Skip to comments.
Taxing women less: Gender pay equity?
Star Tribune ^
| 05/06/07
| Mike Myers
Posted on 05/06/2007 7:34:16 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
Lower tax rates for women would have a number of benefits, two economists argue. But their ideas, which get high marks for originality, have drawn doubters.
Want to reduce the overall level of income taxes and see more women taking home paychecks?
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: divideandconquer; idiocy; socialengineering; stupidity; taxes; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
More social engineering nonsense.
To: Phantom Lord
I see a 14th Amendment case in the making if that happens.
2
posted on
05/06/2007 7:36:07 AM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: SandRat
I see everyone declaring themselves transexual.
They are a protected Correct Species, after all.
-Despite the fact we know them as miserable pathetic freaks.
3
posted on
05/06/2007 7:38:16 AM PDT
by
Gorzaloon
(Global Warming: A New Kind Of Scientology for the Rest Of Us.)
To: Phantom Lord
Lower taxes for women, lower them for people over 55 too. And people in "preferred" professions too, like engineering. And, and and...
It'll never end.
4
posted on
05/06/2007 7:38:16 AM PDT
by
sionnsar
(trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
To: Phantom Lord
But if women earn less, aren’t they already in lower tax brackets?
To: Gorzaloon
To: Phantom Lord
Lower tax rates for women would have a number of benefits,... I agree.
Along with EVERYONE else receiving the same break.
Only the "Star and Sickle" would promote equity by taking from those who have for the benefit of those who don't, they're one of the only remaining Communist rags left in our country.
7
posted on
05/06/2007 7:40:49 AM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: Phantom Lord
I’d be in favor of taxing illegal aliens more.
8
posted on
05/06/2007 7:41:12 AM PDT
by
Millee
(Tagline free since 10/20/06)
To: Phantom Lord
Hah! I’ve always thought certain “monthly” necessities should be tax deductible. It really adds up over the years! ;-)
9
posted on
05/06/2007 7:42:23 AM PDT
by
rhetorica
To: Phantom Lord
Tax them MORE as an incentive to stay home and take care of the kids... instead of dumping them in daycare.
0.5 / sarc
10
posted on
05/06/2007 7:42:26 AM PDT
by
Clint Williams
(Read Roto-Reuters -- we're the spinmeisters!)
To: Paleo Conservative
Yep but, the concept can not be based on gender alone.
If a woman earning $35K with a family of 2 is given a tax break that a man earning $35K with a family of 2 and both are single parents and the woman gets that tax break just because of her gender; it’s constitutionally illegal.
11
posted on
05/06/2007 7:44:34 AM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: Paleo Conservative
But if women earn less, arent they already in lower tax brackets? Very intuitive of you Paleo.
Since I am a single "male" (gasp) my total tax burden only exceeds 50%, however hey! others need a break too!
12
posted on
05/06/2007 7:45:41 AM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: Phantom Lord
Cool I will hire mine, pay her my salary, and pay myself $1 a year. Then we will file separately.
13
posted on
05/06/2007 7:45:42 AM PDT
by
GovernmentIsTheProblem
(Capitalism is the economic expression of individual liberty. Pass it on.)
To: sionnsar
And, and and...
It’ll never end.
And that would be a bad thing? Actually I’m in favor of lowering taxes on women and people over 55 but then again,I’m in favor of lower taxes across the board on EVERYBODY !!!
14
posted on
05/06/2007 7:46:35 AM PDT
by
Obie Wan
To: Phantom Lord
If you pay tuition to Harvard, you’re helping to fund this insane nonsense.
15
posted on
05/06/2007 7:47:43 AM PDT
by
D-Chivas
To: Phantom Lord
lets see... a guy is offered a job for $X and he says no, he is then offered $X+x and takes the job.
a woman is offered the same $X for an identical job in the same department and she takes $X.
WHY should she get a TAX break for that???
16
posted on
05/06/2007 7:48:07 AM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist)
To: SandRat
I don’t disagree with you. I’m just pointing out that the tax code as it exists already gives lower marginal rates to people with lower income regardless of the reason for that lower income.
To: EGPWS
Hey if I have to put on a dress to get a lower tax rate?... Hmmmmmmmmm...
Nah!
To: Phantom Lord
How about a lower tax rate for only those women deemed “hot” by a board a select men - maybe a panel similar to the guys who make “Man Law”. The really ugly ones pay an extra 10%.
To: Phantom Lord
Why don't we just skip all this incremental nonsense and just add a Constitutional amendment declaring taxes on whiteness (as determined by a panel consisting of the Rev. Al Sharpton and the top 3 black rappers), maleness (because apparently there's a gender spectrum now), and how much one hold's Christian values (because in refusing to recognize one's PC right to murder one's own children, pro-lifers clearly owe everyone else reparations for the emotional trauma that giving some value to life must cause).
20
posted on
05/06/2007 7:50:28 AM PDT
by
verum ago
(The Iranian Space Agency: set phasers to jihad!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson