Now that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has introduced a bill in the House to equalize the tax treatment of health benefits for domestic partners, the HRC is singing its praises. But when Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., the measure's lead senate sponsor, tried to introduce it in that chamber as an amendment to the minimum wage bill, gay groups did the bidding of their party and were resolutely opposed (Log Cabin aside). Even now, notice that the HRC release makes no mention of Smith or any Republican supporters.
This bill is important because while the heterosexual spouse of any employee can get employer-provided health care without being taxed, a same-sex domestic partner (or spouse in Massachusetts) must pay full taxes on the value of the health benefit, typically amounting to over $1,500 in taxes annually just for average benefits. Too bad some LGBT advocates think partisanship is more important than passage.
27 Comments for “About Face on DP Tax Bill”
posted by grendel on
I’ll admit I don’t know the whole story, but if the HRC opposed the measure solely because it was introduced by a republican, what sense to make of this story from the archives of PlanetOut:
“Legislation introduced Wednesday in the U.S. Senate by Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., would extend health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers.”
. . .
“he Human Rights Campaign hailed Wednesday’s bill.
“We urge Congress to provide its gay and lesbian employees equal pay for equal work, which is not only the right thing to do, but good business,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese in a written statement.”
sounds like they supported Senator Smith’s introduction of the bill to me.
If they later opposed tying passage of the bill to passage of the minimum wage act, I suppose it could have been because opponents of the minimum wage bill were trying to kill it by attaching all sorts of unpopular amendments to it. Maybe the HRC was objecting to a gay rights issue being cynically used block passage of an otherwise popular proposal. Just maybe.
posted by jimbo on
Gay groups opposed tying the DP tax measure to the minimum wage bill, which Smith tried to do. But it made sense, since the DP bill would have lowered employers taxes (they wouldn’t have to pay the payroll tax/FICA on the value of the partner’s benefits), and the GOP wanted tax breaks to go along with the minimum wage hike.
With all the other tax cuts put into the minimum wage bill, you’d think this is ONE that the “progressives” would go along with. But nooooo. And that the gay groups joined the chorus makes me ill.
posted by Bill from FL on
As annoying and Demo-Partisan as HRC is, I wonder if the motive was to “punish” Smith for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment and I think the State one in OR. This bill is a step in the right direction but only a small one, and kind of a “placateer” bill IMHO.
posted by Cal on
An interesting point, and Smith may be trying to redeem himself somewhat for supporting the amendment by strongly supporting a DP-strengthening measure.
The version of the Federal Marriage Amendment that Smith supported, while still bad and unnecessary, was less awful than the one that was voted on (and voted down), since it would allow DPs and civil unions. See here.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’ve got bad news for those of you who think this bill represents Democrat “commitments to fairness” or Republican “evolution on gay issues.”
This bill is going to pass because it’s supported by the insurance industry, which has lobbied for it for years (and made sizable campaign contributions to all and sundry involved in it). Now, it’s not a bad result, this time, but it has nothing to do with “fairness.”
A similar situation exists with immigration equality. Right now, gay Americans cannot sponsor their foreign partners for visas to live in the USA. But non-US citizens can!
How did that happen? Well, Congress and the Senate — again, in rare “bipartisan” fashion, supported a change to the law that preserved the anti-gay ban against Americans sponsoring their partners, but created a “concession” for foreign nationals’ same-sex partners when their partners accepted a job on a work permit in the USA.
Why?
Because large corporate enterprises were having problems transferring employees into the USA (and hiring from abroad), since their foreign employees weren’t willing to break up their relationships due to US immigration law inequality. Since that wasn’t a concern for their US employees with foreign partners, that ban remains in place — so US citizens who are gay have fewer rights for their partners than foreign nationals. Neat trick!
The reality is that Democrats and Republicans won’t do what’s right, they’ll do what their sponsors pay them to do. To that end, while HRC is clumsy in its endorsement variances, gay people who expect Democrats and Republicans to do the right thing for the right thing’s sake are far, far more clumsy.
These are, after all, old party politicians we’re talking about. And old party politicians, like other prostitutes, are all about cash baby.
posted by Bill from FL on
Come to think of it, I think Gordon Smith has been supportive of ENDA, so the glass is a LITTLE full here.
Excellent point Brian Miller about the immigration thing. I didn’t know that! I am ambivalent about “H1B’s”…having worked with plenty of them, but it’s an interesting statement. At best I think they are concerned about Sham-Marriage Immigration fraud and are doing it on OUR backs, at worst it’s homophobia and “your relationship is unworthy” rubbish.
posted by Brian Miller on
At best I think they are concerned about Sham-Marriage Immigration fraud and are doing it on OUR backs, at worst it’s homophobia and “your relationship is unworthy” rubbish.
If they were concerned about sham marriages, they’re definitely barking up the wrong tree. There’s little (other than some interpretations of immigration law) preventing opposite sex sham marriages. In fact, many anti-gay politicians constantly claim that if gay people want to get married, they should just marry someone of the opposite sex — a virtual *invitation* to sham marriages, oddly enough.
I definitely think it’s the latter situation. And people who think that it’s only Republicans need to look again — especially at the text of John Kerry’s statement at his press conference condemning the delegates in his state party who voted to endorse marriage equality in Massachusetts. It leaves little doubt that one of the “leading liberals” also believes that our relationships “aren’t worthy.”
posted by Bill from FL on
Good point Brian Miller. The fun thing is, when do politicians NOT bark up the wrong tree?!?
When people hand me that argument about marrying the opposite sex, I tell them “fine, I will marry my first cousin, or my partner’s mom”. That makes them think a bit. (Legal to marry first cousin in FL, by the way.)
posted by Brian Miller on
I’ve long wondered if gay and lesbian people shouldn’t engage in marriages of convenience with queer folks of the opposite sex, to get health care and tax breaks. Of course, these marriages would have prenups, and given that priorities change over time, the average LGBT person could get “married” and “divorced” six or eight times over the course of 15 years or so.
It would ENRAGE the homophobic right and left alike, since it would be turning their own arguments against them (i.e. “anyone can get married, as long as it is to the opposite sex.”) It also completely works within their arguments, since they’ve already declared that marriage isn’t about love or commitment, but merely about the possibility (however remote) of having. Now a queer opposite sex couple is about as remote as can be, but no more so than a post-menapausal woman married to a straight man.
They’d go nuts as the rate of marriages to divorces approached 1 to 1 and the “institution” utterly collapsed under its own economic weight as LGBT people who carry the social benefit bills for themselves AND heterosexual married people become net TAKERS like straight married couples.
Of course, such a course of action is “too radical” according to our wonderful self-appointed “leadership.” 😛
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It would ENRAGE the homophobic right and left alike, since it would be turning their own arguments against them (i.e. “anyone can get married, as long as it is to the opposite sex.”)
No, I don’t think it particularly would.
First, the so-called “tax break” doesn’t really exist; indeed, just as in Social Security, the government has gotten fat for years by charging married couples proportionately MORE than they did singles (the “marriage penalty” tax). Most of the cost savings from marriage vs. single come from shared living expenses — things that are well outside the government’s control. Furthermore, as this timely piece mentions, getting married and the combined incomes thereof make you more vulnerable to being hit by the alternative minimum tax (AMT), since your incomes are now counting as combined.
As for health care, that only makes sense in one context — when one member of the couple isn’t working or when their employer doesn’t offer individual health insurance. Furthermore, if Congress really wanted to, there’s nothing that says they couldn’t amend the tax code to remove the imputed income requirement on non-spousal healthcare benefits; indeed, the argument that they should is much stronger, given that many baby boomers would love to be able to put their parents on something that would supplement Medicare. It’s similar to what Republicans did last year in the Pension Protection Act that allowed for tax-free transfers of retirement funds from an individual upon their death to a stated beneficiary, which didn’t have to be a spouse.
What most glbts don’t realize, having very little experience with actual marriage outside the leftist demagoguery that insists they’re dying without it, is that the tax, welfare, and legal structure of marriage is designed to optimize life for one thing — a single-income family with kids. For anyone else with any sort of income or job benefits, the tax and Social Security benefits evaporate, and the healthcare costs invariably are proportionately larger.
Thus, by entering into sham marriages, glbts would be taking on a greater tax hit — not to mention enriching the lawyers, since prenups, especially in common-property states like California, run into the thousands of dollars — even though, under California law, they do NOT eliminate or modify your worst financial problem in a divorce — the spouse’s right to receive alimony.
Don’t see that upsetting people much.
And ironically, the cost of a California prenup is slightly more than my partner and I spent to set up our healthcare, financial, and other proxies, which have a far better chance of being recognized both inside and outside the state — and which didn’t require us to sign our life away or give up our tax- and Social Security-advantaged states.
posted by Timothy on
“First, the so-called “tax break” doesn’t really exist;”
Nope.
If the couple has different income levels then in general they will pay lower taxes by filing as “married”.
posted by Brian Miller on
First, the so-called “tax break” doesn’t really exist; indeed, just as in Social Security, the government has gotten fat for years by charging married couples proportionately MORE than they did singles (the “marriage penalty” tax).
Of course it exists. It exists for health benefits (as explained before) and it certainly exists for property transfers, exemption from the death tax, and innumerable other ways.
by entering into sham marriages, glbts would be taking on a greater tax hit
Au contraire, we would, as I indicated earlier, be shifting ourselves from net payers to net consumers of government services.
The resulting insolvency of federal institutions would likely result in the end of government-defined “marriage” and then we’d all be free.
the cost of a California prenup is slightly more than my partner and I spent to set up our healthcare, financial, and other proxies, which have a far better chance of being recognized both inside and outside the state
Prenuptuals have more legal weight and precedence than any half-measures you’ve set up in California. In states like Virginia and Wisconsin, they could be viewed as “an effort to duplicate marriage” and thus ignored or invalidated in those jurisdictions.
They also have no effect whatsoever on your ability to pass assets back and forth nor designate survivor benefits sans death tax.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Au contraire, we would, as I indicated earlier, be shifting ourselves from net payers to net consumers of government services.
LOL…let me demonstrate in one of the ways.
A dual-income gay couple with reasonably-sized salaries pays into Social Security.
Upon their retirement, they find out — to their surprise — that the household limit on total Social Security payments is less than the combined value of the Social Security benefits they would have if they were single.
Then, when one of them dies, the survivor finds out something even more surprising; s/he has the choice of their individual benefits or the survivor benefits from their partner, but not both.
As a result, this gay couple, despite paying full amount into the Social Security system for years, will collect proportionately less than they would have, were they not married — among other impacts. They are PENALIZED for being married.
Case in point:
?Many senior couples receiving survivor benefits choose not to get married because they would automatically lose a significant portion of their social security benefits or payments from private companies. Many cannot afford to get remarried after losing a spouse because it requires giving up pension, social security and medical insurance.”
They also have no effect whatsoever on your ability to pass assets back and forth nor designate survivor benefits sans death tax.
And yet, amazingly enough, there is a simple and foolproof way to do that that requires no marriage whatsoever — a trust.
posted by Brian Miller on
there is a simple and foolproof way to do that that requires no marriage whatsoever — a trust
Are you seriously trying to argue that a trust established for the benefit of two partners of the same sex is equivalent to the tax treatment that government “marriage” offers for $50 at the justice of the peace?
Archie and Edith get better tax treatment (and more flexibility) for $50 than Vinnie and Rocko get for their trust that requires $25,000 in lawyers’ fees to set up and minimum annual expenses of about $5,000 for tax compliance, administration, accounting, trusteeship/executor fees, etc.
It is indeed an option for the wealthy — then again, the wealthy have options that most people in our existing society don’t have. Enough cash can overcome virtually any civil rights hurdle — millionaires can purchase newspapers or pay politicians for free speech if their First Amendment rights are violated, rich guys can lobby for (and get) access to weapons despite restrictive gun laws, and wealth couples can overcome visa and immigration hurdles by hiring their foreign partner on an employment visa.
Of course, none of those are options for the everyday gay couple — and neither are the convoluted workarounds such as trusts, adopting one’s partner, etc.
Ultimately, I’d like to see much of the state’s influence in this area severely diminished or eliminated altogether — transfer taxes abolished, asset and death taxes eliminated, and the government out of determining the contents of the marriage contract altogether.
That’s not going to happen through your insistence that gay people should continue to exist within a byzantine network of regulation and jump through the necessary flaming hoops to get to nirvana. (Incidentally, that persistent defense of the bureaucracy and existing convoluted government system that’s so common within the conservative movement is one of the major reasons I’m not a Republican nor a conservative — and why Libertarians in general cannot support Republicans or take their “small government” campaign claims seriously.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Are you seriously trying to argue that a trust established for the benefit of two partners of the same sex is equivalent to the tax treatment that government “marriage” offers for $50 at the justice of the peace?
Actually, it’s better from several standpoints and far more enforceable against counterclaims.
Archie and Edith get better tax treatment (and more flexibility) for $50 than Vinnie and Rocko get for their trust that requires $25,000 in lawyers’ fees to set up and minimum annual expenses of about $5,000 for tax compliance, administration, accounting, trusteeship/executor fees, etc.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Miller, if your activism is born less of seeing a wrong than it is of utter ignorance.
It seems odd that most married couples put trusts together if marriage alone solves thier problems. Can you explain why?
posted by Brian Miller on
It seems odd that most married couples put trusts together if marriage alone solves thier problems. Can you explain why?
Can you cite your empty contention that “most married couples put trusts together?” Most married couples have wills, but trusts are complex and expensive — usually costing thousands of dollars to establish even simple ones, and thousands more per year to maintain.
You’ve also ignored the legal possibility that in states like Virginia and Wisconsin, which ban “anything resembling gay marriage,” that such trusts could have their fundamental viability challenged under DOMA laws/amendments.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Miller, if your activism is born less of seeing a wrong than it is of utter ignorance.
Why not focus on citing your contentions, rather than launching your tawdry attacks on me? It might work on Democrats, but I’m a Libertarian and prefer analysis and hard facts to Rove vs. Carville talking point screaming matches.
If we are going to talk about where we stand individually, you’re still justifying and defending a complicated, big-government morass of bureaucracy, legalese and regulations rather than advocating a simple system that gets government out of the business of determining what one can do with his own assets. This is *not* atypical for Republicans — who talk a lot about “small government” but fail to walk the walk. Your statements on this front are just more evidence of this, I’m afraid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why not focus on citing your contentions, rather than launching your tawdry attacks on me?
One, I did — by citing an example of actual trust costs.
Two, I can provide even more information to prove my points.
And three, practice what you preach.
posted by Brian Miller on
citing an example of actual trust costs.
You linked to a lawyer’s web site with a laundry list of legalese and no explanation of how that forms into a trust — nor an acknowledgement that said costs would differ from state to state.
I don’t have the time or inclination to sit and assemble a model for you, you’re going to have to demonstrate how a gay couple would go about building and maintaining one of these super-cheap trusts you keep going on about. You, after all, are the one making the contention.
So far you’ve not demonstrated it in the slightest.
can provide even more information to prove my point
Again, linking to a 1.3 megabyte web site isn’t “providing information,” it’s laziness. Parse and deliver the information as part of your argument, rather than urging those who question your expertise to read a 43 page document before deigning to question them.
And three, practice what you preach.
Great, so not only am I expected to guess what you mean about your argument (since you won’t validate it), but I’m now supposed to guess the mystery of what the thread you linked to has to do with the issue in question here.
I can only conclude that you’re either not familiar with the issues in question to a degree necessary to construct a cogent argument, or you’re simply posting talking points that you know to be false in an effort to justify a partisan agenda.
Either way, yawwwn.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Mr. Miller, you were the one who made this initial claim about trust costs:
Archie and Edith get better tax treatment (and more flexibility) for $50 than Vinnie and Rocko get for their trust that requires $25,000 in lawyers’ fees to set up and minimum annual expenses of about $5,000 for tax compliance, administration, accounting, trusteeship/executor fees, etc.
I cited a source that clearly shows otherwise from a law firm doing it in multiple states (check at the bottom of the page).
You have not provided a shred of documentation for YOUR claim on trust costs. Not one. Yet you have the gall to insist that my evidence is not valid.
And the reason I linked to the other thread was the same thing; you made a claim; then, when I showed clearly the opposite, refused to provide your evidence and began to denigrate me.
Clearly, what you determine to be a “cogent argument” has to do with whether or not it confirms your own beliefs and has little or no relevance to the facts of the matter.
posted by Wes Henderson on
This argument is ridiculous. The automatic transfer of your estate to your (straight) spouse upon death does not require expenditure of $$$. If you have any sized estate –worth more than a hot dog cart—and if your assets are complicated then it is going to cost more than North Dallas Thirty is talking about—his linked internet sites notwithstanding.
If you have modest assets then you will not care and so go buy your dime store living trust and wills or whatever off some internet site.
And the transfer of estate assets to the surviving spouse is one of just thousands of benefits conveyed by the federal gov’t. A few years back, my partner (of 20+ yrs) and I moved to Florida. He transferred with the fed. gov’t. I moved my business which can operate anywhere. None of my moving expenses were paid (if I had been his spouse they would have been). The gov’t did not pay for me to visit the new location with him (if I had been straight it would have paid). And the gov’t would not pay for any of the relocation costs related to our buying a new house if my name had been on the deed. Transfer the title after closing? Well not so fast. In Florida if you are not married there is a transfer tax to do that.
posted by Brian Miller on
The automatic transfer of your estate to your (straight) spouse upon death does not require expenditure of $$$
That is correct. Further, ND completely ignores my other point, which is that he’s defending an expensive big-government bureaucracy as a “conservative.”
Double irony points there, I’m afraid.
Me? I want to simplify the system to the maximum degree possible. Treat all people the same, and get rid of the taxes that make people want to hop into trust in the first place.
Whereas “conservatives” keep advocating increasingly bizarre, “read this 8 MB web site and then you’d understand” approaches that cost thousands of dollars.
posted by Brian Miller on
I cited a source that clearly shows otherwise
It shows no such thing. In fact, a quick glance at your web site shows that my estimate for establishing and maintaining that durable trust in several states is actually too low.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, bud!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you have any sized estate –worth more than a hot dog cart—and if your assets are complicated then it is going to cost more than North Dallas Thirty is talking about—his linked internet sites notwithstanding.
Translation: even if proof is provided, you refuse to let go of your beliefs.
In fact, a quick glance at your web site shows that my estimate for establishing and maintaining that durable trust in several states is actually too low.
Oh really? Cite the specific line and phrase, with quotes, please, and hyperlinks.
You see, Mr. Miller, as I pointed out last time, you and your fellow gay leftists make lots of claims, but never provide evidence. I think the reason why is because, as Mr. Henderson pointed out, you make up whatever you need to support your persecution and victimhood fantasies — and ignore anything else.
posted by Brian Miller on
Cite the specific line and phrase
LOL!
You first, matey!
you and your fellow gay leftists make lots of claims
Rather than fly into your ridiculous habit of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a “leftist,” get out your calculator and then go to your own web link and add up the one-time and ongoing costs of setting up an enduring living trust for tax purposes.
It’s well in excess of $25K. And no, I’m not going to do the math FOR you just because you’re lazy and post a quick link in response to my detailed criticism and then demand that I do your own work for you.
I so tire of the intellectually lazy who are the underpinning of the conservative movement today. All soundbites and Google.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Or, in other words, you can’t back up your claim.
Just as before when you were caught in your falsehoods about the University of Michigan’s domestic partner benefits.
And as for “intellectually lazy”, you might note something in this thread; my posts contain hyperlinks specifically outlining and elucidating from where my information comes.
Yours do not — and when asked to provide them, you make excuses.
posted by Brian Miller on
my posts contain hyperlinks specifically outlining and elucidating from where my information comes
No they don’t.
Your posts “prove” your positions on trusts like this link proves my position on tax policy.
As for honesty and excuses, I post under my real name with my real e-mail address. You don’t.
Obviously, one of us has the courage in our convictions and beliefs to stand up and make them clear with detailed information under his own name. And the other one of us is an anonymous and cowardly troll. I’ll let you figure out which is which. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, as I pointed out, Mr. Miller, you have not once cited ANY information on this thread to back up your assertions — and, when challenged to provide exact quotations, have spun and whined about why you shouldn’t have to provide such things.
Only I have provided hyperlinks to my information. You have criticized them, claiming they said something else — but again balked and spun when asked to provide the exact quotation that would back up your claim.
Yet you insist, despite your lack of information and complete umnwillingness to provide anything to back up your claims, that we should accept your argument — because you publish your real name.
Of course, you never explain why someone who refuses to provide information anywhere else should be trusted to actually be providing their real name.