Tax the Patriarchy

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 hours ago, Boketto said:

No. Unfortunately it applies to low income earners too, not just to people making $210k and above. The middle class is largely unaffected.

 

“Saving more on taxes” is a correct colloquial term to use here. It means paying less in taxes whether through tax deductions or other means. In the case of a married couple where one makes nothing, the couple gets a tax break that is far preferential to if they did not file jointly. 

 

The tax code is indeed gender neutral and I was agreeing with you on that. My comment was that I felt the article is based on a general social trend instead of the tax code alone, hence the “implied” part of my statement. Since women are the ones who are more likely to not be the breadwinners based on many factors (childcare, pregnancy, social roles etc), the tax penalty is one more disincentivizing factor. However, the tax code itself has no inherent gender bias. 

 

 

Can you give us an example to illustrate your claim, please?  I can’t think of one right now, but perhaps one exists.  

[Dashinka 24,499]

Personal  choices have consequences.  Does that sum it up?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Personal  choices have consequences.  Does that sum it up?

Pretty much.  But it's MUCH more fun to blame men!!

[laylalex 7,284]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

Pretty much.  But it's MUCH more fun to blame men!!

Well, I thought it was about blaming the unintended consequences of the tax code?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, laylalex said:

Well, I thought it was about blaming the unintended consequences of the tax code?

I don't think the word patriarchy means what you think it means, if the above accurately reflects your understanding of the topic you posted.

 

And as I posted above... there is NO unintended consequences of the tax code vis a vis genders.  Period.