The Difference Between Thea And Theo? $363,000 In Estate Taxes
From NPR, Nina Totenberg writes that tiny 83-year-old Edith Windsor is taking on DOMA -- the discriminatory federal Defense of Marriage Act that bans equal recognition and benefits for married same-sex couples:
The crux of her lawsuit is that after living with Thea Spyer for more than four decades, and having a marriage recognized as legal in the state of New York, Windsor had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes when Spyer died because the federal government did not recognize their marriage as valid."If Thea was Theo," she says, "I would not have had to pay" those taxes. "It's heartbreaking," she adds. "It's just a terrible injustice, and I don't expect that from my country. I think it's a mistake that has to get corrected."
Windsor asked Thea to marry her in 1967, on a drive to the countryside, giving her a circle pin adorned with diamonds.
At the time, of course, there was no place the two could actually marry. But they led good lives together, even after Thea was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The disease at first progressed slowly.Thea's first symptom was not being able to complete her golf swing. "It was very gradual," Edie says, but eventually "it turned into a fairly vicious, progressive MS." Edie never thought of Thea as being "sick," but her partner was becoming increasingly crippled.
Edie eventually took early retirement to help care for Thea, and they waited and hoped for the day New York would legalize same-sex marriage. They thought of going to Canada, where same-sex marriage was legal and recognized by the state of New York, but Edie says that with all the lifts and gear that Thea needed to travel, "my feeling was I don't have to drag her though that."
Then suddenly, it was clear that the end was near.
"She got a lousy prognosis, which said within a year, and she got up the next morning and she said, 'Do you still want to get married?' "
Edie said yes. Thea said, "Me too." And they did, flying off to Toronto with "two best men and four best women."
A person should have the right to marry the one consenting adult of their choice, and get the same benefits that all the other people marrying do.
I'm against "marriage privileging" -- giving these benefits to people just because they marry -- but as long as straight people get them, gay people should get them, too.
I've always been curious how lesbians met back in the day. Women didn't exactly have the freedom they do now.
How did they establish lesbian bars etc? On the heels of gay men?
Think of all the limitations you had as a woman and then you figure out you're a lesbian. You basically had to figure it out by yourself. How do you even begin to meet another woman when you are not a public figure (I.e. famous writer, actress etc).?
Gay men didn't seem to have this problem in history, they had other issues.
Ppen at March 21, 2013 11:41 PM
I like your comment about "marriage privileging" but would like to add that I'm also against "single privileging." What am I talking about?
I think of things like the tax code... something has a limit (like a deduction) of income up to $200,000 (and then $250,000 filing jointly). So, if two people have a relationship but don't marry, they both get the break if they each earn $199,999, but if they marry NEITHER get the break because they earn more than the token extra amount. Similarly, if you could get twice the break by not being married (say, two flexible spending accounts with a $2,500 cap versus 1 for the whole family).
I'm not against single folks - or married folks. But really, shouldn't it be the same for both groups (whichever way it goes)?
Shannon M. Howell at March 22, 2013 5:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/22/the_difference_18.html#comment-3650912">comment from Shannon M. HowellPeople should all be treated as individuals under the tax system. If one person is allowed to designate somebody who gets some of their money tax-free, everybody should be able to do it; it shouldn't be based on whether you have married the person under the law.
Amy Alkon
at March 22, 2013 5:33 AM
So the people who voluntarily had and raised the kids who will be paying for your retirement when they can least afford it shouldn't inherit either?
The tax code is unfair. Efforts to fix unfair make it more unfair. You cannot, unless you are a lawmaker, keep tinkering around the edges and expect to get to fair.
I don't see why the government should be robbing the dead, while allowing trusts like the Kennedys to escape the same.
MarkD at March 22, 2013 5:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/22/the_difference_18.html#comment-3650978">comment from MarkDSorry, I thought there was money yanked out of my paycheck by the government to pay for my retirement.
I'm in a relationship. Because I feel no need to get married doesn't make it any less of a relationship. When Gregg was in the hospital once, they were going to get me a cot so I could stay overnight with him, but they were out of cots so I slept on a sheet on the cold stone floor of his room at Cedars-Sinai. Is our relationship any less than that of, say, the two people I blogged about in the piece about the $45,00 choreographed proposal, who got engaged two months after they met? Is my relationship less than that of Kim Kardashian's marriage to Chris Humphrey? Why should it be under the tax law? If you can't find a relationship but have a friend you care deeply about, why shouldn't you be able to leave your money, tax free, to them, the same way a married person can to their partner? If you don't like giving them that allowance, well, then, take it away from married people.
Amy Alkon
at March 22, 2013 6:06 AM
Sorry, I thought there was money yanked out of my paycheck by the government to pay for my retirement.
Hah hah hah! Amy makes a funny.
That's going to pay the current retirees social security benefits. In fact, SSA has been cashing in treasury bonds they hold in their "lock box" to pay the difference between what they're bringing in and what they're paying out.
There's no such thing as a "lock box" with the name "Amy Alkon" on it from whence they'll draw money to pay your benefits. No, they'll draw from people who are working and paying the payroll tax at the time you're taking your benefits. Probably 2.5, maybe approaching 2 workers per retiree. I think once it hits that 2-1 mark, the workers will revolt.
As for tax benefits/deductions/etc, I'm ok with eliminating most if not all deductions. BUT...it must coupled with a lowered tax rate, so that it is mostly revenue neutral.
As for the couple in your story, they should have engaged an estate planner, and set up a trust with the survivor being the primary trustee.
Sadly, most of the tax code is structured the way it is to provide employment to tax preparers, CPAs, and estate planners. At least it looks that way.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 22, 2013 7:18 AM
So the people who voluntarily had and raised the kids who will be paying for your retirement when they can least afford it shouldn't inherit either?
I've never found this to be a compelling argument. Even if it's true, people like Amy (and the rest of us) are paying to raise these kids now. Single, childless people pay taxes that go toward the schools children attend, the roads they use to get there, crossing guards, health care, etc. People without children aren't getting a free ride on taking care of other people's children.
MonicaP at March 22, 2013 10:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/03/22/the_difference_18.html#comment-3651314">comment from MonicaPThanks, Monica for noting that. You're absolutely right.
And not everyone who gets married has children, anyway.
Amy Alkon
at March 22, 2013 10:43 AM
Ppen, did you never read "Stone Butch Blues"?
NicoleK at March 22, 2013 12:27 PM
MarkD: "So the people who voluntarily had and raised the kids who will be paying for your retirement when they can least afford it shouldn't inherit either?"
MonicaP: "Single, childless people pay taxes that go toward the schools children attend, the roads they use to get there, crossing guards, health care, etc."
People who should be free to use the product of their effort to pursue their own happiness and dreams are forced to surrender their resources to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can spend it on what they think everyone should have.
What an immoral, F'd up system. And it will continue to be so as long as it is run by organized crime syndicates like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and all the people who vote for them.
Amy Alkon: "People should all be treated as individuals under the tax system."
People own themselves and should be treated as free, sovereign, self governing individuals. The government and the tax system should be subject to the limitations of the Constitution.
"Children are our most valuable resource."
That makes me sick, and I get angry whenever I hear someone say it. Sheep, cattle, oil and water are resources. Children are people who own themselves and should be temporarily under the care, guidance and authority of the free, sovereign, self governing individuals who bore them until they learn to be such themselves.
Ken R at March 22, 2013 7:57 PM
No NicoleK...wish it was on kindle!
Ppen at March 23, 2013 1:12 AM
Leave a comment