| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2013 12:21:49 PM · #6126 |
Oh yeah? Well I'm just waiting on the hammer to drop, because I gave my husband two checks that total $60K in order for him to take out a mortgage for our new home. The one I bought with him. My house, the one we live in together. It is unclear if the federal government will consider this a 'gift' between the two of us, and will tax us at 35%. The mortgage broker sure insisted it was a gift, and we were forced to sign forms to this effect in order to even secure a mortgage, as they track where the money 'comes from' even if it's OUR MONEY. Our tax guy suggested we just gloss over this little issue, instead of willingly offering up $21K to the government to enforce institutionalized bigotry onto ourselves.
$21K none of you other married folks would have to pay. I could very well get audited and dinged to the tune of multiple tens of thousands, which I'm sure you all have just laying around in case of emergencies. (I do, because that's what we have to do it seems... what with all the legal uncertainties about finances and healthcare and estates, but gosh would I love to invest it or spend it on landscaping... too bad for me! I just let it languish in a risk-averse savings account until DOMA is dismantled.)
Is that fair? Why does my family have to pay a tax just to transfer money between each other to spend it on common property?
I'm getting double taxed by the law. First on the transfer, then on the purchase of the home.
I'm a citizen who'd getting double taxed, without even being provided the same rights as other citizens.
How is extending this discrepancy about being conservative, limited government, or life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness? How'd you like that sort of fiscal uncertainty hanging over your heads? Would you pay $21K for PEACE OF MIND???
ARGH. I, apparently, just can't keep away. Maybe I can keep it apersonal.
Message edited by author 2013-04-08 12:24:43. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 12:30:23 PM · #6127 |
BTW I also pay a tax guy because of exactly the sort of headaches Ann describes. I let the professionals take care of the legalities and the paperwork. It's not free, but I have that luxury. Not everybody does.
This is an increased burden that most straight people will have no feeling for how invasive and far reaching it can be.
If you're married, you don't have to prove jack. People just accept it. I have to do paperwork.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2013 02:15:09 PM · #6128 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
This is an increased burden that most straight people will have no feeling for how invasive and far reaching it can be.
|
I can only speak for one straight person, so you may be right about "most" (although I think you're not)...
I don't have to suffer the wrong to see it as wrong. This is why I (and most straight folks in Washington State) voted to right the wrong. Marriage Inequality is economically wrong, morally wrong and just plain common sense wrong. It's a violation of the 14th Amendment and it WILL be eliminated.
One stumbling block are lawsuits against people that don't wish to participate in same sex marriages. The straight folks that would support your rights are often frightened off by stories of bakers, photographers, and potentially churches that have religious objections to actively participating in same sex weddings being FORCED to participate. This will set back your cause... I offer no solution, just the observation. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 04:36:01 PM · #6129 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Oh yeah? Well I'm just waiting on the hammer to drop, because I gave my husband two checks that total $60K in order for him to take out a mortgage for our new home. The one I bought with him. My house, the one we live in together. It is unclear if the federal government will consider this a 'gift' between the two of us, and will tax us at 35%. .... |
I lived in fear of this happening for years, not because of a big down payment on our house, but because I make more money than Allex, and was consequently paying significantly more of our day to day shared expenses. There has always been a school of thought that said this difference is subject to the gift tax. Like your tax guy, I always pushed the money around as best I could to hide the fact that it was mostly my money that was paying the bills, then just hoped for the best.
Once the IRS came out with their SSM/RDP community property ruling in 2010, I heaved a sigh of relief, because our money is all community property now (we don't have any assets or income that would be considered separate), so it seems unlikely that the IRS, with or without DOMA, will ever come after it.
What Mousie doesn't mention is that doing taxes is crazy expensive, too. No H&R block for us.... |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 04:52:00 PM · #6130 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
One stumbling block are lawsuits against people that don't wish to participate in same sex marriages. The straight folks that would support your rights are often frightened off by stories of bakers, photographers, and potentially churches that have religious objections to actively participating in same sex weddings being FORCED to participate. This will set back your cause... I offer no solution, just the observation. |
In general I agree with you, because I'd rather have people at my wedding be people who want to be there, and I see lawsuits against people like that as being akin to poking an angry bear. But I also live in a large, gay friendly city, where I wouldn't have any trouble getting a caterer or a photographer who would *love* to participate in a gay wedding. Someone living in a small town may not have the same choices, and may need that unhappy photographer to do their wedding, regardless of the photographer's opinion on gay marriage. If the only photographer in town won't photograph their wedding, they're probably not going to have pictures. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 06:59:20 PM · #6131 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
One stumbling block are lawsuits against people that don't wish to participate in same sex marriages. The straight folks that would support your rights are often frightened off by stories of bakers, photographers, and potentially churches that have religious objections to actively participating in same sex weddings being FORCED to participate. This will set back your cause... I offer no solution, just the observation. |
they should be forced to participate, you cant discriminate in a profession. People need to realize that and if they cant accept all client bases, don't go into business. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 08:52:03 PM · #6132 |
Peter,
I'm a bit confused. Why can't you have a joint mortgage and/or ownership? |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 09:22:06 PM · #6133 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Peter,
I'm a bit confused. Why can't you have a joint mortgage and/or ownership? |
They can, and I believe they DO. The problem is, the transferring of money from one account to another. If I "give money" to my wife (assuming I had one) that's not even a ripple: it's community property. But the feds wants to tax couples like Mousie and his husband by saying the money's a GIFT. There's a whole BUNCH of other ways that this gets tangled up, this is just one of them. They all go away if DOMA is struck down and the Feds recognize legally binding marriages from the various states. Which they OUGHT to be doing, since marrying (and divorcing) people is a STATE function, not a federal one. But you know that, of course :-) |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 09:45:39 PM · #6134 |
| ClubJuggle brought up an interesting point last week: if a bisexual person is wed in a same-sex marriage in New York, technically he or she could move to Alabama and marry another person of the opposite sex because the feds and North Carolina don't recognize the first marriage and New York has no jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 10:42:47 PM · #6135 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
ClubJuggle brought up an interesting point last week: if a bisexual person is wed in a same-sex marriage in New York, technically he or she could move to Alabama and marry another person of the opposite sex because the feds and North Carolina don't recognize the first marriage and New York has no jurisdiction. |
Yea I saw that. Quite interesting indeed. I'm for allowing plural marriage anyway... but that's a whole nother can of worms. ;) |
|
|
|
04/08/2013 10:47:07 PM · #6136 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Peter,
I'm a bit confused. Why can't you have a joint mortgage and/or ownership? |
They can, and I believe they DO. The problem is, the transferring of money from one account to another. If I "give money" to my wife (assuming I had one) that's not even a ripple: it's community property. But the feds wants to tax couples like Mousie and his husband by saying the money's a GIFT. There's a whole BUNCH of other ways that this gets tangled up, this is just one of them. They all go away if DOMA is struck down and the Feds recognize legally binding marriages from the various states. Which they OUGHT to be doing, since marrying (and divorcing) people is a STATE function, not a federal one. But you know that, of course :-) |
I definitely understand that, but in the case of mortgage, if it is a joint one, then wouldn't the money go directly to that, no gifting involved? I guess this is probably a case of missing information as to the details of Peter's particular situation. |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 08:30:03 AM · #6137 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by myqyl:
One stumbling block are lawsuits against people that don't wish to participate in same sex marriages. The straight folks that would support your rights are often frightened off by stories of bakers, photographers, and potentially churches that have religious objections to actively participating in same sex weddings being FORCED to participate. This will set back your cause... I offer no solution, just the observation. |
they should be forced to participate, you cant discriminate in a profession. People need to realize that and if they cant accept all client bases, don't go into business. |
You also can not force someone to violate the tenants of their religion (in the US, per the 1st Amendment). But I'm not saying I agree with the folks that refuse to work a gay wedding. My wife and I would not have been allowed to marry in most states if we had met 30 years earlier, so I semi-understand the frustration of same sex partners. But the simple fact of the matter is that Marriage inequality will continue to be the law of the land as long as straight people can be scared into voting against it by fear of lawsuits and infringements on their religious freedom. I understand Ann's point too, but while you both have valid points, reality is reality and many people will be denied the right to marry whom they choose as long as this issue remains unresolved.
To Ann's point though, I would think that there are professionals within reasonable driving distance of just about anywhere. I most certainly would not have wanted a racist photographing my wedding to my non-white wife. Why would a gay couple want a homophobic photographer? I would rather have an amateur with a good eye and a loving heart then a pro with a grudge...
But all that aside it really comes down to one thing. Even in liberal Washington State I doubt the same sex marriage law would have passed the vote if it did not provide that businesses, churches, etc, could not be required to participate. I could not even be certain that it would have gotten my vote. I know I'm opening myself up to a flame storm, but I'm being honest. Flame away... |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 09:23:47 AM · #6138 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by myqyl:
One stumbling block are lawsuits against people that don't wish to participate in same sex marriages. The straight folks that would support your rights are often frightened off by stories of bakers, photographers, and potentially churches that have religious objections to actively participating in same sex weddings being FORCED to participate. This will set back your cause... I offer no solution, just the observation. |
they should be forced to participate, you cant discriminate in a profession. People need to realize that and if they cant accept all client bases, don't go into business. |
You also can not force someone to violate the tenants of their religion (in the US
|
you aren't forcing them to violate their religion, you forcing them to not discriminate against others if you provide a service.
Lets say i was a practicing Christian, am i allowed to turn away someone Jewish? No. Photographing a wedding, baking a cake, making a floral arrangement don't require you to suspend you religious beliefs, they require you to do perform your craft.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 09:37:13 AM · #6139 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
you aren't forcing them to violate their religion, you forcing them to not discriminate against others if you provide a service. |
You could even say that by barring people from judging others the government would be forcing people to actually adhere to the tenets of their religion. |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 10:22:49 AM · #6140 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mike_311:
you aren't forcing them to violate their religion, you forcing them to not discriminate against others if you provide a service. |
You could even say that by barring people from judging others the government would be forcing people to actually adhere to the tenets of their religion. |
While I agree with all that it doesn't change the fact that gay couples in most of the southern and mid-western states will be denied the right to marry until the people feel safe that they are not voting in a law that will get them sued. Washington State included a provision that protected peoples rights not to participate in what they felt was a sinful action (again, I don't agree with that view, just pointing it out)... As a result my wife and I will be attending a flurry of long overdue weddings this summer. California put up a law that made no such provision... How'd that work out?
There is a very small handful of folks that will turn away business because of a misguided religious belief. Is it really worth holding up the weddings of thousands of couples just so you can rub the face of a handful of zealots in the fact that you exist? In the early 1970's many professionals turned down gigs at bi-racial weddings. Today I doubt anyone notices a bi-racial couple. Ignore the handful of homophobic photographers, let them keep their heads securely in the sand, and let all the loving couples in Kansas get married... In 20 years no one will blink at a gay couple getting married.
That, or press the issue now and deny / delay the rights of thousands of couples that could be getting on with their lives just because you want to bitch slap some homophobic ass that doesn't think you make a cute couple...
Am I missing something here? This sounds like a no brainer. I reminded of a saying concerning faces and cut off noses...
Is it just me? |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 10:28:44 AM · #6141 |
i see what you are saying, but is it worth pushing the law through that allows a provision for discrimination?
seems counter productive.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 10:56:56 AM · #6142 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i see what you are saying, but is it worth pushing the law through that allows a provision for discrimination?
seems counter productive. |
It seems more productive then having the law not pass. Laws do not end discrimination. Only time can do that. Pass the law today and get the clock ticking on a time when "gay couple" will have the same non-impact that my wife and I have.
The alternative is to spend decades trying to legislate morality, a proposition that has never worked. And during those decades loving couples will have to live with completely unfair tax laws, inheritance laws, etc...
The most recent polls show a majority of voters have no problem with Gay Marriage. So why hasn't it passed in more states? We're not just talking Bible Belt either... I mean, California? Really?!? Write a prop that protects churches and business people from being forced to participate in the ceremony and Gay Marriage will be the law of the land in California in a heartbeat. Write another "in your face, we're gay and we have lawyers" prop and watch it get defeated, again...
I guess to me, not winning the vote is by far the more counter productive action. |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 11:15:11 AM · #6143 |
The mortgage broker demanded a single initial payment. One check.
My husband could not cover the full quantity of that payment.
I had to transfer my money to my husband to create one pool of money large enough to cut a check.
I could very well be taxed for shifting the money from one account to another.
One detail is that I am NOT on the new mortgage, only the title. I hold the mortgage to our old (now rental) property (where he is also on the title) since we refinanced, and we are keeping them separate because of the confusion around federal recognition of joint property in the case of gay marriages, tax deductions, and stuff like that. It's a goddamn mess. This seemed to be the safest approach, despite the extra work. It cleans up the paperwork. Asset ownership is clear. I hope we don't divorce, he's got the nice house. This does require some additional work on the back end for our estate planning (like super solid wills), but that's long term, not short term like the tax issues.
Regardless, the mortgage brokers, because of heightened scrutiny, appear to be much more demanding about how they will accept your money these days. They were simply unwilling to accept money from me directly, since I'm not quite truly married to Eric. Right?
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 11:28:22 AM · #6144 |
Of course, this didn't even exempt me from a full accounting of where my money came from... I also got dinged procedurally because I'm married just enough!
If Eric had gotten paid for working, he could itemize that part of his income as pay to the mortgage brokers. End of explanation. Done. But because he got money from me, I had to do a full accounting of my own finances and provide that to them as well. Because in this case I'm a spouse going into detail about our shared assets. Even though my transfer is technically a gift to an unrelated party.
How many employers have to disclose like that? Oh that's right, none. How many people should be expected to understand and act upon this mess with any confidence? Same answer.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 11:42:52 AM · #6145 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I guess to me, not winning the vote is by far the more counter productive action. |
As has been addressed, nobody is forcing anyone to violate their religion, unless their religion says "you can't provide business services likes cakes and photographs to homosexuals even though you are a public accommodation, and required to by law, and should have known that going in".
