Centerfield

I've found it pretty amusing so far that the Dems keep opposing things that would make SS more progressive. I sometimes feel like we've stepped into the rabbit hole.

I am not aware off any Republicans who are proposing that gays be denied the right to inherit so the comment that it would make Republican proponents uncomfortable seems like a cheap shot. It could also be seen as one less reason to support gay marriage because their would be no limit as to who could inherit benefits, in which case many Republicans would be pleased.

Under existing law, if my wife is the beneficiary of my IRA, she can assume it as her own upon my death with no tax consequences. However, if the beneficiary is a non-spouse (brother, cousin, friend, lover, etc.), he cannot assume ownership of my IRA upon my death. He must begin liquidating the assets of that account within a prescribed period of time.

So, no, privitization of Social Security may not be beneficial to gay couples (at least not under existing law).

ROA,

Believe me, if the right Republicans (pun intended) catch wind of this, they will make a stink of it. Poor Jerry Falwell...he may have to re-think his allegiance to W.

Totally peripheral: One of my favorite cartoons from the gay marriage debate is a reporter asking a legislator about his stand on gay marriage. The legislator rants that he's against it. The reporter then says he'll be happy to report that the legislator is in favor of sex outside of marriage....

Tully,

I love it!

LOL! Unfortunately, that stance wouldn't entice voters, thus the chance that it would ever be adopted...lol. Okay, I'm cynical.

Steven: You may be right about the tax implications of privatized accounts being similar to IRAs, but that would negate one of president Bush’s selling points to blacks. Since they have shorter life spans, the current system cheats them out of retirement benefits where private accounts would enable them to pass on any remaining funds to their heirs.

AH: As far as Jerry Falwell is concerned, unless he is currently opposed to gays being eligible to inherit he will have a difficult time justifying prohibiting them from inheriting the remains of private accounts.

If private accounts aren't fully inheritable as transfers to the chosen beneficiaries' private accouts, they will probably be a non-starter. IRA-type handling of inheritability is probably not an option in the political sense.

A non-spousal inherited IRA is treated differently than a spousal IRA, and the rules can be very confusing.

The article is interesting because the author outlines the political consequences for the Dems and Repubs. He makes a pretty compelling case. But, as always, nobody gives a crap about the gay community.