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

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

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: civilunion; homosexual; homosexualagenda; samesexmarriage
Comments?
1 posted on 02/19/2004 1:54:22 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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.
2 posted on 02/19/2004 1:57:26 PM PST by Britton J Wingfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Britton J Wingfield
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.
3 posted on 02/19/2004 2:00:01 PM PST by NCPAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NCPAC; Britton J Wingfield
I agree also. Get government out of the marriage business.
4 posted on 02/19/2004 2:02:40 PM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Eliminate income taxes entirely!
5 posted on 02/19/2004 2:04:58 PM PST by Fierce Allegiance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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?

6 posted on 02/19/2004 2:05:47 PM PST by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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.
7 posted on 02/19/2004 2:09:47 PM PST by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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:

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.

8 posted on 02/19/2004 2:09:51 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
In the future the question will be if you marry your German Sheppard, will the vet bills be covered on your insurance before taxes.
9 posted on 02/19/2004 2:10:47 PM PST by Blue Screen of Death (,/i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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?

Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel!

10 posted on 02/19/2004 2:11:40 PM PST by Ragirl (Vote in '04 ! Those who sit on their hands end up with poop on them. johnfkerrysucks.com coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
In Kalifornication they do. I am so disgusted with that whole left coast that I would cheer if it slid off into the ocean.
11 posted on 02/19/2004 2:11:57 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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!
12 posted on 02/19/2004 2:13:51 PM PST by stylin19a (Is it vietnam yet ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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...

13 posted on 02/19/2004 2:15:12 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
"... 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.

14 posted on 02/19/2004 2:16:49 PM PST by The KG9 Kid (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
"Might" become mandatory?

Just ask Rolf Szabo, formerly of Kodak.
15 posted on 02/19/2004 2:17:38 PM PST by JoJo Gunn (Gut and raze the NEA! ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conserv13; NCPAC; Britton J Wingfield
I agree also. Get government out of the marriage business.

Bump.

16 posted on 02/19/2004 2:19:03 PM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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.

17 posted on 02/19/2004 2:19:34 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Just wait till they sue for reparations for all those years of oppression.
18 posted on 02/19/2004 2:20:38 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
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.
19 posted on 02/19/2004 2:24:27 PM PST by Imal (When socialism fails, it is always the fault of capitalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
** ACTION ALERT ** SUPPORT S.J.RES.26 (7 Co-Sponsors) ** H.J.RES.56 (112 Co-Sponsors)
20 posted on 02/19/2004 2:26:38 PM PST by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Britton J Wingfield
Well put.

L

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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!
23 posted on 02/19/2004 2:30:15 PM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Ping


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

25 posted on 02/19/2004 2:55:08 PM PST by bondjamesbond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

29 posted on 02/19/2004 7:36:14 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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