« University of Chicago 61st Annual Federal Tax Conference | Main | Closing the Tax Gap Symposium Today at Stanford »
November 8, 2008
Melissa Etheridge to Stop Paying $500k/Year in CA Taxes After Passage of Prop 8
The Daily Beast: You Can Forget My Taxes, by Melissa Etheridge:
Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.
Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.
For press and blogosphere coverage, see MarketWatch, NBC News, San Jose Mercury News, USA Today. (Hat Tip: Ben Cunningham.)
November 8, 2008 in Celebrity Tax Lore | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef010535e29f83970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Melissa Etheridge to Stop Paying $500k/Year in CA Taxes After Passage of Prop 8:
Comments
If she follows through, she'll have my respect for an act of civil disobedience that will end up with her in jail.
But I'll believe it when I see it--I view her as upset and lashing out. A nice letter from the CA Dept of Revenue will probably change her mind right quick.
Posted by: Jake | Nov 8, 2008 10:01:59 AM
She does have exactly the same rights as everyone else. She can marry a member of the opposite sex.
Posted by: Kyle | Nov 8, 2008 10:05:11 AM
"Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away."
What if every woman chooses to abort her gay fetus?
Posted by: | Nov 8, 2008 10:06:54 AM
Oooooh, His Majesty will be most displeased if Melissa fails to perform her "patriotic duty" and "render unto Obama." That would set a bad precedent for all the provincials who must learn their place in the New Obamian Order.
Honestly, this whole Prop. 8 thing is the inevitable result of identity politics. The Democratic Party has, at long last, come to a point where all of its different constituencies have begin battling each other for bigger pieces of a non-existent pie. Maybe Don Obamleone should call a meeting of the Heads of the Five Families to "make the peace" before somebody really gets whacked. Fat chance of that happening, huh?
Will Rogers' half-serious joke back in the 1930's is still the best description of the Donks: "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat!"
Posted by: MarkJ | Nov 8, 2008 10:09:02 AM
So toss this twat into San Quentin. Big whoops.
Posted by: sanssoucy | Nov 8, 2008 10:10:15 AM
Well good for her. Of course I think it is all talk because California has this way of collecting taxes. I think her only hope is to move to Texas. We'll never have gay marriage but we mind our own business.
Posted by: aloysius | Nov 8, 2008 10:10:29 AM
LOL
Maybe the California Libertarian Party can pick up some high-profile members.
Posted by: BarryD | Nov 8, 2008 10:15:50 AM
Joe Biden sez: "Melissa Etheridge is unpatriotic!"
Posted by: pgg | Nov 8, 2008 10:21:55 AM
Yeah. What good is Democracy when you don't get what you want? We need a judge to step in and fix this. Stupid voters! What do they know? Why should voters get to decide this issue? This issue is too important to vote on.
Posted by: Joel Hammer | Nov 8, 2008 10:35:42 AM
I think the gays are so upset because they see some of their fellow Democrats as having sold them down the river on Prop 8. If all of the Democrats who voted for Obama would have voted against Prop 8, then the measure would have lost. Instead, 70% of black voters voted for Prop 8, and they were the decisive factor in the measure passing (Don't blame the Mormons, gays; they were never in your camp, anyway). Since the Democrat party is explicitly about membership in various identity groups (look at the rules for selecting delegates to their last convention, if you don't believe me), part of being a Democrat is standing up for all of the various other identity groups besides your own. It's "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." You vote for my union-organizing law, I'll vote for your same-sex marriage, that sort of thing. The gays think that those who voted for both Obama and Prop 8 welshed on their unwritten agreement.
Posted by: Clyde | Nov 8, 2008 10:36:23 AM
Spread that wealth around, baby. SPREAD IT!!
Posted by: Mister Snitch | Nov 8, 2008 10:37:05 AM
GO for it Melissa. I can't wait for the Franchise tax board to sell your house for back taxes.
Posted by: SGT Ted | Nov 8, 2008 10:41:11 AM
Melissa Etheridge is gay? But she's so feminine!
Ba-dum-bum.
If this histrionic carpet muncher wants to pretend that she's a second-class citizen and therefore doesn't have to pay her taxes, that's cool. Let her keep her money—along with her vote.
We could call it something like "Prop STFU: No representation without taxation."
Remember to vote YES on Prop STFU!
