining traditional benefits to go to a gay partner (nor, I suspect, surviving stepchildren in gay families in the absence of tedious adoption processes), nor enforcement of QDROs in case of gay divorce, nor favorable rollover treatment for surviving gay spouses. But you don't see Bridget Jones out there advocating for Bush's plan as a good break for all singletons, because there isn't any look-at-me political theater involved in that.
There's something touching in Avatar's assumption that not only he but everyone else will do better with a 401(k) than Social Security. This isn't at all clear. For example, Avatar, have you researched how much of a yield hit you will take when you annuatize your nest egg at retirement? You pretty much have to do that (it's rumored to be mandated in the invisible Bush proposal) to insure against outliving your savings—something that can't happen with traditional Social Security.
AJL, you may be right, I've been trying to look it up. The case I had the cite for doesn't clarify and I don't have time to do serious research. So I'm uncertain what SS would do if presented with, for instance, one of the MA gay married couples.
One more thing, AJL.
You may be right that I can't do better than SS if I annuitize my 401(k). But the point is, it's my decision to make, not yours.
Rob says it correctly. That's exactly why privatization will benefit gays because it keeps a discriminatory government from determining who gets who's money...