California same-sex couples get tax break

PlanetOut ^ | July 10, 2003 | Randol White

[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."

[RightOnline]

"Well, you can be in favor of higher taxes all you want then."

No, you well-and-truly miss my point. Whatever. Don't think it's that hard to grasp.

[TheAngryClam]

Your point is that you support a higher rate of taxation for some groups you dislike because you believe that "the state is going to demand X dollars of tax anyway" and just shift that burden onto groups you do like.

That's BS.

[RightOnline]

"Your point is that you support a higher rate of taxation for some groups you dislike because you believe that "the state is going to demand X dollars of tax anyway" and just shift that burden onto groups you do like.

That's BS."

[.....insert buzzer here........] Care to try again? Really didn't think this was so deep................sheesh.

[TheAngryClam]

This isn't something like a checkbox on the income tax form that says "Check here if you engage in homosexual sodomy. If so, deduct 15% from your tax bill."

You can get this too if you want to go get married. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to.

[RightOnline]

"You can get this too if you want to go get married. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to."

OK, damn it, since I refuse to believe you're really this slow, I'll go ahead and spell it out even clearer for you.

BTW, any more attempts at twisting my words into supporting tax grabs will just piss me off. Knock it off.

Homosexuals should not "marry". Marriage is a sacred institution......for a man and woman. Period. Same sex or pet cocker spaniels need not apply. Any government subsidy of such behavior..........ANY government subsidy.............of such disgusting, antisocial behavior is anathema to me and to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is an acknowledgement by the State that such 'unions' are granted the same rights, recognition, and privileges enjoyed by men and women who are married, overwhelmingly in churches, by the way, in the sight of God.

Zero recognition, zero 'rights' as a couple (individual rights / liberties as an American citizen? you bet......sexual preference should never affect that), zero acknowledgment of such 'marriages'. It's a travesty, and if you can't understand why........YOU have a problem.

[TheAngryClam]

It's not a subsidy. A subsidy is paying out money.

Extorting less money from a citizen through taxes is entirely different than the government cutting them a check.

[Xenalyte]

Does that mean that hetero shackin-up couples get the tax break too?

[Clint N. Suhks]

You can get this too if you want to go get married. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to.

Hehehe...Let me play.

You can get this too if you want to go get married incestual. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to.

You can get this too if you want to go get married bestial. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to.

You can get this too if you want to go get married incestual. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to.

You can get this too if you want to go get married consenting children. Stop complaining. I like it when people don't pay the government money. Apparently, you like it when they're forced to.

Clam does care about ethics or culture, typical of the great Liberaltarain social experiment, selfishness comes first.

[TheAngryClam]

Good. Every penny less that the government steals, the better.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Good.

Thank goodness people still have common sense and the Liberaltarian party is the irrelevant 2% of the population.

[TheAngryClam]

Glad to see you support taxation too.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Hey Ted, Don't you have a shack in Montana you could go play in while the grown-ups talk?

[RightOnline]

I stand corrected.

You truly are that slow. Good lord..........

[RightOnline]

I'd reply to the guy in monosyllables if that would help............don't think it would.

This used to be such a literate Web site.................

[TheAngryClam]

No, you just keep repeating the same argument that extorting less money from some people amounts to subsidizing them.

Don't you have a corporation to go protest or something?

[RightOnline]

Hmmmm.................never did much debating in high school, did ya? First rule: Know what you're debating. You've missed the topic from the beginning, and you refuse to 'get' it. That is a sign of either a slow or closed mind. Which do you possess?

[TheAngryClam]

The topic is "tax cuts to homosexual couples."

You can agree or disagree with that.

I choose to agree with it, for the stated reason that anything that cuts taxes, for any citizen, is a good thing.

You and Clint have steadfastly refused to engage this point, instead attempting to paint it as a "subsidy," which it is not- the government isn't giving these people any money.

Then, when I insist that you 1) use the proper term and 2) justify it, you decide to say that I'm stupid. Someone here needs to take a debate class, all right, but it isn't me.

[bayareablues]

Are they boys or girls?

[tomball]

Strange the media seems to be glorifying a tax break for same-sex couples. Wait until the same-sex partners get hit with the marriage penalty tax (which is not gender specific) which married people have been paying for years.

No one is getting a tax break here - they are getting a tax hike under the guise of the appearance of an expansion of media recognized personal freedom.

Congress will not repeal the marriage penalty tax so long as there are people like this willing to expand the tax pool.