The Financial Health of Same-Sex Couples and LGBTQ Americans

By:  Jack Caporal | Published June 4, 2021

Many or all of the products here are from our partners that pay us a commission. It’s how we make money. But our editorial integrity ensures our experts’ opinions aren’t influenced by compensation. Terms may apply to offers listed on this page.
A pair of women taking a selfie together on a city street.

Image source: Getty Images

2021's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month is the first to be officially recognized by a president since 2016 -- certainly cause for celebration! But this year's Pride Month also sees a collective holding of breath among the LGBTQ community.

At the time of this writing, the Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on Fulton vs. Philadelphia, a case that some pundits are saying could have big implications for LGBTQ healthcare access.

As we'll see below, same-sex couples already have fewer options for employer-provided healthcare, which can be a key element in establishing financial stability. But it's not just in healthcare access where same-sex couples and LGBTQ Americans struggle more than heterosexual individuals.

To recognize Pride Month 2021, we've gathered statistics from government agencies and private organizations to craft a picture of the financial health of same-sex couples and LGBTQ individuals in the United States. Read on to see where they outpace cis-straight citizens and where they fall behind.

Key findings

  • On average, same-sex couples make $1,681 more than opposite-sex couples. This trend, however, is driven by male same-sex couples, who make $17,250 more than married opposite-sex couples, while female same-sex couples earned $9,643 less than married opposite-sex couples.
  • LGBTQ Americans face significantly higher poverty rates than heterosexual Americans -- especially when it comes to trans individuals. 34% of trans men and 32% of trans women live in poverty, compared to 16% of cis-straight men and women.
  • 33% of LBQ women have faced a personal financial crisis like declaring bankruptcy or not being able to pay bills. 24% of straight women, 23% of GBQ men, and 15% of straight men have gone through a crisis like this.
  • Only 10% of non-LGBT households would be unable to cover an unexpected $400 expense, while 14.5% of LGBT households would struggle to cover it.
  • 74% of employers that offer spousal benefits cover same-sex spouses, a notable increase from the 43% that did so in 2016, but still low enough to limit access for thousands of same-sex couples.
  • LGBTQ Americans feel less prepared to make decisions that support their financial goals than the general population. For example, 43% of the general population of the United States feels able to make a wise decision about reducing or paying off personal debt, compared to 32% of LGBTQ Americans.

A note on LGBTQ financial statistics

Data on the financial health of same-sex couples is relatively sparse.

Most data collected by the Census Bureau, Federal Reserve, and other government entities isn't broken down by sexual orientation or non-binary gender identity. This makes it difficult to come up with a clear picture of the financial health of same-sex couples, which in turn can impact decisions made by employers and policymakers.

We hope to see more robust data collection in this space in the future.

Male same-sex couples make $17,250 more than married opposite-sex couples, but female same-sex couples make $9,643 less

Married opposite-sex couples make an average (median) of $96,932 per year, while same-sex couples average $98,613 (the Census Bureau doesn't say whether these same-sex couples are married or unmarried).

Male same-sex couples earn an average of $114,182, or $17,250 more than married opposite-sex couples. Female same-sex couples, however, earn $87,289 -- $9,643 less than opposite-sex couples

Female same-sex couples earned $26,893 less than male same-sex couples.

The gender pay gap is well documented, and female same-sex couples are proportionately affected.

A bar chart comparing median household income among American married and unmarried same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.

Married same-sex couples made roughly $20,000 more than unmarried same-sex couples, which follows a pattern also seen with opposite-sex couples.

All married same-sex couples Married female same-sex couples Married male same-sex couples All unmarried same-sex couples Unmarried female same-sex couples Unmarried male same-sex couples
Median household income $107,210 $95,719 $123,646 $87,690 $75,662 $101,987
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau (2019).

LBQ women make less than straight women, straight men, and GBQ men

The pay gap is starkest above the $75,000 annual income threshold. Just 25% of LBQ women make over $75,000 a year, compared to 32.2% of GBQ men, 32.5% of straight women, and 40.4% of straight men.

One factor that may drive the disparity in income between female same-sex couples and others is the fact that LBQ women, on average, make less money than straight women, straight men, and GBQ men.

Annual income LBQ women Straight women GBQ men Straight men
Less than $10,000 7.70% 5.50% 5.60% 4.00%
$10,000 to $14,999 6.90% 5.10% 5.20% 3.80%
$15,000 to $19,999 10.10% 7.90% 8.00% 6.10%
$20,000 to $24,999 11.70% 9.80% 9.90% 8.00%
$25,000 to $34,999 11.70% 10.80% 10.80% 9.40%
$35,000 to $49,999 13.40% 13.40% 13.40% 12.70%
$50,000 to $74,999 13.50% 15.00% 15.00% 15.70%
$75,000+ 25.00% 32.50% 32.20% 40.40%
Data source: Williams Institute (2021).

Race and ethnicity also affect LBQ women's pay. 32% of white LBQ women make over $75,000 per year, while only 17% of LBQ women of color make more than $75,000.

This reflects a larger trend in which white employees earn more than racial-minority employees.

A pair of column charts comparing the percentage of women than earn more than $75,000 a year by sexuality and by race/ethnicity.

Both partners of 62% of same-sex couples are employed, compared to 49% of married opposite-sex couples

49.4% of married opposite-sex couples include two people who are employed, while that number jumps to 62.3% for married same-sex couples.

Both partners are employed in 63.1% of married male same-sex couples, which may contribute to male same-sex couples earning more than both married opposite-sex couples and married female same-sex couples (61.6% of which see both partners employed).

Both partners of female same-sex couples are about as likely to be employed as both partners of male same-sex couples. However, female same-sex couples make significantly less than male same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples -- more evidence of the amplified gender wealth gap that female same-sex couples face.

A column chart showing the percentage of households in which both partners are employed broken down by male-male, female-female, and opposite-sex couples.

LGBT Americans were more likely than the general population to struggle financially or be unable to keep up with expenses in 2016

In 2016, 41% of LGBT Americans reported either struggling with finances or being unable to keep up with their bills. In contrast, only 27% of the general population (about 6% of whom identified as LGBT) reported the same.

Fortunately, the share of LGBT Americans who reported being in the best financial situation grew from 2% in 2012 to 15% -- nearly on par with the general population -- in 2016.

However, more LGBT Americans said they were making ends meet but struggling or unable to keep up with expenses in 2016 versus 2012.

Overall, the general population identified as faring better than the LGBT population. As we'll see, this may have many causes, from disparities in financial education to employer benefits to geography.

LGBT Americans, 2012 LGBT Americans, 2016 General American population, 2016
I'm doing what I want, when I want, where I want 2% 15% 16%
I'm not part of the 1%, but things are good 20% 11% 18%
I'm living modestly, paying the bills and staying independent 47% 33% 39%
I'm making ends meet, but it's a struggle 25% 33% 23%
Unable to keep up with expenses 6% 8% 4%
Data source: Prudential (2017).

LBQ women and GBQ men are more likely to have experienced a major personal financial crisis than straight men and women

A third of LBQ women have experienced a major personal financial crisis, compared to 24% of straight women, 23% of GBQ men, and 15% of straight men.

Group Have experienced a major personal financial crisis
LBQ women 33%
Straight women 24%
GBQ men 23%
Straight men 15%
Data source: Williams Institute (2019).

While the data doesn't include specifics on the cause of the financial crisis, the pattern fits with the common income patterns (LBQ women making less money than other groups) as well as lower availability of healthcare insurance and lower participation in life insurance among LGBTQ Americans than their cis-straight counterparts.

LGBT Americans are less prepared for future crises, too

According to the Center for LGTBQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR), LGBT Americans are less likely to be prepared for a future emergency than non-LGBT Americans.

While 10% of non-LGBT households would be unable to cover an unexpected $400 expense, 14.5% of LGBT respondents said they wouldn't be able to cover one.

And whereas 25% of non-LGBT households wouldn't be able to come up with three months' worth of expenses with borrowing, savings, or selling assets, 36% of LGBT households wouldn't be able to cover the same amount of expenses.

Debt levels are fairly even among LGBT Americans and the general population

Despite being more likely to struggle financially, the LGBT population at large has very similar levels of debt to the general population.

This is one of the bright spots in this report, as large amounts of debt can have long-term consequences for both financial and mental health.

LGBT Americans, 2012 LGBT Americans, 2016 General American population, 2016
Less than $10,000 in debt 44% 45% 48%
$10,000 to $50,000 in debt 37% 34% 32%
More than $50,000 in debt 19% 21% 20%
Data source: Prudential (2017).

