Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California same-sex couples get tax break
PlanetOut ^ | July 10, 2003 | Randol White

Posted on 07/13/2003 1:27:16 PM PDT by nwrep

California same-sex couples get tax break
Randol White, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Thursday, July 10, 2003 / 04:20 PM

SUMMARY: The state of California will soon give registered domestic partners the same tax break on property transfers as married couples.

The state of California will soon give registered domestic partners the same tax break on property transfers as married couples.

California's elected tax board passed the proposed tax rule change on Wednesday with a 3-2 vote that followed party lines. The revision will take effect in two months, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The State Board of Equalization's openly gay chairwoman Carole Migden (pictured above, left) said, "Changing these rules assures that domestic partners don't lose their houses when they're grieving for their spouses. I think that's a major step."

Critics of the change say it will cost local governments millions of dollars in lost tax revenue. Migden doesn't believe gay and lesbian couples should be singled out for that burden.

Equality California Executive Director Geoffrey Kors agrees with Migden. "Same-sex couples are denied over a thousand federal and state rights available to married couples. This is one step to correct that situation," said Kors.

Before the change, jointly owned property was reassessed as it passed to the surviving partner, while the property owned by married couples kept its original value.

Kors believes the new rule could save some individuals tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the situation. He also thinks there is a psychological benefit for the state's gay and lesbian community.

"It means all of the work that has been done is finally resulting in the state of California recognizing gay and lesbian couples as equal players," said Kors.

The new rule is an incentive for domestic partners to register in California. In an effort to make that process more convenient, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said Wednesday his department's regional offices will now offer same-sex registry enrollments. Shelley authored California's domestic partnership law.

Kors likes all the positive moves both locally and federally he's seen lately for the gay community. He said, "It's terrific, it's long overdue, and part of the wave of changes we've been seeing over the last couple of months. It's a good year."


TOPICS: Announcements; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: blackshirts; california; californication; clashofcivilizatio; culturewar; downourthroats; gays; homos; homosexualagenda; pc; pedos; politicallycorrect; prisoners; privacylist; protectedclass; samesex; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: nwrep
Just curious! How do they figure out who is the husband and who is the wife? Must be very confusing.
21 posted on 07/13/2003 3:14:01 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; breakem
It's he-ere.
22 posted on 07/13/2003 3:15:31 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
goto

http://www.senate.gov

and

http://www.house.gov

and let you representatives in both houses know you support the FMA.
23 posted on 07/13/2003 3:24:13 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
End run around the 'bigoted' California voters who passed Prop 22. Our government knows what's best for us.

24 posted on 07/13/2003 3:32:57 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm just wondering at the logic behind why they were giving a tax break to marrieds that they weren't giving to singles? Do you have any idea what it might be?

The logic behind it is simple. Most married people have children. It has traditionaly been the husband, usually the primary income earner, who dies young. The idea is to help the surviving spouse support the children.

How many registered domestic partners (virtually all of them "gay") have children? Some, yes, but very few. The grief angle is just a tug at the heartstrings, Irrelevant.

25 posted on 07/13/2003 3:40:23 PM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I am in favor of any tax cut, anywhere, anytime....so long as it is across the board, and not for a specific individual or corporation.
26 posted on 07/13/2003 4:42:19 PM PDT by RJCogburn ("All them Parmelees is teched. Harold's the worst.".....Lucky Ned Pepper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
I'm against exclusive tax cuts for politically favored victim groups at the same time everyone else is getting a big fat hike. How exactly does that make me for raising taxes?
27 posted on 07/13/2003 5:25:18 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
It's not exclusive- if you want that tax cut, get married. If you're married, then you're not suffering anything.

And if you're single and not getting married, that's your own choice leading to higher taxes.

I personally have never, ever met a tax cut that I didn't like. I know big government lovers here have.
28 posted on 07/13/2003 5:52:51 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Live in perverts, who aren't married, are going to get the married state tax rates, which are lower than the rates for unmarried residents.

All other unmarried people will continue to pay the unmarried state rate.

That sure seems like a pretty exclusive tax cut to me.

Targeted tax cuts to specific groups, companies, industries, etc. aren't cuts at all. They're subsidies, and no different in the end from sending out a government check. Some things ought to be subsidized to keep our society running smoothly, but live in perverts aren't one of them.

29 posted on 07/13/2003 6:09:33 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
If you're married, then you're not suffering anything.

Speak for yourself, lol!

30 posted on 07/13/2003 6:14:34 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
Looks like a couple of lawsuit lotery winners in the kid picture you posted. I wonder how big the parents are.
31 posted on 07/13/2003 6:19:58 PM PDT by Newbomb Turk (Live from the ladies room here at Tubbys DriveIn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
Your subsidy argument is based on the fallacy that the government is owed that tax money to begin with.

It isn't.
32 posted on 07/13/2003 6:24:02 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
The reality is the government is going to take in enough money to keep itself running regardless of philisophical debate on whether that money is "owed" or not.

Cuts to individual taxes don't occur in a vacuum. The money the government is going to spend has to come from somewhere - for every dollar less of it that comes from Peter, a dollar more will come from Paul.

Needless to say this is quite popular with Peter.

33 posted on 07/13/2003 6:43:35 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
Nice backhanded insult.

Any tax cut is a good tax cut, as far as I'm concerned.

Putting aside the freedom from government philosophy for a moment, just think of this.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

Why? Because more money is put into consumers' hands. And, to borrow a phrase from Michael Jordan when refusing to help a black Democrat against Jesse Helms, "Gay people buy shoes too."

The stimulatory effect of this tax cut benefits everyone, pure and simple.

Your argument, in essence, is that government is going to spend money regardless, so we should keep taxes high. I assume there's a subtext of "unless the tax cut applies to me."

Thinking like that is why we never manage to reduce the size of government.
34 posted on 07/13/2003 7:07:17 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
I'm all in favor of this. I'm not married, so if I get a disease where I know the end is coming, I'll 'register' with my heir as domestic partners. Anything to screw the state out of taking another chunk out of me in taxes. The next thing to push for is allowing the registration of multiple domestic partners so that I can spread the inheritance out tax-free among several people. Cool.
35 posted on 07/13/2003 7:18:22 PM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
The fact that they're singled out (pardon the pun) for tax breaks.........this doesn't bother you one bit, I see.

It bugs the living s**t out of me.

36 posted on 07/13/2003 7:52:52 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Well, you can be in favor of higher taxes all you want then.
37 posted on 07/13/2003 8:07:44 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr; OrthodoxPresbyterian; drstevej
I agree with you. I can see no reason to give a tax break to someone because they're having sex with someone else.

The idea was to foster natural families and encourage them to stay together.

It hasn't worked. Take away the tax break for everyone or give it to singles to. We can call it the "because you're alive and breathing" tax break.

That makes a little more sense than the "because you have sex with something" tax break.
38 posted on 07/14/2003 12:23:42 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
State Board of Equalization: WTFIT!!!! They wonder why they have no money. Another Custer moment!
39 posted on 07/14/2003 12:44:24 AM PDT by Atchafalaya (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
I think the one on the right is Ozzie Osbourne's son.

LOL! Now we know why he was constantly stoned!

40 posted on 07/14/2003 9:28:06 AM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson