'Domestic Partnerships': An unfair tax break for the (gay) rich.

Self | 2-19-04 | The KG9 Kid

[The KG9 Kid]

Allow me to preface my remarks by stating that I am not one of those Freepers opposed to the basic idea of homosexual marriage. I couldn't care less about two other people of any type living together in whatever manner they choose. I live in a committed heterosexual relationship: I'm the man, she's the woman.

... Now, with that out of the way:

I work for a Silicon Valley tech company that by San Francisco county law must allow employees with 'domestic partners' to be covered under the primary employee's selected health/vision/dental insurance. Currently, I am paying taxes on approximately $265 per month at my taxable withholding rate to cover my fiancee. Therefore, on top of a $265 reduction in my payroll, I am being taxed another $90 or so dollars per month for the benefit of covering my partner under my health plan because the state of California considers this to be 'taxable income'. My yearly reduction in income for this 'benefit' comes to approximately $4260, of which $1080 of that figure is California state tax.

However, by California state law, employees in same-sex partnerships are exempt from paying state income tax on the fair market value of their domestic partner's medical benefits. You read that right: Gays get tax-free benefits, and heterosexuals are encumbered with taxes for the exact same 'domestic partner' health benefit. Evidently, California’s solution to Federal discrimination against same-sex marriage is to discriminate in reverse against opposite-sex partnerships and force heterosexuals to pay for gay domestic partnership's medical coverage.

Now, I will be married to my fiancee sometime this fall. Until that time, I must cover her with my health benefits as a 'domestic partner'. Even if the courts were to rule today that gays have a right to be married, the tax exemption rule that gay 'domestic partners' enjoy with regards to health care will still be on the books. I also believe that economic surveys have shown that gay 'DINK' relationships (Dual Income, No Kids) are among California's wealthiest partnerships with the greatest amount of expendable income far above the national level. By the Democrat's own standards, they're 'the rich'.

In short, the Calfornia state law that says gay employees are exempt from paying state income tax on the fair market value of their domestic partner's medical benefits is nothing more than a tax break for the gay rich.

I believe that it is very hypocritical for gays to demand the right to be married based upon a 'fairness doctrine' that they only want to enjoy the same tax exemptions that married couples receive while at the same time they are stealing money from my pocket to pay for their medical insurance.

Until this element of the California tax code is repealed, I am against gay marriage based upon unfair taxation without equal representation under the law.

[The KG9 Kid]

Comments?

[Britton J Wingfield]

So close the loophole. I don't care who gets married, either, but I don't think it should be either rewarded or penalized by the state.

[NCPAC]

Agreed. No tax benefits or penalties based upon marital, single, or "partnership" status. Giving any manner of tax breaks to any styling of "committed relationship" is social engineering at its worst.

[conserv13]

I agree also. Get government out of the marriage business.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Eliminate income taxes entirely!

[Tacis]

Hey, suck it up. Fairies are precious and superior to all others. Faggitude might become mandatory one of these days.

Where did perverted deviants get the political clout to accomplish something like this? Is the entire California legislature limp wristed?` Sure, there are lots of sensitive tinkerbells in Hollywood, but do they own the government?

[Integrityrocks]

I would like to hear Michael Reagan discuss this topic, since he's a Californian. Maybe he already has. Can you send your statement to him? I personally, am altogether against homosexual relationships - its against God, but it never helps to promote the cause, via, the financial angle. Thanks. Good post.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Allow me to preface my remarks by stating that I am not one of those Freepers opposed to the basic idea of homosexual marriage. I couldn't care less about two other people of any type living together in whatever manner they choose. I live in a committed heterosexual relationship:

The problem is that you live in San Francisco and are inured to the perversion to such a point that you aren't even able to see that it is WRONG anymore.

Walk away from the modern Sodom and look back from our vantage point and you will see the filth and perversion for what it is.

[Blue Screen of Death]

In the future the question will be if you marry your German Sheppard, will the vet bills be covered on your insurance before taxes.

[Ragirl]

Hey, suck it up. Fairies are precious and superior to all others. Faggitude might become mandatory one of these days.
Where did perverted deviants get the political clout to accomplish something like this? Is the entire California legislature limp wristed?` Sure, there are lots of sensitive tinkerbells in Hollywood, but do they own the government?

Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel!

[Blood of Tyrants]

In Kalifornication they do. I am so disgusted with that whole left coast that I would cheer if it slid off into the ocean.

[stylin19a]

I'm still scratchin my head about insurance premiums being taxable income. Am I understanding this right...? The Feds tax it...the state taxes it, then you pay a premium and the the state taxes it again ?

run....run for your life!

[Billthedrill]

A number of gay activists, even, are ambivalent over the issue of gay marriage for precisely this reason - it takes away the rationale for the extension of partnership benefits to unmarried couples, gay as well as straight. It is those activists who have insisted that there's more at issue here than a place at the trough. As there should be. We'll see if it's so.

Congratulations, by the way. Another one bites the dust...

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Am I understanding this right...? The Feds tax it...the state taxes it, then you pay a premium and the the state taxes it again?"

Yes, that's correct. They get you coming and going. A tax on a tax. I didn't want to highlight that in particular because it only confuses the issue even further.

Thanks for your correct observation.

[JoJo Gunn]

"Might" become mandatory?

Just ask Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak.

[Modernman]

I agree also. Get government out of the marriage business.

Bump.

[Zeroisanumber]

Yes, they're also legally banned from getting married and collecting whatever benefits come from a marriage.

That said, simply close the loophole and make the benefits taxable under law.

[King Black Robe]

Just wait till they sue for reparations for all those years of oppression.

[Imal]

Just another of many different aspects of a very complex issue, but noteworthy in and of itself.

The over all gay marriage debate is unappealing to me, however, because it is rife with blurred, shifting topics and tends to ignore the fact that gay marriage touches upon several different areas of interest, including social, cultural, legal, religious and financial domains.

Until those get worked out, we're left with little more than an incoherent, noisome din.

[davidosborne]

** ACTION ALERT ** SUPPORT S.J.RES.26 (7 Co-Sponsors) ** H.J.RES.56 (112 Co-Sponsors)