Australia: Pink and blue forms: is gender-based tax really as crazy as it sounds?

Submitted by Mastodon on Fri, 2018-11-09 04:40

Article here. Excerpt:

'Should men and women pay different tax rates?

The chair of the Senate’s economics legislation committee, Liberal senator Jane Hume, posed the question this week during a public hearing on the government’s income tax plan.

The question was asked in jest to some tax experts, to have a little dig at Labor, because Labor had started drawing attention to the fact that the government’s proposed $143bn tax cuts would benefit men more than women at a ratio of almost two to one.
...
Stewart told the committee this week she was not advocating the introduction a two-tiered gender-based tax system in Australia, but she said the paper by Alesina and Ichino did make an important point about how tax systems affected men and women differently.

“The point being made by that research was precisely the point about workforce supply, and secondary workers being more [sensitive to tax],” she said.'

Like1 Dislike0

Comments

... means to limit it, to lessen it, to reduce it. NY taxes businesses aggressively. As a consequence, businesses have been leaving NY for decades or simply closing down because they can't afford to operate. NY also taxes people more highly than other states. These two factors have caused NY to have a net migration rate of -100,000/yr for the past ten years. The same can be said of CA.

Other states in the US tax businesses comparatively mildly and likewise people. TX for example has no state income tax largely due to its oil wealth. Taxes on businesses are a lot less. Consequently TX and similar states see a large net positive migration yearly.

If a country were to tax men at higher rates than women it would amount to a subsidy of women at the expense of men (as if men don't subsidize women enough as it is) but also would encourage migration of men out of Australia. To make up the revenue loss from taxing women less, men would need to be taxed more -- or businesses taxed more. Either way, Australia would see a loss of one or both as a result of following this feminist plan.

At the moment they don't seem serious about going with it. But check back in a few years.

Here in the US I am pretty sure it'd violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Con'n. But you never know.

Like3 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2018-11-10 04:31

Women should pay more in taxes because they receive more benefits from tax money. About 90% of welfare recipients in the US are single mothers--women. And women outlive men, so they receive more in SS benefits and Medicare benefits. So taxing women more makes sense.

And even when men and women are taxed at the same rates, men pay more in taxes because they generally earn more than women. The reason is simple: men typically must work, while for women work is often more of an option--they can find a man to support them or go on welfare. The man who supports them works and pays taxes while the woman doesn't. And welfare recipients pay very little in taxes.

So the tax rate should be higher for women than for men. Somehow, I doubt that's what these people have in mind.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2018-11-10 12:43