Sponsors



  • Advertise on blogs

    The links directly above and below are advertisements only. The views and opinions expressed by advertisers are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Resistance is futile!

    Gullyborg is a proud capitalist, and encourages you to explore these NON-GOOGLE advertisements.


Shop Amazon


  • If you are going to shop, shop Amazon.com. Find just about everything you want from the comfort of your own home. By searching Amazon.com through this site, you are helping to support Resistance is futile!

  • Search Now:

Worthy Causes

Endorsements

Blogfamily

Dead Fish Wrappers and Bird Cage Liners

Carnival of Cordite Submitters

« I can't support Oregonians for Immigration Reform | Main | What is our exit strategy? »

Wednesday, 31 May 2006

Comments

JustaDog

Horrid!

There is a new get-rich plan. Simply transfer your US citizenship to Mexico, sneak across the boarder, then you will realize all sorts of cool free stuff - from healthcare to houseing, from free food to jobs where you don't ever have to pay taxes again!

Bill Holmer

Just so I understand. Did you claim the imputed income as income, and then were denied a corresponding deduction? Or were you just trying to reduce taxable income by taking a deduction from income that did not include the imputed income?

Gullyborg

Our W-2 from Gullybabe's employer lists the benefit as part of annual income, and provides a line-item identifying it as a "domestic partner benefit" so that it can then be excluded by "qualifying" couples. they just failed to define "qualifying" anywhere on the W-2 or the form 40. so, we thought we were just following instructions when we entered it as an excludable domestic partner health insurance premium on the form 40.

Bill Holmer

AMAAAAZING! You're going to be famous, if you're not already.

bob

Aren't you a lawyer now? Go forth and maketh thy mark!

Gullyborg

The Force is with me; but I am not a Jedi yet.

Not a lawyer until I pass the bar, for those of you in Rio Linda.

Tammy Brotton

Hello This is just not fair and it is horrid!!!Under the Oregon tax code, domestic partners who receive medical insurance benefits can exclude the imputed income of the value of the benefit.
-----------------------------
and for a one man and one woman Normal married couples to be denied the same benefit under the oregon tax code
it is not fair!!!!!oh by the way tell senator Ben westlund that.

Gullyborg

I've already sent this to candidates to elicit their responses. We'll see what they have to say.

torridjoe

why exactly is this unfair? The benefit is for married couples. Since same sex partners cannot marry, they must have equal opportunity to claim the benefit. You and GB are under no such restriction.

Bill Holmer

Since unmarried homosexual couples receive a tax benefit that unmarried heterosexual couples do not, it blows a huge hole in the "no special rights" demand of Basic Rights Oregon. Why does Mark Bunster (aka Torrid Joe) believe heterosexual couples should have to come out of the closet and get married to fully enjoy domestic partner benefits?

Gullyborg

Bungster, it is this simple:

EVERYONE should get the benefit. Don't we ALL have a "right" to healthcare, at taxpayer expense? Haven't you yourself made that very same statement?

Therefore, EVERYONE should be able to exclude the imputed income of their health insurance.

Instead of just the carpet munchers.

claire

You are complaining about something I myself have complained about many times.

But I am having such a hard time with your language that I'm finding myself wishing I could disagree with you.

Gullyborg

Claire,

How about a little compare and contrast. First, re-read my column and its comments. Then, read this article from an actual newspaper:

http://www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2006/06/01/News/Standing.Proud-2015358.shtml?norewrite200606061307&sourcedomain=www.dailyemerald.com

Whose language offends you more?

This is why I get the way I get.

Penny Nickel

I suspect it's pointless to engage with you on this, but... I'm confused about the article you link. What's your point? That some college kids like to be provocative when they target people they don't like? That's old news.

And while you're talking about offensive speech, might as well look at the whole story about the folks being targeted in your example: http://www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2006/05/31/News/Traveling.Preachers.Stir.Campus-2015007.shtml?norewrite200606062255&sourcedomain=www.dailyemerald.com

P.S. I agree with you that health benefits shouldn't be taxable for domestic partners, regardless of gender.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Contact Gullyborg


  • g u l l y b o r g A T
    g m a i l D O T c o m

Numbers!


  • Ignore this
    google91704c084091e61d.html