However, this fact belies the severe income disparity among LGBTQ women and their cis-straight peers, which could lead to significant debt problems in the future.

LGBT Americans have a poverty rate of 22% compared to a rate of 16% in cisgender straight Americans

15.7% of cis-straight Americans live in poverty, while LGBT Americans have a poverty rate of 21.6%. The transgender population has an even higher poverty rate at 29.4%.

This data indicates that a financial wellbeing gap exists for LBQ women. Cisgender men have the lowest poverty rates among Americans, while women generally experience a higher poverty rate. Transgender Americans and cis-bisexual women have the highest poverty rates.

Bar graph showing the poverty rate of Americans by sexual orientation and gender identity.

Geography may play a role here.

Many same-sex couples and LGBT Americans choose to live in large cities that are generally seen as more LGBT-friendly. Places like San Francisco, Portland, Austin, and Washington, D.C. are some of the most socially conscious cities in the country and have higher LGBT population density than other cities -- but they tend to have a very high cost of living, as well.

Keep in mind that many national measures of poverty don't take into account cost of living in a particular city and only look at salary. But the same salary won't go nearly as far in San Francisco as it will in Omaha.

LGBT racial minorities face significantly higher poverty rates than white LGBT Americans

Poverty rates tend to be higher for LGBT racial minorities compared to their cisgender, straight, same-race counterparts.

Race/ethnicity LGBT poverty rate Cis-straight poverty rate Difference
Hispanic 37.3% 38.0% –0.70%
American Indian or Alaska Native 32.4% 26.9% 6.5%
Black 30.8% 25.3% 5.5%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 28.9% 25.4% 3.5%
Asian 22.9% 14.6% 8.3%
White 15.4% 9.1% 6.3%
Other race 42.1% 14.8% 27.3%
Multirace 22.3% 20.8% 1.5%
Data source: Williams Institute (2019).

LGBT Americans are almost twice as likely as non-LGBT Americans to have "poor" or "very poor" credit

According to a 2021 report from the Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research, 16% of LGBT Americans report having a "poor" or "very poor" credit score compared to 8% of non-LGBT respondents.

Because a good credit score is required for many high-quality financial products from credit cards to mortgages, this problem is one that may perpetuate itself.

Grouped column chart comparing the percentage of Americans who have poor or very poor credit scores, broken down by race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Only 74% of employers that offer spousal benefits include same-sex spouses

95% of employers offer health insurance that an employee's spouse can join, but coverage for same-sex spouses is lagging.

Only 74% of employers offered same-sex spousal health benefits in 2020 (though that's an improvement from 43% in 2016).

Healthcare can be expensive -- especially without insurance. A single medical bill can derail years of financial planning. The ability to obtain health insurance is a crucial component of financial wellbeing.

2016 2017 2018 2020
Employers offering spousal benefits that cover same-sex spouses 43% 57% 63% 74%
Employers offering spousal benefits that don't cover same-sex spouses 16% 11% 6% 5%
Not encountered* 41% 31% 31% 21%
Data source: Kaiser Family Foundation (2020). *Note: "Not encountered" may be selected by a respondent when no workers requested same-sex spousal benefits or when there is no corporate policy on coverage for that classification of spouses.

However, among employees that work at employers that offer opposite-sex spousal benefits, 91% of employees had access to same-sex spousal benefits, a slight increase from 84% in 2016.

Smaller employers are less likely to offer spousal benefits that cover same-sex spouses. 95% of employers with 1,000 or more workers offered spousal benefits to same-sex spouses compared to 73% of employers with 3–49 workers.

Employers with 3–49 workers Employers with 50–199 workers Employers with 200–299 workers Employers with 1,000 or more workers All employers
Companies offering spousal benefits that cover same-sex spouses 73% 76% 87% 95% 74%
Companies offering spousal benefits that don't cover same-sex spouses 4% 18% 11% 5% 5%
Not applicable/not encountered* 23% 6% 2% 0% 21%
Data source: Kaiser Family Foundation (2020). *Note: "Not encountered" may be selected by a respondent when no workers requested same-sex spousal benefits or when there is no corporate policy on coverage for that classification of spouses.

While there are numerous factors that govern whether a household has access to health insurance, employer provision of that insurance is a crucial one. This is likely one of the factors that drives lower healthcare insurance participation among LGBT households.

Grouped column chart comparing the percentage of adults with no healthcare broken down by gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity.

Over one-quarter of LGBT households are un- or underbanked

While 18% of non-LGBT households in American are unbanked or underbanked, almost one in five (23%) LGBT households find themselves in that situation.

(CLEAR defines "unbanked" as not having a checking, savings or money market account; "underbanked" means a household has at least one bank account but used one or more alternative financial services in the past year.)

A pair of grouped column charts showing the percentage of Americans that are unbanked or underbanked, broken down by gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity.

LGBT Americans lag the general population in use of most financial products

In 2016, a Prudential survey found that 47% of the general American population had a savings account, while only 40% of LGBT Americans had one.

Financial products like brokerage accounts, savings accounts, retirement accounts, and insurance offerings are the building blocks of financial wellbeing. The fact that LGBT Americans had lower rates of usage among almost every financial product listed is worrying.

A table comparing the percentage of LGBT Americans that use a range of financial products to the general population.

It's unclear why LGBT Americans show lower numbers in these financial products, and we'd like to see research organizations dig deeper into this issue in the future.

LGBT Americans allocate 20% of their income to retirement and other growth accounts, 5% less than the general population

In 2016, LGBT Americans reported putting 20% of their income towards "retirement [accounts], accounts intended to grow, or accounts with quick access," while the general population put 25% of their income into those accounts.

That LGBT Americans and the general population were able to put more money towards retirement, investments, and other accounts than towards debt, loans, or discretionary spending is a positive sign.

Both LGBT Americans and the general population want to bump up their investment into those accounts, an aspiration that we like to see. Investing and staying the course for the long run is a bedrock principle of financial health.

Spending category Current allocation, LGBT Americans Current allocation, general population Ideal allocation, LGBT Americans Ideal allocation, general population
Necessities 51% 47% 34% 32%
Debt or loans 15% 14% 10% 8%
Discretionary 14% 14% 21% 21%
Retirement, other accounts intended to grow, or accounts with quick access 20% 25% 35% 39%
Data source: Prudential (2017).

The disparity in growth account contribution makes itself seen in total household savings. CLEAR's 2021 report shows that non-LGBT households are more likely than LGBT household to have saved $50,000 or more.

Grouped column chart comparing the household savings of LGBT and non-LGBT couples.

LGBT Americans feel less prepared to make wise decisions in support of their financial goals than the general population

On average, 34% of the general American population feels prepared to make wise financial decisions related to important issues. In contrast, only 24% of LGBT Americans feel prepared to make those same wise decisions.

Data collected by Prudential reveals that most Americans don’t feel prepared to make wise decisions with regard to their most important financial goals. Across all goals, LGBT Americans felt less prepared than the general population to make the best decision.

Being financially independent/Not being a financial burden Having enough savings to last my lifetime Building or growing an "emergency savings" account Reducing/paying off my personal debt Maintaining a standard of living for my family in the event that something were to happen to me
Consider very important (all) 76% 71% 61% 58% 59%
General population very well prepared to make wise decisions related to topic 35% 28% 34% 43% 31%
LGBT Americans very well prepared to make wise decisions related to topic 25% 18% 24% 32% 22%
Data source: Prudential (2017).

Why do LGBT Americans feel so much less prepared than the general population? Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics at UMass-Amherst and author of The Economic Case for LGBT Equality: Why Fair and Equal Treatment Benefits Us All, points out that "LGBT people are younger and might not have the same assets, income, and knowledge on average because of that."

"Overall, the research suggests to me that financial education targeted at LGBT people is necessary," continues Badgett. "Having programs that acknowledge and empower LGBT people to recognize and push back on unfair treatment in labor markets and credit markets might help them more than general types of financial education."

Not being able to get health insurance for a same-sex spouse, dealing with lower annual income, and uncertainty around issues like life insurance may also contribute to the LGBTQ population's feeling of being less prepared.

Roughly 70% of straight men and women own homes compared to about 60% of LBQ women and GBQ men

Homeownership is associated with (although not causally linked to) stronger financial wellbeing, according to research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Unfortunately, a gap between LGBT and straight Americans persists in homeownership.

Grouped column chart showing the percentage of LBQ women, straight women, GBQ men, and straight men that own their home, rent, or are in another housing arrangement.

We don't have data on why homeownership is lower among LGBTQ Americans, but Professor Badgett references "recent studies that show same-sex couples experience discrimination in the credit market for mortgages."

We also know that housing is very expensive in the cities that have larger LGBTQ populations. Places like San Francisco and Washington, D.C. have significantly higher housing prices than other locations, and this makes it harder for everyone to buy a home.

LGBTQ finance has improved, but still has far to go

Based on the data available, same-sex couples and LGBT Americans are more likely to face some financial hardships -- like poverty, personal financial crisis, or struggling to keep up with bills -- than opposite-sex couples and straight Americans.

Gender and race can amplify those hardships and create disparities within the LGBT population. For example, male same-sex couples have the highest average income among same and opposite-sex couples, while female same-sex couples have the lowest income. And white LBQ women face lower poverty rates than LBQ women of color.

And while LGBT Americans lag the general population in the use of financial tools and confidence in having the knowledge to make the best financial decisions to reach their goals, the data shows that both groups have ample room to improve their utilization of financial products and build their financial knowledge.

There are some bright spots. The percentage of LGBT Americans that reported a higher level of financial freedom grew from 2012 to 2016 to be nearly on par with the general population. LGBT Americans don’t carry higher levels of debt than the general population, and they have aspirations to invest and save more.

Achieving financial wellbeing can seem daunting, especially for LGBT Americans that can face unique hurdles, including workplace discrimination. The Motley Fool is committed to helping all individuals improve their financial health and becoming smarter, happier, and richer. Whether you’re thinking about taking your first steps towards a brighter financial future or looking for guidance on a major financial decision, The Motley Fool and the Ascent have resources to help and are on your team.

Sources

Additional Outside Experts Weigh In

David Auten and John Schneider

David Auten and John Schneider

DebtFreeGuys.com Blog and Queer Money Podcast

What institutional factors affect the financial health of same-sex couples (other than the gender-based wage gap, which is magnified for female same-sex couples)?

From start to finish, institutional factors play an adverse role in the lives of LGBTQ. Emboldened in part by churches and politicians, too many parents create a mentally or physically unsafe environment for their LGBTQ children. This is why the Williams Institute reports that upwards of 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ. It’s safe to assume that these kids aren’t getting much if any financial support or education from home.

Because of a similar lack of support, Student Loan Hero reported that LGBTQ college graduates were shown to have about $16,000 more in student loans than their straight peers and were also likely to graduate with credit card debt. So, even before LGBTQ folks enter the workforce only to get paid less than their straight peers, they’re already struggling more financially.

When a same-sex couple gets together, they’re also bringing together their student loan and credit card debts. They’re often bringing together their negative money stories and emotional challenges that often cause individuals to spend beyond their means and exacerbating their pre-existing negative financial health.

CMI Community Marketing & Insights reported in 2018 that a majority of same-sex couples “said that they paid for most, if not all, of the costs of their wedding.” This only makes the long-term financial health of a same-sex couple worse, especially as the cost of same-sex weddings is now at least as expensive as opposite-sex weddings. For example, if a same-sex couple spends $25,000 on their wedding when they’re both 30 years old rather than putting that $25,000 into their retirement accounts, they miss out on about $375,000 in retirement savings (at a conservative 7% annualized return) by the time they reach 70 years old.

While it’s true that the Supreme Court made it illegal in June of 2020 to deny someone employment solely based on their LGBTQ status, but we’re still seeing exactly how that’s playing out. Likewise, President Biden on January 20, 2021, made it illegal by executive order to deny housing and services to someone based solely on their LGBTQ status, we’re still waiting to see how that plays out and if it will last beyond his term or terms in office.

These historical and real-time institutional factors create a myriad of challenges to an LGBTQ couple’s financial health. Ideally, we’d should have more in emergency savings to withstand housing, employment and services discrimination, but that’s harder than for our straight peers as we come to adulthood with more debt, and we get paid less. We should have more in retirement savings, as our healthcare often costs more and retiring in an LGBTQ-friendly place is often expensive – there are currently only about 22 LGBTQ-dedicated retirement communities and assisted living facilities.

