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."

[navyblue]

Just curious! How do they figure out who is the husband and who is the wife? Must be very confusing.

[gcruse]

It's he-ere.

[longtermmemmory]

goto

http://www.senate.gov

and

http://www.house.gov

and let you representatives in both houses know you support the FMA.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

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

[jimtorr]

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.

[RJCogburn]

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.

[CGTRWK]

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?

[TheAngryClam]

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.

[CGTRWK]

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.

[breakem]

If you're married, then you're not suffering anything.

Speak for yourself, lol!

[Newbomb Turk]

Looks like a couple of lawsuit lotery winners in the kid picture you posted. I wonder how big the parents are.

[TheAngryClam]

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

It isn't.

[CGTRWK]

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.

[TheAngryClam]

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.

[John Jorsett]

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.

[RightOnline]

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.

[TheAngryClam]

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

[xzins]

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.

[Atchafalaya]

State Board of Equalization: WTFIT!!!! They wonder why they have no money. Another Custer moment!

[randog]

I think the one on the right is Ozzie Osbourne's son.

LOL! Now we know why he was constantly stoned!