Skip to comments.
'Domestic Partnerships': An unfair tax break for the (gay) rich.
Self
| 2-19-04
| The KG9 Kid
Posted on 02/19/2004 1:54:21 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
To: Britton J Wingfield
21
posted on
02/19/2004 2:26:51 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Don't bite the hand that meads you. This means you Muttley.)
To: Imal
Until those get worked out, we're left with little more than an incoherent, noisome din. Just look at the threads on FR. They always degenerate into name-calling and endless expositions on the evilness of homosexuality.
If conservatives are so polarized on this issue, what does that say?
22
posted on
02/19/2004 2:29:12 PM PST
by
Modernman
("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
To: The KG9 Kid
Bingo. Again, the insights Freepers will come up with.
No one wants to touch this fact and that the recent tax cuts with ramifications for estate and probate law might be driving the push for legal marriage benefits.
Well Done!
To: little jeremiah
24
posted on
02/19/2004 2:48:45 PM PST
by
EdReform
(Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
To: conserv13
Get government out of the marriage business. You are absolutely right about that. If government is involved, marriage becomes a political football and people will use the power of the government to destroy the institution.
Nothing good can come from government involvement in marriage.
For instance, the vast majority of people view civil divorce as the final word on ending a marriage. Since in most states civil divorce is simply a matter of filing paperwork, the state has made divorce painless, and divorce is more common.
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
To: The KG9 Kid
This must be new. My understanding of the CCSF benefits for domestic partners is that since the Federal government doesn't recognize domestic partners, the cost of the insurance is deducted from the paychecks of the employee, but it cannot be pretaxed under Section 125 of the IRC, like it would be for married employees. Several years ago this was not taxable as income, and the only way it would be is if the employer paid the premium cost of the domestic partner, but I haven't seen this happen.
An employer can offer an employee $50K of life insurance for free, but if that same employer wants to give another $50K life insurance, the premium it pays for that $50K is taxable income to the employee. Is this the same sort of thing?
27
posted on
02/19/2004 5:13:13 PM PST
by
tinamina
To: The KG9 Kid
Just another example of how recognition of gay partnerships chips away at traditional marriage.
The only way to "correct" this is to wipe away any privilege of marriage at all in the law. Presto -end of marriage!
28
posted on
02/19/2004 6:13:27 PM PST
by
WOSG
(Bush/Cheney 2004!!)
To: conserv13
Get government out of the marriage business. Government isn't in the marriage business. They're in the tax business.
Domestic contracts are just another vehicle to create a revenue stream.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson