COMMENTS: 22
How the Income Tax System Shortchanges Women
April 16, 2007 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.
Advertisement
What comes to mind when we think of income taxes? Probably dread. Do we ever think women's issue? Not likely -- but we should. Taxes are something women and men face with unequal pain, let alone gain.
For example, a married couple faces a "marriage penalty" if their two incomes are similar and they file a joint return, since the second income (usually the wife's) is taxed at a significantly higher marginal rate than if she filed as an individual. But if a couple forgoes the wife's second income (or if one person's income is appreciably lower), they may pay less as joint filers than they would have as singles (the marriage "bonus"). Both situations can reduce the incentive for a married woman to work outside the home.
While business interests and churches have long had armies of lobbyists to influence tax policy, feminist influence has been minimal. That needs to change, and here are some recommendations:
- Get marital status out of the tax code. The basic tax-paying unit in the U.S. system is the "household" -- defined as married heterosexual couples or single individuals. We should redefine the tax unit to follow the model used in almost all other industrialized nations: Each taxpayer is treated as an individual regardless of household type. This would eliminate both the marriage penalty and the marriage bonus, and at the same time would no longer exclude gay or cohabiting couples.
- Increase the Child Tax Credit and apply it to all families with a payroll tax liability. Working poor women get very little help from the Child Tax Credit because it is tied to the amount they pay in income tax, which is low because their incomes are low. Yet many still have significant payroll tax bills for such things as Social Security and Medicare, so applying the tax credit to payroll taxes as well as income taxes would benefit them.
- Institute paid family leave, funded by unemployment taxes, with incentives for men to take leaves as well. We should not only have a national system of paid leave, but go a step further and emulate Sweden's system. There, in order to get the full benefit, each parent must take a turn at caregiving; the benefit doubles if the father takes his turn. This wouldn't help single mothers, but for married couples it would go a long way toward getting men to do their fair share.
- Remove the caps on Social Security taxes and give a Social Security credit for caregiving. While income-tax policies encourage women to stay home and take care of kids, Social Security then punishes them by entering zero for each year spent at home outside the paid workforce. That means a more meager retirement.
- Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions that discriminate against women. Churches that openly discriminate against women enjoy billions of dollars in tax savings through exemptions from income and property taxes, not to mention benefiting from the largesse of contributors who deduct their contributions. In turn, these funds are used to undermine women's rights. Case in point: Catholic and Protestant churches were among the biggest contributors to anti-abortion referenda in the 2006 election.
If some of the changes we need seem far-fetched or impossible, remember this: There was a time when the income tax was highly controversial, and now it is universally accepted. We're a long way from a feminist tax policy, but we have to take the first steps before we can get there.
Martha Burk is the Money editor of Ms. magazine.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 22 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
If It's Wrong Get Rid Of It Altogether
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 16, 2007 12:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 16, 2007 12:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are losing their touch. Protest it. Fight it. Overcome it. Why are you waiting so long?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
GENDER RACE RACE GENDER GENDER RACE RACE GENDER
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Apr 16, 2007 12:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Apr 16, 2007 12:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DIVIDE AND RULE
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
ENCOURAGE AMERICANS TO SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF SOME EVER SMALLER IDENTITY GROUP.
FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE ETC
DIVIDE AND RULE
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
ENCOURAGE AMERICANS TO SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF SOME EVER SMALLER IDENTITY GROUP.
FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE ETC
DIVIDE AND RULE
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I notice you dropped your pet projects.. because Alternet has addressed them.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Note that Ludd is allowed to insult me with impunity, but if I call him a FakeLeftist, I am banned
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
Comments are closed-
Comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 16, 2007 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 16, 2007 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I like that you at least start to address payroll taxes, the giant, regressive pink elephant in the room that laughs out loud while everyone bickers over the finer points of the federal tax code.
2. You want to make people without kids subsidize those who have kids even more than they do now? We're already subsidizing their education through property taxes, and much more. Now you want us to pay for dad to play Mr. Mom? Enough with the "family-friendly" stuff. Suppose we make it friendly for everyone, whether you have kids or not?
3. Too radical: It took me years to figure out the current tax code, and now you want to turn it upside down? A few tweaks to make it easier on working folks and harder on rich folks would be a good start. Please slow it down a little.
4. I'd like to see ALL churches lose their tax breaks, including the ones that are nice to women. If part of their work is charity, they can create a separate entity for that purpose, which can be taxed like a charity. Tax breaks for churches is a big scam, and it would be interesting to see what the difference in tax revenues would be if we started taxing them.
Interesting article.
2. You want to make people without kids subsidize those who have kids even more than they do now? We're already subsidizing their education through property taxes, and much more. Now you want us to pay for dad to play Mr. Mom? Enough with the "family-friendly" stuff. Suppose we make it friendly for everyone, whether you have kids or not?
3. Too radical: It took me years to figure out the current tax code, and now you want to turn it upside down? A few tweaks to make it easier on working folks and harder on rich folks would be a good start. Please slow it down a little.
4. I'd like to see ALL churches lose their tax breaks, including the ones that are nice to women. If part of their work is charity, they can create a separate entity for that purpose, which can be taxed like a charity. Tax breaks for churches is a big scam, and it would be interesting to see what the difference in tax revenues would be if we started taxing them.
Interesting article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Comments
Posted by: binkey
Comments are closed-
Sadly enough, it's not just the income tax system...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Apr 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Apr 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women weren't even allowed to vote - to choose their oppressors until 100 years ago. It's a horrible truty, but women and minorities have been oppressed in differing ways all through this country's history.
But, to be sure, it's not just women who are treated unfairly by the income tax system. This article presents an excellent case as to why women are worse off, but in reality, we're all being "taken for a ride"
While we're taxed left and right, our incomes stagnate or drop, and the government always wants more. why? so it can afford a new killing machine, a new war, and the deaths of another million or so more people in Iraq, Iran, or another sovereign nation.
I don't mean to digress so much, but feel passionately that if we don't "strike the root" of the problems this nation faces, we may not see an end to the neverending "war on terror"
For some further reading on how the income tax is being used to, in essence, enslave us for the goals of a power-hungry elite, see Outing the Constitutional Criminals
But, to be sure, it's not just women who are treated unfairly by the income tax system. This article presents an excellent case as to why women are worse off, but in reality, we're all being "taken for a ride"
While we're taxed left and right, our incomes stagnate or drop, and the government always wants more. why? so it can afford a new killing machine, a new war, and the deaths of another million or so more people in Iraq, Iran, or another sovereign nation.
I don't mean to digress so much, but feel passionately that if we don't "strike the root" of the problems this nation faces, we may not see an end to the neverending "war on terror"
For some further reading on how the income tax is being used to, in essence, enslave us for the goals of a power-hungry elite, see Outing the Constitutional Criminals
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
EVERYTHING shortchanges women
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 16, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 16, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- if you're a feminist like Burk.
> a married couple faces a "marriage penalty"...
"The tax is just Phase 1 of the marriage penalty." - Michael Feldman
Seriously, when women start supporting men, well then the tax law would work to discriminate against men, which would balance it all out. So have at it, gals!
> ...armies of lobbyists to influence tax policy,
> feminist influence has been minimal...
This is because women (feminists included) tend to have more expertise at figuring out good ways to spend other people's money, rather than raising that money in the first place.
I hope Burk isn't calling for their to be even more lobbyists than we're reeling under already.
> Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions
> that discriminate against women.
Last I heard, men were abandoning churches for being too feminized. One number I saw was that 60% of church-goers now are women, which is about the female percentage at our very female-friendly colleges and universities. One could hardly argue that these institutions discriminate against women. (Ok, ok, I know feminist theory guarantees oppression and discrimination against women will be found in all places at all times...) But I'd be in favor of revoking some or all of their tax exemptions because they discriminate against men.
> a married couple faces a "marriage penalty"...
"The tax is just Phase 1 of the marriage penalty." - Michael Feldman
Seriously, when women start supporting men, well then the tax law would work to discriminate against men, which would balance it all out. So have at it, gals!
> ...armies of lobbyists to influence tax policy,
> feminist influence has been minimal...
This is because women (feminists included) tend to have more expertise at figuring out good ways to spend other people's money, rather than raising that money in the first place.
I hope Burk isn't calling for their to be even more lobbyists than we're reeling under already.
> Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions
> that discriminate against women.
