Taxing women less: Gender pay equity?

[Bees Knees]

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1149212.html

Want to reduce the overall level of income taxes and see more women taking home paychecks?

Lower income-tax rates for women while raising them for men, according to Harvard University economist Alberto Alesina, who calls the idea "discrimination, the good kind."The female tax rate should be no greater than about 80 percent of that of males and possibly much less," Alesina and a co-author wrote in a recent paper that's grabbing attention among those concerned about the persistent gap between the sexes, both in workforce participation and average earnings.

[Black Bart]

Great idea -- except

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1149212.html

Want to...lower income-tax rates for women..."discrimination, the good kind. "The female tax rate should be...80 percent of that of males...possibly much less,"...

I think it should be based on geographical regions as well as gender. It's okay with me if the gals get a cut, but what about pore folks? Since we here in Arkansas are generally 49th in everything (thank God for Mississippi), isn't it only fair that our taxes should be slashed and burned to 80% of norm? "Good" discrimination! Kind of a catchy phrase, ain't it?

Anyhow, here's my rationale: New York Bob said he was rakin' in about $225K on...Long Island, I think...which is about $150K more than I'm eking out here in the boonies. Sooo...in that grand old American tradition of takin' it away from "you" and givin' it to "me," isn't welfare due here for those stuck in the sticks? In fact, since the guy said "possibly much less," maybe (statistically speakin') I should only pay $49, period.

Hmm...this is food for thought. I just may write my congressperson and ask that a bill on this be put forth to accompany my last year's proposal of a below-the-line credit for First-time Plasma HD-TV Buyers (no word on that yet -- I'll keep you posted).

Any volunteers out there to assist in a hayseed-roots promotion?

[George Boutwell]

Backwards in the backwoods

New York Bob said he was rakin' in about $225K on...Long Island, I think...which is about $150K more than I'm eking out here in the boonies. Sooo...in that grand old American tradition of takin' it away from "you" and givin' it to "me," isn't welfare due here for those stuck in the sticks?

You have it backwards. Out on Lawn Guyland, life is much more expensive, cuz they ain't got no Wal-Marts. Well, maybe they have one WalMart, in a shopping mall, but then they also have a shopping mall named after Walt Whitman. The Arkies, they got WalMarts up the Yazoo. (Yes, I know, that's a river in Mississippi, but it's all backwoods to most of us.) Arkansas is world headquarters for WalMart. If Al-Qaeda sold cheap Chinese goods, Osama Bin Laden would live in Little Rock. That has given Arkansas such a booming economy that it could send us one President and two more candidates for the job, one from each party. (You say one of them traded the Ozarks for the Adirondacks? You can take the gal out of Arkansas but you can't take Arkansas out of the gal.) Besides, they manufacture more chickens in Arkansas than anywhere else in the country. Out on Lawn Guyland, the cuisine runs more to lobster and striped bass. After the Seafood Tax Credit, they should not have to pay any taxes.

[jainen]

a big tax cut for me too

>>the persistent gap between the sexes, both in workforce participation and average earnings<<

It's hard to decide how to react to this. As political farce, it's not bad. As political policy, what a joke!

The American economy has a negative savings rate. That means most workers live paycheck-to-paycheck. Do you imagine that employers would ignore the fact that women got an increase in take-home pay? Obviously they will compromise it accordingly, cynically arguing "wage parity" (and saving themselves a passel of payroll taxes!)

The proposal embraces one of the ugliest stereotypes of feminism -- that stay-at-home moms don't have personal fulfillment, and must be pushed into getting a job.

Of course, these are just theoretical objections. Personally, I think it's a great idea--as a married man in a community property state, there would be a big tax cut for me too!

[Bees Knees]

The proposal embraces one of the ugliest stereotypes of feminism -- that stay-at-home moms don't have personal fulfillment, and must be pushed into getting a job.

The article makes it clear that is the agenda of the author.

From the article: "In other words, if they believe they'll be able to keep more of the wages earned outside the home, they're more likely to take a job or retain the one they have rather than leave the workforce for family or other reasons."

[Bees Knees]

The scary part is many will read the article without thinking about the hidden agenda and think its not a bad idea. Women have, and still do make less in the workforce, although that gap has been closing for years. Therefore we ought to do something about that.

If a male researcher from Harvard suggested tax rates be lowered on men since they have a shorter life expectancy and need to enjoy life while they can, the guy would be labeled a male chauvinist.

[jainen]

let us retire earlier

>>tax rates be lowered on men since they have a shorter life expectancy<<

Hey, at least Social Security taxes, for simple fairness. Either that, or even better--let us retire earlier!

[Black Bart]

What state you from, Georgie?

...Lawn Guyland...

I never heard of this place.

[George Boutwell]

Hey, at least Social Security taxes, for simple fairness.

Why? Men are the ones who are leaving all those surviving widows, most of whose checks increase because their own earnings record resulted in much lower benefits than those received by their husbands.

Not to mention the men with two or three ex-wives, all of whom are collecting based on their former or late husband's earnings.

[Snaggletooth]

Arkansas

I have had my fun with Arkansas too, but fact of the matter ALL locations suck up the earnings differential in housing costs. My state is no different than Arkansas, except for larger urbanized areas.

Boutwell says he lives in a land where people can drink Harvey's Bristol Creme Sherry, whereas in Bart's state people can't even afford Pabst Blue Ribbon. And to make matters worse, I don't even know how that beer could have ever won a blue ribbon anywhere.

I am living in a decent but somewhat modest home in the rural south that I purchased six years ago for $75,000. My cousin from Vacaville, CA says he couldn't buy the same house for $450,000 and most populated places in California are even worse.

Back to Arkansas. Northwest Arkansas and the Ozarks are booming. Four of the eleven wealthiest persons in the U.S. have lived in NW Arkansas. They are Sam Walton's children. US71 between Bentonville and I-40 at Ft Smith is a 24-hour truck autobahn and has been renamed I-540. Meanwhile a friend of mine from the land of Bristol Creme wants me to help find a home down here because her $350,000 home in New Jersey is falling apart and her property taxes alone are over $8000 annually.

Those of us in the backwoods make no apologies. We are in our element.

[George Boutwell]

Boutwell says he lives in a land where people can drink Harvey's Bristol Creme Sherry.

I said that? I don't remember saying that. I must have had too much Pabst in me at the time. Fact is, my grandparents lived in Searcy for a while, during the Depression.

From Wikipedia: In 1893 Pabst's beer won a hotly contested competition at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Afterward, the name Pabst Blue Ribbon became firmly entrenched within American beer vocabulary. The year 1895 brought additional honors when Pabst became the first U.S. brewer to hit the million-barrel per year mark. The beer was so successful that Pabst began ordering millions of yards of blue ribbon. One factory in 1902 worked around the clock for nearly a year to complete a contract for 10 million yards of ribbon.

[erchess]

Question

[QUOTE=Bees Knees;37543]The scary part is many will read the article without thinking about the hidden agenda and think its not a bad idea. Women have, and still do make less in the workforce, although that gap has been closing for years. Therefore we ought to do something about that.

About what should we do something, the gap or the fact that it has been closing for years?

But seriously, I don't think suggestions such as the one these economists are making help us solve the very real problem of sexual inequality, which includes but is not limited to the wage gap.

[Bird Legs]

Another look at the situation

Was the family better, or worse off, when the women stayed home & took care of the home, children, etc., or now, when both parents work with other people taking care of the kids?
Recognizing that with all the conviences we have now, it takes 2 wage earners to pay for it all. The Mfg. companies have to do a lot of advertising to make you want to buy their products.
Can remember when I would come in from school and mother would have a big plate of cookes just out of the oven. Grab a couple then go outside and play with the other kids. Then about 6:00PM all the mothers would open the front door and call all the kids in to supper.
Those were hard times, however, people had time for each other.

[Snaggletooth]

for Boutwell and fellow Yankees

George, we ain't as dumb as you think we is.

[George Boutwell]

Whose leg you trying to yank?

George, we ain't as dumb as you think we is.

The Stars and Bars flew over the territory where I was born and now live.