IMF's suggestion of a "man tax" (or lower taxes for women)

iptba · 26-11-2010 3:53am #1

Well done to these letter writers (Irish Times, 26th Nov). I think the point about the equality groups is interesting - imagine the reaction if the situation was reversed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224284180611

A 'man tax' by any other name

Madam, – I feel violated, angry and disrespected by the suggestions of a “man tax” for Irish men. The IMF is suggesting that I will have to pay higher tax than women purely because I am a man (Front page, November 23rd).

I can’t believe how lightly this has been taken by our society, especially our media, our politicians, and equality groups like Amnesty International. This is gross discrimination and should be rejected. The IMF should be told that although we are far from perfect on equality, our goal is to work towards it, not bring in more inequalities.

Why does our society think it’s okay to treat men as second-class citizens? What if it were the other way around and the suggestion was to tax women more highly based on their gender? I’ve no doubt that this would be nipped in the bud immediately. It would be scoffed at by the media as ridiculous. It would be looked on as something from the dark ages. Yet it’s okay to contemplate disrespecting men in this way.

I’m also disappointed in the women of Ireland. They talk the talk on equality but in reality, they are happy to accept inequality as long as it’s in their favour. Inequality breeds resentment and the goal of society should be to rid itself of such.

Irrespective of the outcome, for me the damage has already been done. I’ve seen the lack of reaction from women, the media, the politicians and the equality groups. I understand that as a man in Ireland, I am totally alone.

If this war on men by Ireland is implemented, I for one intend fighting back. My tax affairs have always been whiter than white, but if I am to be penalised for being a man, then I will do all I can to reclaim what is unjustly and disrespectfully taken from me. The 5 per cent “man tax” will cost me €2,000 per annum so my aim will be to win this back. If that means buying on the black economy, I’ll contemplate such. I’ll also stop buying Irish goods, as it’s Ireland which is treating me like this. I will change to shopping in Lidl/Aldi and save maybe €20 per week on foreign food. From now on, it’s every man for himself.

– Yours, etc,
<name and address>

Madam, – The IMF proposes a variety of cuts and lower taxes for women. Entering into the spirit of these proposals, I volunteer to cut the last letter from my name. – Yours, etc, Brendan <surname and address>

Mackman · 26-11-2010 5:17am

I heard about this. Disgraceful TBH.

The apparent reason for it is "to encourage women back into the workplace".

I didnt realise they had left

iptba · 26-11-2010 5:38am

(slightly off-topic but not really)

I just happened to be reading something in the UK. It is about the disability assessment system with a review suggesting changes should be made: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/employment-and-support/wca-independent-review/ . Anyway, part of the government's response is an "Equality impact assessment". This is somewhat new to me but I have a recollection of hearing it before.

Anyway, if ever there was a case that an "Equality impact assessment" would show a change was biased, this is it (of course it's self-evident; but equality impact assessment are presumably designed to spot such changes when it is not so obvious). Those in the gender field should be on the alert for changes like this. Yet, we have cases like this academic (from the School of Social Work and Social Policy, a fellow of TCD) writing a letter praising the proposal http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/1124/1224284025746.html . She used to lecture first year sociology in TCD (maybe still does) - most males who could e.g. BESS students gave up sociology as they found it so biased.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 26-11-2010 10:26am

Eh what's this about?

ButtersStotch · 26-11-2010 10:31am

This better be some sort of sick joke! :eek: If a higher tax for women was even mentioned there would be uproar! :mad:

coffee_cake · 26-11-2010 10:51am

I hadn't heard anything about this, from men or women

If it's serious they can fcuk right off with their sexist taxation

CathyMoran · 26-11-2010 11:23am

I think that what they were trying to do was point out the high costs of childcare? At least I hope that was what they were trying to say - I must admit that it did seem very sexist, also men are just as involved in childcare as women.

metrovelvet · 26-11-2010 11:30am

I thought this had something to do with childcare. I dont think this will encourage women to go back in the workforce [what workforce?]. They creche, childminder, whatever should offer a receipt to whomever is sigining the cheques to be submitted to the tax office/accountant or whomever is appropriate.

26-11-2010 11:57am

IrishTimes wrote:

In relation to attracting women into the labour force in several countries including Ireland it urges tax changes and better child care. The report says that “cutting labour income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points” would increase the GDP by 1¾ percentage points.

Source

Wouldn't a "man tax" ensure the status quo of women handling the vast majority of childcare? As men are going to have to work much more to get the same amount of money?

If they want to encourage tax breaks for child-care and second-earners in a two-income family, then have tax breaks for child-care and second-earners in a two-income family. Don't give tax breaks to women just because they do a majority of childcare

Rubik. · 26-11-2010 4:13pm

Wasn't it worded as "the second earner", which doesn't necessarily mean that person is female.

edit: as I have just noticed 28064212 has pointed it out.