Last I heard, men were abandoning churches for being too feminized. One number I saw was that 60% of church-goers now are women, which is about the female percentage at our very female-friendly colleges and universities. One could hardly argue that these institutions discriminate against women. (Ok, ok, I know feminist theory guarantees oppression and discrimination against women will be found in all places at all times...) But I'd be in favor of revoking some or all of their tax exemptions because they discriminate against men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» would a truly devout man abandon his CHURCH because 60% of the congregation were WOMEN?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: VERYTHING shortchanges women
Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» Yes, AvalonSeeker, and besides, it certainly must be okay for women to comment on life
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
If you don't like it - CHANGE IT
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 16, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 16, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have any knowledge of the married/unmarried fairness of the tax code. But my advice to ons and all is if you don't like it change it. Let's get a little "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
P.S. I have heard that two can live as cheaply as one. (Provided one is a horse and the other a sparrow) BL
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
P.S. I have heard that two can live as cheaply as one. (Provided one is a horse and the other a sparrow) BL
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Uh....
Posted by: H_H on Apr 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: H_H on Apr 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Get marital status out of the tax code."
Why not simply use the "married filing separately" option? No one FORCES anyone to file jointly.
Furthermore, the "marriage penalty" is non-existant when married couples have disparate incomes, so the idea that this "penalizes" women is no more valid than the idea that a progressive income tax "penalizes" men.
"Revoke favorable tax treatments for...Catholic[s] and Protestant[s]"
Shred the 1st amendment, then? Very good.
I can see that these kinds of matters aren't Burk's strong point. If there was feminist influence over tax policy in the way that Burke envisions, women would pay no tax at all and men's taxes would be doubled. To redress 5 billion years of oppression, of course.
Why not simply use the "married filing separately" option? No one FORCES anyone to file jointly.
Furthermore, the "marriage penalty" is non-existant when married couples have disparate incomes, so the idea that this "penalizes" women is no more valid than the idea that a progressive income tax "penalizes" men.
"Revoke favorable tax treatments for...Catholic[s] and Protestant[s]"
Shred the 1st amendment, then? Very good.
I can see that these kinds of matters aren't Burk's strong point. If there was feminist influence over tax policy in the way that Burke envisions, women would pay no tax at all and men's taxes would be doubled. To redress 5 billion years of oppression, of course.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yet another unavoidable article, eh?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Yet another unavoidable article, eh?
Posted by: H_H
Comments are closed-
Too Many People
Posted by: vertical on Apr 17, 2007 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vertical on Apr 17, 2007 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are too many people, and our tax system should be discouraging people from having more and more children. I say that first kid should get a tax break. The tax break should be cut in nhalf for the second child, and there should be no taxc break if a couple has a third child. Also, couples should have their taxes raised for each child of four or more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Incentive not to work
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Apr 17, 2007 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Apr 17, 2007 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a strange world when an incentive not to work, or to work less, is seen as a penalty. If I had an incentive to work less, be sure I would take advantage of it. I had to negotiate with my last employer to work only 32 hours a week instead of 40. I gave up a decent raise in order to get that bonus. The penalty comes becuase employers expect me to work 40 hours a week, not because I pay taxes on that money.
Now that I am getting married, we find that we will pay significantly less taxes than when we were single. This is a marriage bonus.
Now that I am getting married, we find that we will pay significantly less taxes than when we were single. This is a marriage bonus.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Perhaps a more moderate approach taht tearts men equal to women?
Posted by: elfinito on Apr 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: elfinito on Apr 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get marital status out of the tax code.
NO --> but should not be called marriage. It should be "Economic partners". We want to incentivise this. Economic partners use less resources, both natural and goverment funded an a tax break is fair for them. Sex shoulld be independent so its gay freindly, and perhaps even open to multiple "economic partners" that could easily be adjsuted to accomadate a "Big Love" style life choice if that ever becomes acceptable. Plus, when it comes to joint dependants it makes a lot of sense, or else who gets the Child based tax-breaks?
Increase the Child Tax Credit and apply it to all families with a payroll tax liability.
Agree --> but this applies to working mean with childrem a well. You ask for equality, but than you only talk about working single moms. I am one of six kids raised by a working single-father.
Institute paid family leave, funded by unemployment taxes, with incentives for men to take leaves as well.
Again...I agree, but the tone is all wrong. And it implies that men do not do thier share. Do you not see that that is a sexist generality?
Remove the caps on Social Security taxes and give a Social Security credit for caregiving.
Of course --> Caregivers (man or woman) need to be considered as important working members of our society and should be entitled to SS.
Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions that discriminate against women.
NO --> that would be unconstitutional to judge their religious beliefs before we give a tax break. Basically no Muslim group could ever get a tax break, but a protestant church allowing woman preists can. The constitution stictly forbids the gov't from doing such valuations of religious beliefs.
The better solution is to get rid of the religious tax breaks period. (since giving them tax-breaks other than the charity-based breaks is also unconstitutional.)
NO --> but should not be called marriage. It should be "Economic partners". We want to incentivise this. Economic partners use less resources, both natural and goverment funded an a tax break is fair for them. Sex shoulld be independent so its gay freindly, and perhaps even open to multiple "economic partners" that could easily be adjsuted to accomadate a "Big Love" style life choice if that ever becomes acceptable. Plus, when it comes to joint dependants it makes a lot of sense, or else who gets the Child based tax-breaks?
Increase the Child Tax Credit and apply it to all families with a payroll tax liability.
Agree --> but this applies to working mean with childrem a well. You ask for equality, but than you only talk about working single moms. I am one of six kids raised by a working single-father.
Institute paid family leave, funded by unemployment taxes, with incentives for men to take leaves as well.
Again...I agree, but the tone is all wrong. And it implies that men do not do thier share. Do you not see that that is a sexist generality?
Remove the caps on Social Security taxes and give a Social Security credit for caregiving.
Of course --> Caregivers (man or woman) need to be considered as important working members of our society and should be entitled to SS.
Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions that discriminate against women.
NO --> that would be unconstitutional to judge their religious beliefs before we give a tax break. Basically no Muslim group could ever get a tax break, but a protestant church allowing woman preists can. The constitution stictly forbids the gov't from doing such valuations of religious beliefs.
The better solution is to get rid of the religious tax breaks period. (since giving them tax-breaks other than the charity-based breaks is also unconstitutional.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Taxing churches/temples/mosques etc.
Posted by: ender on Apr 18, 2007 2:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ender on Apr 18, 2007 2:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only problem with taxing religious institutions is that the institutions could then demand a voice in government. They could openly support or disdain certain politicians and laws, further eroding the separation between church and state.
Remember "no taxation without representation"? Or how about "render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?
Remember "no taxation without representation"? Or how about "render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Taxing churches/temples/mosques etc.
Posted by: elfinito
Comments are closed-
What's the cap on social security tax got to do with women?
Posted by: cfischerieeeorg on Apr 18, 2007 8:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: cfischerieeeorg on Apr 18, 2007 8:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like you are pushing an unrelated liberal goal under the guise of pushing a feminist tax policy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
How the Income Tax System Shortchanges Women
Posted by: conjure on May 12, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: conjure on May 12, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How the Income Tax System Shortchanges Womenbig shemale cocks - porn movies gay hardcore massive cock sucking cock GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED gay leather bondage - rape stories lesbian sex pictures and porn movies petite black - petite teens gets fucked petite girl free hardcore mature sexy women - pictures of sexy mature mature pussy free mature porn dominatrix - email address the internet united states the united states trample cruel - female domination add your site cruel mistress responder a live florida web cams - webcam software live web cam new zealand live webcam femdom facesitting - foot fetish women facesitting smother facesitting female wrestling
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» I notice you dropped your pet projects.. because Alternet has addressed them.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Note that Ludd is allowed to insult me with impunity, but if I call him a FakeLeftist, I am banned
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
» RE: Comments
Posted by: binkey
» would a truly devout man abandon his CHURCH because 60% of the congregation were WOMEN?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: VERYTHING shortchanges women
Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» Yes, AvalonSeeker, and besides, it certainly must be okay for women to comment on life
Posted by: Beck
» Yet another unavoidable article, eh?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Yet another unavoidable article, eh?
Posted by: H_H
» RE: Taxing churches/temples/mosques etc.
Posted by: elfinito
Comments are closed-
If It's Wrong Get Rid Of It Altogether
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 16, 2007 12:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 16, 2007 12:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are losing their touch. Protest it. Fight it. Overcome it. Why are you waiting so long?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
GENDER RACE RACE GENDER GENDER RACE RACE GENDER
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Apr 16, 2007 12:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Apr 16, 2007 12:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DIVIDE AND RULE
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
ENCOURAGE AMERICANS TO SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF SOME EVER SMALLER IDENTITY GROUP.
FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE ETC
DIVIDE AND RULE
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
ENCOURAGE AMERICANS TO SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF SOME EVER SMALLER IDENTITY GROUP.
FEMALE MALE BLACK WHITE ETC
DIVIDE AND RULE
THAT IS THE RULE OF POWER
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I notice you dropped your pet projects.. because Alternet has addressed them.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Note that Ludd is allowed to insult me with impunity, but if I call him a FakeLeftist, I am banned
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
Comments are closed-
Comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 16, 2007 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 16, 2007 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I like that you at least start to address payroll taxes, the giant, regressive pink elephant in the room that laughs out loud while everyone bickers over the finer points of the federal tax code.
2. You want to make people without kids subsidize those who have kids even more than they do now? We're already subsidizing their education through property taxes, and much more. Now you want us to pay for dad to play Mr. Mom? Enough with the "family-friendly" stuff. Suppose we make it friendly for everyone, whether you have kids or not?
3. Too radical: It took me years to figure out the current tax code, and now you want to turn it upside down? A few tweaks to make it easier on working folks and harder on rich folks would be a good start. Please slow it down a little.
4. I'd like to see ALL churches lose their tax breaks, including the ones that are nice to women. If part of their work is charity, they can create a separate entity for that purpose, which can be taxed like a charity. Tax breaks for churches is a big scam, and it would be interesting to see what the difference in tax revenues would be if we started taxing them.
Interesting article.
2. You want to make people without kids subsidize those who have kids even more than they do now? We're already subsidizing their education through property taxes, and much more. Now you want us to pay for dad to play Mr. Mom? Enough with the "family-friendly" stuff. Suppose we make it friendly for everyone, whether you have kids or not?
3. Too radical: It took me years to figure out the current tax code, and now you want to turn it upside down? A few tweaks to make it easier on working folks and harder on rich folks would be a good start. Please slow it down a little.
4. I'd like to see ALL churches lose their tax breaks, including the ones that are nice to women. If part of their work is charity, they can create a separate entity for that purpose, which can be taxed like a charity. Tax breaks for churches is a big scam, and it would be interesting to see what the difference in tax revenues would be if we started taxing them.
Interesting article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Comments
Posted by: binkey
Comments are closed-
Sadly enough, it's not just the income tax system...
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Apr 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Apr 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women weren't even allowed to vote - to choose their oppressors until 100 years ago. It's a horrible truty, but women and minorities have been oppressed in differing ways all through this country's history.
But, to be sure, it's not just women who are treated unfairly by the income tax system. This article presents an excellent case as to why women are worse off, but in reality, we're all being "taken for a ride"
While we're taxed left and right, our incomes stagnate or drop, and the government always wants more. why? so it can afford a new killing machine, a new war, and the deaths of another million or so more people in Iraq, Iran, or another sovereign nation.
I don't mean to digress so much, but feel passionately that if we don't "strike the root" of the problems this nation faces, we may not see an end to the neverending "war on terror"
For some further reading on how the income tax is being used to, in essence, enslave us for the goals of a power-hungry elite, see Outing the Constitutional Criminals
But, to be sure, it's not just women who are treated unfairly by the income tax system. This article presents an excellent case as to why women are worse off, but in reality, we're all being "taken for a ride"
While we're taxed left and right, our incomes stagnate or drop, and the government always wants more. why? so it can afford a new killing machine, a new war, and the deaths of another million or so more people in Iraq, Iran, or another sovereign nation.
I don't mean to digress so much, but feel passionately that if we don't "strike the root" of the problems this nation faces, we may not see an end to the neverending "war on terror"
For some further reading on how the income tax is being used to, in essence, enslave us for the goals of a power-hungry elite, see Outing the Constitutional Criminals
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
EVERYTHING shortchanges women
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 16, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 16, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- if you're a feminist like Burk.
> a married couple faces a "marriage penalty"...
"The tax is just Phase 1 of the marriage penalty." - Michael Feldman
Seriously, when women start supporting men, well then the tax law would work to discriminate against men, which would balance it all out. So have at it, gals!
> ...armies of lobbyists to influence tax policy,
> feminist influence has been minimal...
This is because women (feminists included) tend to have more expertise at figuring out good ways to spend other people's money, rather than raising that money in the first place.
I hope Burk isn't calling for their to be even more lobbyists than we're reeling under already.
> Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions
> that discriminate against women.