Posted by: Lee | Nov 8, 2008 10:44:19 AM
Jake,
Your comment was perfect, and one I hadn't thought of. Etheridge has the same rights as every other Californian. She can marry someone of the opposite sex! Crystalized truth. Even the most virulent gay marriage supporters won't be able to get the word "bigot" out fast enough to cut it off.
Posted by: Travis | Nov 8, 2008 10:49:23 AM
Since people under 35 cannot become president, does that mean they don't have to pay taxes?
Posted by: Colin Fraizer | Nov 8, 2008 10:49:55 AM
"So toss this twat into San Quentin. Big whoops."
Are you conservative? If so, then what are you talking about? Every single one of us should applaud someone who declines to pay his or her taxes, regardless of the motivation. Tucked somewhere deep within Etheridge's protest here is her realization that this is HER money, and that other human beings have no claim to it.
If that prompts her down the path of recognizing the value of REAL rights -- such as her right to her own property -- that is a good thing. Californians don't have any claim on Etheridge's half-million dollars. It's HERS. It's not theirs. Good for her if she keeps it, and we should all be applauding that.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 8, 2008 11:14:50 AM
If she was clever, she would get a bunch of high profile Hollywood gays together, hire a few CPAs and tax lawyers, and very publicly all of them would change their residency and move as much tax revenue as possible to a gay friendly state. Then they could maintain a website publishing the total of all the tax revenue CA is losing and how much the new state is getting.
Posted by: spad | Nov 8, 2008 11:20:26 AM
C.A.T.'s - Clam-bumpers Against Taxes!
Posted by: Strawman | Nov 8, 2008 11:22:14 AM
Etheridge has never paid anywhere near $500K in state taxes. $5K I might believe.
Posted by: Thom York | Nov 8, 2008 11:29:17 AM
If I was in such a horrible nation as America, With the inequalities and the qhite collar crime, I would just leave.
Move to any other country in the western world to avoid this gay bashing homophobia. Any is better than America.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 8, 2008 11:29:36 AM
If she wants to get married so damn bad move to taxachuesettes wher its legal.
Posted by: ROGER | Nov 8, 2008 11:29:48 AM
If gay Americans pay taxes that fund benefits related only to heterosexual marriage, then this is called taxation w/o represensation.
Gays don't want to marry those of the opposite sex, so get over the whole "yeah, they're free to marry someone of the opposite sex" thing.
If gay people can't marry whom they want, then they are entitled to huge tax breaks, plain and simple.
Posted by: Joel | Nov 8, 2008 11:31:55 AM
hmmm... well, I don't much care for Melissa Etheridge. Her music makes my teeth hurt but, that said, I've never met any gay people who actually wanted to get married. The ones I know like it outside the system of cultural indulgences but that's not the point. The point is that most people don't want gay marriage and that's the name of that tune. Due to the political correctness virus a lot of people are getting sick and tired of having certain eccentricities jammed down their throat (pun intended). I think I'm like most people, live and let live. The fact is that gays have all the rights they could ever need in respect of those features that the official conference of marriage can grant. What is comes down to is insisting that people agree with you and that's never, ever going to happen. You may want the world to be like the movie "The King of Heart's" but that isn't the way it is. Gay is never going to be 'normal' and I couldn't imagine why you would want it to be. As Bruce Cockburn says, "the trouble with normal is that is always gets worse."
We see much of the gay phenomena now because the culture is in decline. Every time a culture declines this crops up. You may argue against this. You may not like it but it's so and even a pinhead can do the historical research on this. Once the big tragedy hits and things have to rebuild from scratch again you won't see this to any degree until that culture goes into decay as well. Now I know a lot of people have a lot invested in their efforts to authenticate their reality and they'll just have smoke come out of their ears over this but it doesn't change reality. Sorry to be Shiva sitting on a hill and not invited to the celebration but the truth is always an unwelcome guest.
Posted by: Les Visible | Nov 8, 2008 11:35:59 AM
Good for her. Fight back and win Melissa! Use all your savings to buy guns and arm your friends. Armed revolution against tyranny is also an American Ideal. Democracy is nice as long as you are on the side that wins. Now more people can see what's wrong with having mob rule instead of a nation of laws.
I think all of the people who voted for any ban on gay marriage should have all of their marriages reviewed to ensure that they are all acceptable unions. That means no interracial marriage, no marriage between different socio-economic classes, no marriage between differing religions, etc etc. Awesome. Absolutism through mob rule and government enforcement for everyone!!
I am not a homosexual but I recognize tyranny and oppression when I see it. Like MLK Jr. said, "I have a dream that we will in the future rally with all of those who oppressed us for so long so we can oppress someone else for awhile." Way to come together America, you should all be proud.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 8, 2008 11:41:34 AM
I did not vote for prop 8 because I think anyone is a second class citizen. I believe that marriage is about supporting family values, especially giving children a stable home to grow up in.
But according to Melissa, et al I am homophobic, two-faced, discriminatory,and believe my morals are superior to hers. Who is being judgemental here?
Hey, it just so happens that my significant other is cute little sheep. So I say equal rights for all the people that love barnyard animals! If you don't vote for my values then you are a what she says I am.
It is a shame that she thinks getting what she wants is a value somehow.
She can find a minister to marry her. But I guess the tax benefits part of marriage is maybe more important than the commitment part.
Posted by: threebits | Nov 8, 2008 12:11:39 PM
Jake: How does a law sound that gives everyone a right to marry a member of the same race? Nice and equal?
Posted by: | Nov 8, 2008 12:15:33 PM
A more effective protest would be to establish residence in another state, THEN telling the FTB to piss up a rope.
A vastly more effective protest, should Hollywood feel strongly enough, is for several studios to noisily make preparations to move to another state.
But this? This is just posturing.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy | Nov 8, 2008 12:16:23 PM
Put her ass in jail. Her partner won't have to go, even though a hetero couple would be at risk of both going, if the income were joint. She comes out AHEAD on that score.
When she gets out of the slammer, she can move to a state with no income tax.
I'd love to see her in cuffs, dragged off for 5 years.
Posted by: Chester White | Nov 8, 2008 12:18:30 PM
Does she thinks her taxes are based on how many rights she exercises? Shouldn't us non-gays get a discount for not using the same-sex "right"? Suppose I give up my right to a free press? Where's the sliding scale that tells me what my tax liabilities are?
Posted by: john b | Nov 8, 2008 12:26:05 PM
I'm a Canadian that's living in the U.S. While I can marry here, I can't vote, but somehow they still collect taxes from me. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Non-citizens should not have to pay taxes!!!!! (ok, one more '!')!
This is just lashing out because her side lost.
Posted by: Half Canadian | Nov 8, 2008 12:35:00 PM
Look, Ms. Etheridge can marry her girlfriend at any time they want. Lots of churches in California will oversee the ceremony.
The only difference (yes, it's not a totally unimportant "only") is that the state of California for legal reasons won't recognize that "marriage" as equal to an opposite-sex marriage. Ms. Etheridge and her partner/spouse won't receive the same "legal" benefits that a same-sex couple will.
But Ms. Etheridge can go around - with no penalties - and say she's married and call her partner her wife.
Nothing will happen. Gay marriage is not "banned". It's simply not recognized as equal legally to a heterosexual marriage.
So, since when did we have to get the approval from the state to recognize our living arrangements as determining how we viewed those arrangements? Ms. Etheridge, call your partner your wife and go about living as married couple.
Others be damned.
Posted by: SteveMG | Nov 8, 2008 12:41:45 PM
Wow, lots of ignorant, stupid, hate-filled homophobes posting in the comments section. I wonder what percentage of you actually read this site, versus merely troll it.
A coordinated, wide-spread tax-revolt from wealthy constituencies is one of the few things that the government actually fears, but maybe the gays should stick to the sign-waving, because it works wonders for the antiwar folks.
Posted by: Lt. Gen. Snorky | Nov 8, 2008 12:54:55 PM
That's not very patriotic.
Posted by: dualdiagnosis | Nov 8, 2008 12:55:59 PM
Actually, SteveMG, Etheridge and her partner do have the same legal benefits as a married couple because of the California domestic partnership law.
The problem with the "no taxation without representation" argument is that she did have representation. If everyone can avoid paying taxes simply because they were in the minority on an issue, then basically nobody would have to pay any taxes.
