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 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2003 1:27:16 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Blackshirts; *Clash of Civilizatio; california; *Homosexual Agenda; *Privacy_list
PING
2 posted on 07/13/2003 1:29:32 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


How we have, and can, change the world


History of Free Republic


Click The Logo to Donate
Click The Logo To Donate



3 posted on 07/13/2003 1:31:32 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Good Lord, where's the *BARF ALERT* for those pictures?

Have you no decency!? lol
4 posted on 07/13/2003 1:35:40 PM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow ("For great justice...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Why shouldn't singles/unmarried/unpartnered get the same tax break?
5 posted on 07/13/2003 1:37:24 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Why shouldn't singles/unmarried/unpartnered get the same tax break?

Because we are bigoted, hateful, and conservative. This is about reparations for the gays, don't you see?

6 posted on 07/13/2003 1:38:58 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
I agree with you.

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?
7 posted on 07/13/2003 1:40:26 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
They're the same sex?
Is that Pat?


8 posted on 07/13/2003 1:43:13 PM PDT by Mo1 (Please help Free Republic and Donate Now !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

How about a new show for Spike TV: STRAIGHT LIKES FOR THE UGLY DYKES

9 posted on 07/13/2003 1:44:40 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Hint: they aren't 'married'. I don't care what anyone says. They're co-habitating homosexuals. I don't like their lifestyle. I don't approve of it. My religion speaks strongly against it. Most peoples' religions speak strongly against it. We don't want to subsidize them.

Get it, California? Plain enough for you?

Damned if I'll ever, ever live in that State again.

10 posted on 07/13/2003 1:45:52 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I think the one on the right is Ozzie Osbourne's son.
11 posted on 07/13/2003 1:46:55 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Why shouldn't singles/unmarried/unpartnered get the same tax break?

For the usual reason I suppose. The Guberment wants to dictate a lifestyle that is conducive to a healthy society. Apparently in California lawmakers don't feel being single does that. Go figure!

12 posted on 07/13/2003 1:47:53 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Presumably they will get the tax benefits of married couples but will not have to suffer any of the well-known marriage penalties, such as having to file joint returns.

Bush has spoken about doing away with the marriage penalties, but that won't reall happen for practical purposes as long as he leaves the Alternative Minimum Tax in place.
13 posted on 07/13/2003 1:48:05 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
The military grants larger houses to married couples with children than it does to married couples without children. They limit singles to barracks or to smaller housing allowances.

They say that it supports families and children.

Singles say it isn't fair. Who is right? One doesn't do any more work than the other does?

14 posted on 07/13/2003 1:52:29 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Creating special reduced tax status for perverts, while the state is looking at a 30 some billion dollar deficit and raising taxes on everything else in sight. Way to go California.


15 posted on 07/13/2003 1:57:15 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Kid gets around, doesn't "she"?

16 posted on 07/13/2003 2:04:45 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (Bumperootus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The military grants larger houses to married couples with children than it does to married couples without children. They limit singles to barracks or to smaller housing allowances.

One should be careful as to what one wishes for. Look at the bright side, I live in a large split level on a large lot. I'm single and beleive me there are plenty of times I wish I had a smaller place suited for one person! It can be a LOT of work for 1 person! :0 The military however can do what they want. It is a contractual agreement between the enlistee and the military. When it comes to Civil Government one can toss contracts out the window and in most, if not all, cases the decisions are based on political power and votes not what is best for society.

17 posted on 07/13/2003 2:05:00 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
Why is not forcing them to pay taxes a subsidy?

Anything that reduces the taxes paid to government is a good thing.
18 posted on 07/13/2003 2:12:42 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
So I take it you agree with the Democrats that the way to solve our budget crisis out here is to raise taxes?
19 posted on 07/13/2003 2:13:59 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Does this mean that I can now get the same benefits with my live-in girlfriend even though we are not married?

Now why do I thing I will never get away with that?
20 posted on 07/13/2003 3:08:45 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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]

To: TheAngryClam
"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.

41 posted on 07/14/2003 9:30:45 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 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.
42 posted on 07/14/2003 11:38:52 AM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 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."

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

43 posted on 07/14/2003 12:12:48 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
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.
44 posted on 07/14/2003 12:19:26 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
"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.

45 posted on 07/14/2003 2:24:44 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
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.
46 posted on 07/14/2003 2:27:38 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Does that mean that hetero shackin-up couples get the tax break too?
47 posted on 07/14/2003 2:28:09 PM PDT by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline; TheAngryClam
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.

48 posted on 07/14/2003 2:47:35 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Good. Every penny less that the government steals, the better.
49 posted on 07/14/2003 2:50:55 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Good.

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

50 posted on 07/14/2003 2:56:46 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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