Last I heard, men were abandoning churches for being too feminized. One number I saw was that 60% of church-goers now are women, which is about the female percentage at our very female-friendly colleges and universities. One could hardly argue that these institutions discriminate against women. (Ok, ok, I know feminist theory guarantees oppression and discrimination against women will be found in all places at all times...) But I'd be in favor of revoking some or all of their tax exemptions because they discriminate against men.
> a married couple faces a "marriage penalty"...
"The tax is just Phase 1 of the marriage penalty." - Michael Feldman
Seriously, when women start supporting men, well then the tax law would work to discriminate against men, which would balance it all out. So have at it, gals!
> ...armies of lobbyists to influence tax policy,
> feminist influence has been minimal...
This is because women (feminists included) tend to have more expertise at figuring out good ways to spend other people's money, rather than raising that money in the first place.
I hope Burk isn't calling for their to be even more lobbyists than we're reeling under already.
> Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions
> that discriminate against women.
Last I heard, men were abandoning churches for being too feminized. One number I saw was that 60% of church-goers now are women, which is about the female percentage at our very female-friendly colleges and universities. One could hardly argue that these institutions discriminate against women. (Ok, ok, I know feminist theory guarantees oppression and discrimination against women will be found in all places at all times...) But I'd be in favor of revoking some or all of their tax exemptions because they discriminate against men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» would a truly devout man abandon his CHURCH because 60% of the congregation were WOMEN?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: VERYTHING shortchanges women
Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» Yes, AvalonSeeker, and besides, it certainly must be okay for women to comment on life
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
If you don't like it - CHANGE IT
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 16, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 16, 2007 7:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have any knowledge of the married/unmarried fairness of the tax code. But my advice to ons and all is if you don't like it change it. Let's get a little "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
P.S. I have heard that two can live as cheaply as one. (Provided one is a horse and the other a sparrow) BL
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
P.S. I have heard that two can live as cheaply as one. (Provided one is a horse and the other a sparrow) BL
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Uh....
Posted by: H_H on Apr 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: H_H on Apr 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Get marital status out of the tax code."
Why not simply use the "married filing separately" option? No one FORCES anyone to file jointly.
Furthermore, the "marriage penalty" is non-existant when married couples have disparate incomes, so the idea that this "penalizes" women is no more valid than the idea that a progressive income tax "penalizes" men.
"Revoke favorable tax treatments for...Catholic[s] and Protestant[s]"
Shred the 1st amendment, then? Very good.
I can see that these kinds of matters aren't Burk's strong point. If there was feminist influence over tax policy in the way that Burke envisions, women would pay no tax at all and men's taxes would be doubled. To redress 5 billion years of oppression, of course.
Why not simply use the "married filing separately" option? No one FORCES anyone to file jointly.
Furthermore, the "marriage penalty" is non-existant when married couples have disparate incomes, so the idea that this "penalizes" women is no more valid than the idea that a progressive income tax "penalizes" men.
"Revoke favorable tax treatments for...Catholic[s] and Protestant[s]"
Shred the 1st amendment, then? Very good.
I can see that these kinds of matters aren't Burk's strong point. If there was feminist influence over tax policy in the way that Burke envisions, women would pay no tax at all and men's taxes would be doubled. To redress 5 billion years of oppression, of course.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yet another unavoidable article, eh?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Yet another unavoidable article, eh?
Posted by: H_H
Comments are closed-
Too Many People
Posted by: vertical on Apr 17, 2007 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vertical on Apr 17, 2007 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are too many people, and our tax system should be discouraging people from having more and more children. I say that first kid should get a tax break. The tax break should be cut in nhalf for the second child, and there should be no taxc break if a couple has a third child. Also, couples should have their taxes raised for each child of four or more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Incentive not to work
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Apr 17, 2007 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Apr 17, 2007 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a strange world when an incentive not to work, or to work less, is seen as a penalty. If I had an incentive to work less, be sure I would take advantage of it. I had to negotiate with my last employer to work only 32 hours a week instead of 40. I gave up a decent raise in order to get that bonus. The penalty comes becuase employers expect me to work 40 hours a week, not because I pay taxes on that money.
Now that I am getting married, we find that we will pay significantly less taxes than when we were single. This is a marriage bonus.
Now that I am getting married, we find that we will pay significantly less taxes than when we were single. This is a marriage bonus.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Perhaps a more moderate approach taht tearts men equal to women?
Posted by: elfinito on Apr 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: elfinito on Apr 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get marital status out of the tax code.
NO --> but should not be called marriage. It should be "Economic partners". We want to incentivise this. Economic partners use less resources, both natural and goverment funded an a tax break is fair for them. Sex shoulld be independent so its gay freindly, and perhaps even open to multiple "economic partners" that could easily be adjsuted to accomadate a "Big Love" style life choice if that ever becomes acceptable. Plus, when it comes to joint dependants it makes a lot of sense, or else who gets the Child based tax-breaks?
Increase the Child Tax Credit and apply it to all families with a payroll tax liability.
Agree --> but this applies to working mean with childrem a well. You ask for equality, but than you only talk about working single moms. I am one of six kids raised by a working single-father.
Institute paid family leave, funded by unemployment taxes, with incentives for men to take leaves as well.
Again...I agree, but the tone is all wrong. And it implies that men do not do thier share. Do you not see that that is a sexist generality?
Remove the caps on Social Security taxes and give a Social Security credit for caregiving.
Of course --> Caregivers (man or woman) need to be considered as important working members of our society and should be entitled to SS.
Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions that discriminate against women.
NO --> that would be unconstitutional to judge their religious beliefs before we give a tax break. Basically no Muslim group could ever get a tax break, but a protestant church allowing woman preists can. The constitution stictly forbids the gov't from doing such valuations of religious beliefs.
The better solution is to get rid of the religious tax breaks period. (since giving them tax-breaks other than the charity-based breaks is also unconstitutional.)
NO --> but should not be called marriage. It should be "Economic partners". We want to incentivise this. Economic partners use less resources, both natural and goverment funded an a tax break is fair for them. Sex shoulld be independent so its gay freindly, and perhaps even open to multiple "economic partners" that could easily be adjsuted to accomadate a "Big Love" style life choice if that ever becomes acceptable. Plus, when it comes to joint dependants it makes a lot of sense, or else who gets the Child based tax-breaks?
Increase the Child Tax Credit and apply it to all families with a payroll tax liability.
Agree --> but this applies to working mean with childrem a well. You ask for equality, but than you only talk about working single moms. I am one of six kids raised by a working single-father.
Institute paid family leave, funded by unemployment taxes, with incentives for men to take leaves as well.
Again...I agree, but the tone is all wrong. And it implies that men do not do thier share. Do you not see that that is a sexist generality?
Remove the caps on Social Security taxes and give a Social Security credit for caregiving.
Of course --> Caregivers (man or woman) need to be considered as important working members of our society and should be entitled to SS.
Revoke favorable tax treatments for institutions that discriminate against women.
NO --> that would be unconstitutional to judge their religious beliefs before we give a tax break. Basically no Muslim group could ever get a tax break, but a protestant church allowing woman preists can. The constitution stictly forbids the gov't from doing such valuations of religious beliefs.
The better solution is to get rid of the religious tax breaks period. (since giving them tax-breaks other than the charity-based breaks is also unconstitutional.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Taxing churches/temples/mosques etc.
Posted by: ender on Apr 18, 2007 2:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ender on Apr 18, 2007 2:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only problem with taxing religious institutions is that the institutions could then demand a voice in government. They could openly support or disdain certain politicians and laws, further eroding the separation between church and state.
Remember "no taxation without representation"? Or how about "render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?
Remember "no taxation without representation"? Or how about "render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's"?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Taxing churches/temples/mosques etc.
Posted by: elfinito
Comments are closed-
What's the cap on social security tax got to do with women?
Posted by: cfischerieeeorg on Apr 18, 2007 8:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: cfischerieeeorg on Apr 18, 2007 8:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like you are pushing an unrelated liberal goal under the guise of pushing a feminist tax policy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
How the Income Tax System Shortchanges Women
Posted by: conjure on May 12, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: conjure on May 12, 2007 9:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How the Income Tax System Shortchanges Womenbig shemale cocks - porn movies gay hardcore massive cock sucking cock GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED gay leather bondage - rape stories lesbian sex pictures and porn movies petite black - petite teens gets fucked petite girl free hardcore mature sexy women - pictures of sexy mature mature pussy free mature porn dominatrix - email address the internet united states the united states trample cruel - female domination add your site cruel mistress responder a live florida web cams - webcam software live web cam new zealand live webcam femdom facesitting - foot fetish women facesitting smother facesitting female wrestling
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles
Bad Policies Are Really What's Driving California's Huge Prison Costs