LGBTQ Americans feel less prepared to make wise financial decisions across several categories of personal finance – why do you think that is, and what can be done about it?

We’ll start with where we started above with 40% of homeless youth identifying as LGBTQ, and these kids aren’t getting financial education from reliable sources. Many LGBTQ kids who stick it out at home despite acrimonious relationships with their parents because they’re LGBTQ or gender non-conforming aren’t in a conducive environment to have real money talks with mom or dad.

When we reach adulthood, we don’t have a lot of examples of older LGBTQ folks who really rocked it with their finances. We lost a whole generation of gay men to HIV/AIDS, and we know that lesbian and trans people struggle more financially than gay men. So, there aren’t a lot of good examples to follow when making financial decisions.

The example we do have is a hangover of the HIV/AIDS crisis or the hysteresis effect as they say in behavioral economics. The hysteresis effect happens when a singular event has an economic effect that lasts even after the initial event no longer exists. In our case, because many gay men expected to die in their 30s and 40s, they adopted a carpe diem approach to life, and, at the time, this was sadly logical. But we have much more control over the effects of HIV/AIDS today and yet we’re still spending, dressing, traveling, playing as if we’ll never reach the age of 70. Now, we have a lot of retired LGBTQ people, as SAGE can tell you, living on little to no income and financial support.

Getting our community to just start talking about money was the sole purpose of our 2019 Queer Money Live Tour. We didn’t have a 2020 tour for obvious reasons. We hope to resume them in the future.

LGBTQ Americans use financial products like savings accounts, retirement accounts, and life insurance at a lower rate than the general population – why might that be?

Per a MassMutual study, 59% of LGBTQ respondents reported that they didn’t think traditional financial services wanted to “help people like them.” This may be in part because it’s hard to find financial services marketing or collateral that shows images of LGBTQ people. So, we don’t see ourselves in their marketing, financial services is still largely stale, male and pale and traditional products are typically more than we can afford or are willing to pay because of the disparities mentioned above. Then, we mistakenly don’t look for banking, investing and insurance products that do make sense for us and our financial health. Because our community is still not having the money talk, we don’t have anyone prodding us to make better decisions or saying, “Here, take my financial planner's business card. They’re great and will know how to help you.”

Daniella Flores

Daniella Flores

ILiketoDabble.com Blog

What institutional factors affect the financial health of same-sex couples (other than the gender-based wage gap, which is magnified for female same-sex couples)?

The LGBTQ+ wealth gap which I go into extensively in this article. This is made up of the income and savings gap, the information gap, the market gap, and the policy gap (one of the biggest ones).

LGBTQ Americans feel less prepared to make wise financial decisions across several categories of personal finance – why do you think that is, and what can be done about it?

When you grow up in a society strictly built by and for cisgender heterosexual people and couples, LGBTQ+ Americans are quickly left behind and especially from financial institutions. One third of individuals who presented bank cards with a name or gender that did not match their presentation reported harassment, denial of service or even physical attack.

Imagine if your bank put you in danger like this day in and day out by invalidating your identity and making the very experience of going to the bank or doing anything with your money a traumatizing event? This doesn't begin to scratch the surface of why LGBTQ+ Americans feel less prepared when making financial decisions - their own financial institutions have little protection for them, don't openly support them, and every piece of paperwork has a mr. + mrs. on it which completely invalidates their experience.

They need access to financial services that are built with them and their lived experience in mind. Currently, the only one that is up and coming in that area is Daylight -- a bank built by and for LGBTQ+ Americans. As more of these services do come up and come onto the market, I think LGBTQ+ Americans will finally start to thrive. Financial institutions need to meet people where they are, not the other way around. 

LGBTQ Americans use financial products like savings accounts, retirement accounts, and life insurance at a lower rate than the general population – why might that be?

Most people in America aren't taught how to think about, use, manage, or have money. There is no finance 101 class in school, and most LGBTQ+ Americans don't get support from their family -- especially financial support. They go on through their lives without that support and without the support of financial institutions. When they do decide to start making those decisions, of course these [financial] gaps arise. It causes LGBTQ+ Americans to lose millions over their lifetime.

Many or all of the products here are from our partners that pay us a commission. It’s how we make money. But our editorial integrity ensures our experts’ opinions aren’t influenced by compensation. Terms may apply to offers listed on this page.

Recent Research