You are arguing for the ignorance of bigots.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 12:10:18 PM · #6146 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I guess to me, not winning the vote is by far the more counter productive action. |
As has been addressed, nobody is forcing anyone to violate their religion, unless their religion says "you can't provide business services likes cakes and photographs to homosexuals even though you are a public accommodation, and required to by law, and should have known that going in".
You are arguing for the ignorance of bigots. |
Actually I am arguing for a passable law. It's not about right and wrong... It's about reality. A provision that churches and businesses not need to participate will get the laws changed. Once the laws change, the hearts and minds will follow. Lack of those provisions will result in defeat at the polls. As I pointed out, Washington State put in the provision and there is now Marriage Equality here. California (hardly a hotbed of Conservative Bible thumpers) did not put in a provision... As a result, you still have the insane issues you have to deal with...
In my opinion bigots are ignorant by definition... You are arguing to give them the ammunition to continue to repress you. Take away their ammo... Do you really believe that not making the provision will make a homophobic photographer or baker provide professional service? Isn't it better to let the bigots state they won't do a Gay wedding instead of having them show up and do a horrible job because their hand shakes every time they see a couple kiss?
I have no reliable data, but my guess-tamite is that the percentage of professionals that will turn down a paying gig because "Brother Bob said I'll go to hell" is likely extremely low. The free market will weed them out... Is it really worth delaying the rights of thousands of couples so you can force someone to shoot your wedding that really doesn't want to be there? Why the hell would you WANT them there? |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 12:30:02 PM · #6147 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I guess to me, not winning the vote is by far the more counter productive action. |
As has been addressed, nobody is forcing anyone to violate their religion, unless their religion says "you can't provide business services likes cakes and photographs to homosexuals even though you are a public accommodation, and required to by law, and should have known that going in".
You are arguing for the ignorance of bigots. |
One other point... My religion says that I can't participate in any activity that displeases God. Some folks would say that Gay Marriage offends God. While I agree with them that offending God is a bad thing, I disagree that Gay Marriage offends God. I feel fairly certain Jesus would come to a Gay Wedding and that He'd probably make some wine...
However, I have no right to tell them what they must believe is OK or offensive to God. So forcing someone with that belief to participate in a Gay Wedding does indeed infringe upon their religious freedoms. |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 12:37:38 PM · #6148 |
I personally don't want them there. Again, not everybody has the luxury to choose between vendors.
Some people have used religion to define black people as literally less than human, or perhaps more generously, ungodly. I'd like black people to get good customer service, too, but why should a religious person of those beliefs be 'forced' to lower themselves to enabling the inhuman/ungodly when their resources are better used to service the devout?
The problem is that there's no limit to what can be considered a religions exemption. Religions aren't about facts, they're about beliefs. You are simply unable to base sensible law on 'protecting religious beliefs' as exemptions to the rules without denying the real rights of others, as they are understood and encoded into law in the United States today. |
|
|
|
04/09/2013 12:51:37 PM · #6149 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
One other point... My religion says that I can't participate in any activity that displeases God. Some folks would say that Gay Marriage offends God. While I agree with them that offending God is a bad thing, I disagree that Gay Marriage offends God. I feel fairly certain Jesus would come to a Gay Wedding and that He'd probably make some wine...
However, I have no right to tell them what they must believe is OK or offensive to God. So forcing someone with that belief to participate in a Gay Wedding does indeed infringe upon their religious freedoms. |
Last I checked, caterers were participating in food service, and photographers were participating in photography.
Nobody got gay married at my wedding except my husband and I.
Yes, those are both a touch disingenuous, but I doubt you could contradict either. Your statements are just about as accurate as mine, IMO.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2013 01:05:12 PM · #6150 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Last I checked, caterers were participating in food service, and photographers were participating in photography.
Nobody got gay married at my wedding except my husband and I.
Yes, those are both a touch disingenuous, but I doubt you could contradict either. Your statements are just about as accurate as mine, IMO. |
There is no clear line between your rights and mine, and I'm guessing there never will be. Where do your rights end and my rights begin? It's a wildly grey area that defies definition. Is an African American waiter required to work a KKK rally? I don't have answers to any of this... In fact I'm not even TRYING to answer these questions.
Perhaps I'm a tad too pragmatic, but I always felt civil rights was an issue best won, instead of argued over endlessly. The strategy I suggest will likely lead to ultimate victory much sooner than the one you propose, and the sooner the "law" changes, the sooner society will change too, and we won't need the law anymore. Isn't that the ultimate goal? To not need a law for something so simply "right"? A little compromise and letting people have space and time to adjust will get us all to the goal a lot faster than hollering at each other and hauling folks into court.
Me? I don't really mind... I'm already married and the IRS doesn't care that I'm white and my wife is Asian. But if I was in the mess you and your husband are in, I'd gladly put off the question of "Who will take the pictures" to another day and work to resolve the "Are we married" part first.
Just saying. |
|