Posted by: LZ | Nov 8, 2008 1:01:28 PM
Too bad they overwhelmingly support the party that discourages or outlaws gun ownership, otherwise some of them might, you know, have the means of actually *participating* in a revolution for more than three minutes and a pair of handcuffs.
Also, it's too bad they support that party no matter how little that party gives them, even when that party runs for president against their issues.
Melissa's idea is a good one, though. She can join those of us who are less likely to get a job because we're not a minority, those who don't don't get government benefits because we're not poor enough, those who get taxed more because we're more productive, and, what the heck, those who pay for roads we don't drive on, schools we don't attend, and life insurance we don't get to spend.
We can all dump our taxes and let the government fend for itself. Hey, lower taxes, less government spending, less promoting poverty....this sounds like a political platform!
Posted by: HitNRun | Nov 8, 2008 1:08:07 PM
ok here u r..................once and for all its not about blah, blah and more blah'''
its about one (1) issue.... and one issue only...drum roll please
it is about containment and transferment of real property and aguired wealth by the person to his /her..his/her partner under the rules of marriage and property..
the viruses who run the big show luv gay people because when they pass-on the property goes up for grabs to be aquired by whomever.
here is your question for the day. how much property (ground that we walk on) is really owned by legal americans. i know the answer and im sure some people do but for those who do not, you would fall of your computer chair if u knew.
and for the bb thumpers. it is clearly mention in the bible that marriages first priority is to ensure transfer of said persons real property and real wealth to spouse (spouse) and or children on so on!!
there the end
Posted by: mike | Nov 8, 2008 1:08:48 PM
So Jake, Travis - you'd be fine if instead of all of us having the "right to marry someone of the opposite sex," that you guys would ONLY be allowed to marry someone of the same sex? Your only option would be same-sex marriage? Put yourself on the other side of this. I know it's hard for people like you two.
If such a law were passed - Everyone now has only the right to marry someone of the SAME sex (gays and straights alike), but NO ONE has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex - you're fine with that law? Your argument implies that you would be in total crystalized agreement, since everyone would have the same right.
Yeah, I thought so.
Posted by: Craig | Nov 8, 2008 1:09:21 PM
Actually, SteveMG, Etheridge and her partner do have the same legal benefits as a married couple because of the California domestic partnership law.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, does the state of California give the same tax benefits/write offs to a couple living under that law as they do to a recognized married couple?
My point is that if the state/government completely got out of the marriage business - i.e, it didn't recognize opposite sex marriages nor same sex marriage - that would not mean that marriage is "banned" or "illegal."
The fact that the state recognizes an act or doesn't recognize as act doesn't mean that that act took place or can be recognized by private citizens. E.g., I can marry a male friend and call him my husband and live as if we were married. Whether the government (or others) recognized our arrangement or not would be meaningless to us.
It seems to me that on many levels that this is more of a cultural issue than it is a legal one. If we agreed, for example, to have the state recognize same sex arrangements but called it "carriages" instead of "marriages", my guess is that they would not accept that difference.
Posted by: SteveMG | Nov 8, 2008 1:19:56 PM
A coordinated, wide-spread tax-revolt from wealthy constituencies is one of the few things that the government actually fears, but maybe the gays should stick to the sign-waving, because it works wonders for the antiwar folks.
Oh please. Passive tax revolt by people with lots of assets will be a bonanza for the state. California would make tons of extra money with all the interest and late penalties.
The fact of the matter is Ms. Etheridge gets all the benefits of marriage through California's domestic partners law. She doesn't have to worry about the cops bursting into her bedroom the way they did to the Lovings. She can get married in church, and call her partner "my wife" without fear of state reprisal. She's better off in California than in 99% of places in the world (in lots of places she'd be executed). There's no practical difference between the current situation on the one in which the state says "you are married".
Posted by: Eric | Nov 8, 2008 1:24:33 PM
Talk is cheap, Etheridge. Leave California. Permanently. Then you won't have to pay income taxes, legally. Marriage isn't a "right". Get over it. You lost. And it was 52%, not 51% of voters who decided. Not all of them Black or Mormon, either.
So take your own self-loathing, bigoted, twisted sister self right out of California and move to Boston, where you belong, won't you? And take the rest of the disenfranchised, violent, radical homosexuals with you.
Then, just maybe then, California will have a chance at returning to some semblence of normalcy.
Posted by: Balls Flotard | Nov 8, 2008 1:38:58 PM
I think all of you are completely missing the point. If she's not married - she's not subject to the marriage penalty, and in most gay couples - both of them work, so they would take a tax hit as a married couple (whether filing a joint or individual return) vs. two singles, or one single and one head of household.
Posted by: Doug in Fremont | Nov 8, 2008 1:45:39 PM
Wow. So, if we don't like the law (passed by a majority of the people, by the way), we can just stop paying taxes? Or does that only apply to rich people?
I thought Obama was going to make the rich people pay more? Shouldn't Ms. Etheridge pay her fair share? We need that revenue to pay for the deficit.
Posted by: Just Me | Nov 8, 2008 2:03:52 PM
I think all the gay people in the US should stop paying taxes, if we have no rights then the gov has no right to our money.....It's time to unite as one and tell the to kiss our asses.
Posted by: jeno | Nov 8, 2008 2:07:35 PM
The gays are going about this the wrong way. They are wanting the same rights and benefits afforded to married people. Instead, they should join with single people to demand adherence to the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the same rights for all people.
The issue isn't whether you can call someone "married", but whether you will have to pay the same amount of taxes and receive the same benefits under the law, including payouts from insurance companies.
As a single person, why should any of my taxes go to pay for schools? I don't have kids, so I shouldn't be forced to pay for benefits that only those with children enjoy. Why should my freedom to do what I want be restricted by the old "think of the children" canard?
For example, I cannot have a bar or strip club near my house if it is within a certain distance of a school because of the negative influence it has on children. It should be solely up to the parents to raise their children properly so that external issues do not influence them. If parents raise their children so poorly that they fall to such adult temptations, then that is their problem and only indicative of their unfitness to raise children. The Columbine murders, for example, were not the result of music, television or movies, but simply the natural result of bad and inattentive parenting.
Posted by: Doug | Nov 8, 2008 2:18:35 PM
No taxation without representation? Did she really just say that? Wow. Another example of why we have no business concerning ourselves with the rantings of the hopelessly self absorbed nacissists in LA LA land.
Although, I'll be sure to pass her comments along to the revenue people in the States of Virginia and Kentucky, both of which lay claim to my hard earned income even though I am not permitted a vote in either State.
Posted by: ThomasD | Nov 8, 2008 2:22:02 PM
Why not just move to a state that recognizes your marriage, Mel? I'm sure Deval Patrick would take your money.
Posted by: Jeffersonian | Nov 8, 2008 3:08:47 PM
Bottom line is-Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? Simply make all the laws applicable to individual people. Married people don't have any different voting rights than single people, so why should any taxation rules be different?
Posted by: Paul | Nov 8, 2008 3:29:15 PM
Nincompoop Kyle wrote:
She does have exactly the same rights as everyone else. She can marry a member of the opposite sex.
Posted by: Kyle | Nov 8, 2008 10:05:11 AM
***
No, Kyle, she does not have the same rights as everybody else. She cannot marry the person she loves. That is the right in question here. Those who happen to love somebody of the opposite sex have the right to marry the person they love. Hell, even if they don't love them, they can marry them - for money, for pride, for any reason they want to. But a gay person does not have the right to marry a person they love or even just want to spend their life with. So quit trying to even pretend that it's the same right.
It is anti-American to put something in a constitution that TAKES AWAY a right. Those of you who voted for this should be ashamed of yourselves. You think you are better than gay people. Admit it, you think you're somehow better. Well, I think Melissa ought to keep her half a million. GOOD FOR HER!
Posted by: Heather Bartlett | Nov 8, 2008 3:37:56 PM
Not only should gay marriage be banned, but in the interest of preserving the hallowed standards of normalcy in the institution of marriage, it is also necessary to ban all 'inter-' forms of sex, ie interracial, intercultural, etc, as well touching your own or another's privates, oral sex and all coitus except the missionary position. Dress codes need to be improved, such as being fully covered with clothing at the beach as well as everywhere else.
Posted by: Archie | Nov 8, 2008 3:41:30 PM
Wouldn't the the transfer of property upon death be handled easily by a will? Transfer said property to a trust, and the trust benefits are extended to the beneficiary upon execution of the will.
Don't rich people do this all the time?
Posted by: Half Canadian | Nov 8, 2008 3:45:33 PM
