Taxing women less: Gender pay equity?
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?
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.
Mike Myers
More social engineering stupidity out of Harvard. It would be far more useful to the general well-being of the world if every left-wing economist from Harvard (which accounts for 99% of them) went back to smoking pot and walking up and down the beach with a metal detector.
I don't necessarily have a problem with reducing taxes for anyone, but we all know the full tax burden would be no less because of it. And this would further encourage women to either wait until it is too late to have children, or to continue turning their offspring over to the daycare cattle ranches, turning out more and more little fledgling psychopaths. And finally, this continues the trend of turning over Western Civilization to those cultures who will reproduce. The only question is whether we should become fluent in Spanish or in Arabic.
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.
Mike Myers
More social engineering stupidity out of Harvard. It would be far more useful to the general well-being of the world if every left-wing economist from Harvard (which accounts for 99% of them) went back to smoking pot and walking up and down the beach with a metal detector.
I don't necessarily have a problem with reducing taxes for anyone, but we all know the full tax burden would be no less because of it. And this would further encourage women to either wait until it is too late to have children, or to continue turning their offspring over to the daycare cattle ranches, turning out more and more little fledgling psychopaths. And finally, this continues the trend of turning over Western Civilization to those cultures who will reproduce. The only question is whether we should become fluent in Spanish or in Arabic.
posted by Anonymous | 4:51 PM
2 Comments:
The only question is whether we should become fluent in Spanish or in Arabic.
Based purely on proximity, I'd say Spanish.
Steve opines: "It would be far more useful to the general well-being of the world if every left-wing economist from Harvard (which accounts for 99% of them) went back to smoking pot and walking up and down the beach with a metal detector."
That's one of the funniest quotes I've read all year... Ha! :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home