Andy9o8 2 #26 February 2, 2012 Quote"honest lawyer" Hey, it beats "military intelligence" hands down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #27 February 2, 2012 Quote My girlfriend and I became domestic partners a couple of years ago, and we're marrying this fall. I'm excited about that And if you both have income, the IRS is excited that your tax bill will be going up. Since I recently got married, the tax return process gets more complicated (as well as more expensive). First it is calculated as married filing separate, so that we can figure out who would really owes what (I'm generally quite underpaid on estimated taxes, she's overpaid), then we file joint to save a couple of thousand vs. separate, and divvy up that difference. Single was about $6-8k less federal income tax. Paying more taxes just because we got married is my most despised feature of the tax code. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 February 3, 2012 QuotePaying more taxes just because we got married is my most despised feature of the tax code. Actually, that only applies to some couples. Our combined tax burden will decrease by several thousand dollars a year when we marry. This is in part because couples with different incomes enjoy lower brackets when averaged together, but also because my employer's contribution to my fiance's health insurance will become tax exempt, whereas right now their contribution is considered "imputed income" and I'm taxed as if they'd paid it to me. The tax exempt status of healthcare premiums is a benefit afforded only to spouses, as defined by the federal government, thus unavailable to domestic partners. This applies to both the employees contribution, i.e. what comes out of your paychck *and the employers portion*, which most people never see, despite it usually being the bulk of the total premium. I just looked this week, and I pay significantly more for taxes on her health insurance than I pay in premiums for her health insurance. After the wedding, I'll pay zero taxes on those same premiums. If you think about it, this is pretty lame with regard to gay couples. Take two married couples, one straight, one gay. Each of them has one person that is a stay-at-home parent, or independent contractor, or for some other reason doesn't have access to affordable health coverage. And the other person in each relationship works for a reasonably modern employer who offers domestic partner benefits identical to their family plans. Being foolish to not have health insurance, the 'traditionally employed" person adds their spouse/domestic partner to their employer provided health insurance. Both couples see their premiums increased by around 50% (family policy vs employee only), and the employers sees their contribution double for each employee. All seems fair, both couples and the employer are out equal increases. The only difference is that the federal government just went "HEY! Are you providing healthcare coverage to a gay couple? We want more money for that!" To put some example numbers in, here's how it works: Employee only: $2000 annual employee contribution $6000 annual employer contribution $0 taxable income Family policy (straight): $3000 annual employee contribution $12000 annual employer contribution $0 taxable income Family policy (gay): $3000 annual employee contribution $12000 annual employer contribution $7000 taxable income Assuming a ballpark 30% tax bracket, why should this gay couple pay $2,100 more in taxes per year than a straight couple drawing the exact same income and benefits? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #29 February 4, 2012 I've never had that situation regarding health coverage being taxed, since I never covered a domestic partner. I haven't looked at other peoples taxes burden w.r.t. marriage, but last time I did, the taxes were higher for married, even with pretty low income of one spouse vs. the other (these are engineers living in the bay area, so the lower one isn't exactly low, though). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 February 4, 2012 QuoteI've never had that situation regarding health coverage being taxed, since I never covered a domestic partner. I haven't looked at other peoples taxes burden w.r.t. marriage, but last time I did, the taxes were higher for married, even with pretty low income of one spouse vs. the other (these are engineers living in the bay area, so the lower one isn't exactly low, though). that's a big part of it...around here "low" typically means twice the national average. The income tax by itself has a marriage penalty, but there are so many bennies around that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
