tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post6578359051596255511..comments2024-03-09T03:20:20.004-05:00Comments on Tenured Radical: It Gets Worse: Queer People "Volunteer" To Help To Ease The Tax Burden For Straight FamiliesTenured Radicalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-6849156127920982392012-04-04T05:05:32.897-05:002012-04-04T05:05:32.897-05:00This is a Great Website You might find Fascinating...This is a Great Website You might find Fascinating that we Motivate A person.Ready-Made Logohttp://www.logodesignuniverse.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-52679619286141432192012-03-19T02:21:02.338-05:002012-03-19T02:21:02.338-05:00There Is Obviously a lot to know about this. I sup...There Is Obviously a lot to know about this. I suppose you made Some Great points in the Feature also.Facebook and Twitter Marketinghttp://www.ebrandster.com/facebook-twitter-marketing.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-10195661125640817322011-03-29T02:43:06.438-05:002011-03-29T02:43:06.438-05:00I love it! Can't wait for the conference too, ...I love it! Can't wait for the conference too, it's going to be great. And I'm 100% with you on the boob sweat. It's just plain unnecessary!auto insurance michiganhttp://michiganautoinsurance.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-8171770230199070042011-01-26T14:00:35.963-05:002011-01-26T14:00:35.963-05:00Anonymous, get a grip. I mean seriously.Anonymous, get a grip. I mean seriously.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-15925466777367367352011-01-26T13:15:18.699-05:002011-01-26T13:15:18.699-05:00Oligarch has offered "a more flexible repayme...<i>Oligarch has offered "a more flexible repayment schedule" in the event that losing a third or more of a person's salary causes them any hardship. Gosh, do ya think? But honestly, you know what causes a hardship? </i><br /><br />Why would this be a problem, given that they were already <i>overpaid</i>? <br /><br />This is why employers make a point of stressing that they are not your tax preparers. When you go through a major life event, check your damn withholding. If you're too lazy to bother and you get overpaid as a result, you aren't a victim because you're asked to the unearned money back.<br /><br />Now if Yale made them pay interest on the money? Sure, that'd be nasty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-2562858338254020722011-01-25T08:57:23.593-05:002011-01-25T08:57:23.593-05:00BTW, did you see Heather Wilson's column on t...BTW, did you see Heather Wilson's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012104554.html?nav=hcmoduletmv/" rel="nofollow"> column</a> on the over- and undereducation of Rhodes Scholar candidates (last Sunday's WaPo)?Snark-i-pantsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-1017053873722476562011-01-25T08:42:36.367-05:002011-01-25T08:42:36.367-05:00Whatev.Whatev.Snark-i-pantsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-92210110285899592962011-01-25T07:23:54.988-05:002011-01-25T07:23:54.988-05:00Its snarkipants, with an "i".Its snarkipants, with an "i".Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-19788002830600089782011-01-24T21:39:23.041-05:002011-01-24T21:39:23.041-05:00Thanks for the new handle, TR. I'm emboldened...Thanks for the new handle, TR. I'm emboldened by the possibilities. Best regards.<br />--Snarkpants, formerly GlassPenSnarkpantsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-47753276984987554222011-01-24T11:24:15.170-05:002011-01-24T11:24:15.170-05:00To add to BPJ's point: part of the burden of ...To add to BPJ's point: part of the burden of this kind of discrimination is that Yale goofed because nobody actually thought about it, so invisible are their LGBT employees to them.<br /><br />Gay marriage was a huge change in the state legal code, but I guess not for Yale!<br /><br />And BTW, GlassPen,you snarkipants: Amy Chua is neither a specialist in tax code or civil rights. She teaches contracts, ethnicity and international law.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-80735248361991362602011-01-24T11:20:08.933-05:002011-01-24T11:20:08.933-05:00I really appreciate your covering this issue. I th...I really appreciate your covering this issue. I thought I was a fairly well-informed queer academic, but wasn't aware of this form of discrimination until I started reading your blog. My partner and I are soon going to tie whatever knots our state will legally let us tie, and it's really good to be forewarned about what we can expect. I certainly plan to make a public stink about it. And I absolutely expect, since we're a Large State U, that the response will be some mealy-mouthed language about how they are beholden to the electorate (i.e. lowest-common-denominator voter prejudice that would scream if it thought queers - and useless commie academics at that - were being treated the same as Real Americans.)LouMacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-44581478779752566292011-01-24T11:18:18.070-05:002011-01-24T11:18:18.070-05:00Speaking as one of the 61 employees, I can tell yo...Speaking as one of the 61 employees, I can tell you that no one caught this error (including people with professional accountants) because our paychecks are a riddle of codes, additions, and deductions. Even payroll employees can't explain it.<br /><br />The problem is two-fold. One, some of us simply cannot afford the $500/month in a additional taxes over the next year (could you?). <br /><br />Two, Yale has failed to recognize, formally or through informal channels, that this situation has anything to do with discrimination. That in itself is deeply disappointing.<br /><br />Would we get the same by-the-numbers response if a random error affected a different minority group (say, all female faculty)? What does that say about the judgment inherent in this situation?BPJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-25510912700070507312011-01-24T10:54:06.138-05:002011-01-24T10:54:06.138-05:00Nothing like a little mansplainin'!
No one sa...Nothing like a little mansplainin'!<br /><br />No one said there is a tax case here, except as it leads us to the obvious: because gay marriage is illegal at the federal level, gay people are discriminated against under the tax code.<br /><br />Yale also would have been culpable had they failed to collect the taxes, and technically, all 61 queers are in violation of the tax code and liable to penalties already for under-withholding.<br /><br />But the case is for Yale's moral culpability, and the culpability of all employers, who do not alleviate this discrimination. Here's an extreme example: if the Federal government mandated that we all start identifying ourselves with pink triangles, ought universities to assist in the enforcement and claim they simply had no choice in the matter?Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-40487555519022623162011-01-24T09:25:37.716-05:002011-01-24T09:25:37.716-05:00Things you are right about: federal tax policy ne...Things you are right about: federal tax policy needs adjustment and Oligarch's accounting department should have caught the error sooner.<br /><br />However, the individual is *always* responsible for their own tax burden (whether the tax is "fair" or not). If Oligarch had not done what it did, the people affected still would have owed the tax...and since it wasn't taken out of paychecks in a timely fashion, would have had to pay it to the IRS in a lump sum (or worked out a payment schedule with them). Some of them might not have paid close-enough attention to the details...so if the IRS caught on, they might also be in for the nasty surprise of penalties and interest. All in all, Oligarch did the right thing here. And they don't owe their gay married employees the extra benefit of paying a tax burden that the IRS has imposed.<br /><br />Sorry, there is NO tax case here. Tho if you want to talk the Tiger Mother and her husband (both Oligarch law profs) into taking on this project, go ahead. Better use of resources: lobby Congress for changes to federal tax law...tho that's not likely either until some state manages to get the Supreme Court to agree with a state that has allowed gay marriage.GlassPennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-57517888957562371912011-01-24T09:23:21.391-05:002011-01-24T09:23:21.391-05:00Ouch! Another reason that I love Canada: gay spous...Ouch! Another reason that I love Canada: gay spouses' and partners' rights or benefits are the same as hetero -- plus, our health care is provided as legal resident benefit. My university has no endowment, but manages to treat its employees with consideration that Oligarch seems to dismiss.Janicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093558563358431804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-32160710274108723762011-01-24T09:10:10.469-05:002011-01-24T09:10:10.469-05:00@Math Teacher's Daughter. Here's a realist...@Math Teacher's Daughter. Here's a realistic scenario: Prof makes 60,000/year with $10,000 in benefits affected by the tax error. 25% tax bracket, so uncollected tax is $2500. Monthly salary after federal taxes withheld =$3750. If you factor in other taxes and with-holdings (retirement, social security, state tax, union dues, copayments for benefits) the amount can exceed 1/3 of a person's take-home salary.<br /><br />We just fought at mid-Atlantic flagship state uni and got same-sex partner health benefits for the first time this year. SS spouses cannot be added to our policies because of homophobic legislators, so the university is providing people whose spouses need insurance with a subsidy towards buying that insurance on the open market. It doesn't cover the full amount of such insurance, but they are covering the taxes incurred by queer married people on this amount. No university should be able to claim to not discriminate without covering these taxes IMHO. Thanks for your attention to this issue.WRSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-35163493109097950622011-01-24T08:20:22.527-05:002011-01-24T08:20:22.527-05:00Math teacher's kid -- The numbers come from th...Math teacher's kid -- The numbers come from the NYT article, and the percentages are based on monthly earnings. So when you take into account tax brackets and the dollar-value of various benefits packages, it can easily add up to a 33% hit on a person's monthly take-home salary; this is also why "generously" spreading out the tax penalties over several more months reduces it in terms of percentage of net salary (albeit not total dollar amount of the penalty).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-70689705082902672962011-01-24T08:05:32.128-05:002011-01-24T08:05:32.128-05:00Dear Tenured Radical,
Re: "Oligarch has off...Dear Tenured Radical,<br /><br />Re: "Oligarch has offered 'a more flexible repayment schedule' in the event that losing a third or more of a person's salary causes them any hardship."<br /><br />I am completely in agreement with the overall gist of your post re: the discriminatory effects of the federal government's non-recognition of non-hetero-marriage. That said, the arithmetic in the post doesn't quite add up here. If Oligarch is collecting the unpaid federal tax on partner's health benefits alone--even for a whole year--surely this does not add up to one-third of the employed partner's salary, does it?<br /><br />The injustice and discrimination you describe are obviously outrageous and unacceptable. No question. But the advocacy and activism around the issue can only be strengthened by having our numbers add up.<br /><br />I am happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.<br /><br />With respect and admiration,<br />Sincerely,<br />The Math Teacher's DaughterMath Teacher's Daughternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-54715144000546251122011-01-24T06:44:51.907-05:002011-01-24T06:44:51.907-05:00This is outrageous. What is up with the assumption...This is outrageous. What is up with the assumption that when an error is made on the part of payroll, the burden is on the employee to face the inconvenience of the reimbursement? <br /><br />(I've seen analogous cases at universities, "oops, we reimbursed you too much/taxed you in the wrong category/etc" in which the faculty member then has an enormous amount docked from their salary in one go. And yet, when the error is in the other direction, getting repayment is slower than molasses. Funny that...)<br /><br />Aside from the inequity in the tax situation you describe, why only three months to pay the whole lot? How about "spaced over the next year?". And yes, in the interests of employee fairness, Yale should pony up the difference.Katrinahttp://www.katrinagulliver.comnoreply@blogger.com