26-11-2010 4:25pm

This is the paper in question (PDF): http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1019.pdf. It does include a disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management.

The relevant part:

Labor market models need to be adjusted to promote inclusivity. Although the detailed measures vary on a country-by-country basis, reforms are needed across the euro area. Key reforms should include:
Attracting second-earners to join the labor force. The implicit tax on the gross income of a second earner tops 70 percent when including social security contribution, benefits loss, and the cost of child care in Austria, France, Ireland, and the Slovak Republic. Measures especially geared toward second earners, combining tax incentives—including allowing women to file their labor income separately from their husband in countries with joint family taxation—and better child-care support, could be specifically targeted at raising female participation. IMF staff estimates show that cutting labor income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points would increase the GDP level by 1¾ percentage points, for a fiscal cost of ½ percentage point of GDP.

So it seems to just be badly-worded. They're saying that tax breaks should be given to second earners, but then jump to the erroneous conclusion that all second earners are women. So long as any possible legislation refers only to second-earners (without any gender bias), I don't see the problem

iptba · 26-11-2010 5:06pm

Measures especially geared toward second earners, combining tax incentives—including allowing women to file their labor income separately from their husband in countries with joint family taxation—and better child-care support, could be specifically targeted at raising female participation. IMF staff estimates show that cutting labor income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points would increase the GDP level by 1¾ percentage points, for a fiscal cost of ½ percentage point of GDP.

28064212 wrote: »

So it seems to just be badly-worded. They're saying that tax breaks should be given to second earners, but then jump to the erroneous conclusion that all second earners are women. So long as any possible legislation refers only to second-earners (without any gender bias), I don't see the problem

Yes, as long as the language only refers to second earners, I don't have a problem with it. However, imagine the uproar if the language used had been reversed i.e. it would good to give men tax breaks, etc.

And the feminist letter-writer to the Irish Times was using women all over the place in her letter.

metrovelvet · 26-11-2010 5:09pm

Can someone please explain because Im no accounting expert. Why should it matter who is the second and who is the primary earner? Shouldnt the person paying for it get the tax break or is that they dont want to give tax breaks to greater earners because it means less revenue for them?

26-11-2010 5:21pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can someone please explain because Im no accounting expert. Why should it matter who is the second and who is the primary earner? Shouldnt the person paying for it get the tax break or is that they dont want to give tax breaks to greater earners because it means less revenue for them?

Because it's for a person who currently isn't an earner at all. If a parent in a single-income household wants to re-enter the workforce, the effective tax is much higher than just their income tax. They're losing benefits, and they now have to pay child-care costs, so a €30,000 wage is much less attractive to a second-earner than it is to a primary-earner

iptba · 26-11-2010 5:44pm

Here's an article from a female journalist saying why she likes the idea:

'Sexist' tax cut would benefit Ireland as a whole

IMF plan to cut women's income tax rate by five percentage points could raise Ireland's GDP as well as tackle inequality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/ireland-imf-women-income-tax-cut-inequality

26-11-2010 6:03pm

iptba wrote: »

Here's an article from a female journalist saying why she likes the idea:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/ireland-imf-women-income-tax-cut-inequality

The more I see people jumping on this as a women's issue, the stupider it becomes. Tax breaks for second-earners: great. Tax breaks for women: unbelievably moronic. It's saying that Anne Heraty (CEO of CPL, a company with revenues in excess of €200m) deserves a tax-break that a father (who stayed at home to mind a child and now wants to return to the workforce) doesn't.

And the most idiotic thing of all is that tax breaks for second earners is a good idea that will also help gender equality. If the supporters of a female-only tax break just got behind the second-earner tax break, it would be hugely effective for their agendas and extremely difficult to argue with. Instead they've made it into a ridiculously divisive gender-only issue

CathyMoran · 26-11-2010 6:13pm

I think the issues are the high cost of childcare and the fact that if someone (male or female) has been away from the job market for a few years raising a child(ren) they will probably need upskilling - the current proposal does not address that.

metrovelvet · 26-11-2010 6:40pm

CathyMoran wrote: »

I think the issues are the high cost of childcare and the fact that if someone (male or female) has been away from the job market for a few years raising a child(ren) they will probably need upskilling - the current proposal does not address that.

That is a crucial and ignored point all too often. I dont know about over here, but certainly in the highly competitive job market of the north eastern US, if you take a year out, that is it, when you come back you have to start over, at the bottom. Your skills, your contacts, you everything have expired.

But is upskilling the responsibility of the state? Shouldnt the parent/employee take care of that?

TouchingVirus · 26-11-2010 6:56pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

But is upskilling the responsibility of the state? Shouldnt the parent/employee take care of that?

Absolutely, but without the necessary tax breaks or other incentives for getting educated it really isn't worth it

metrovelvet · 26-11-2010 7:11pm

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Absolutely, but without the necessary tax breaks or other incentives for getting educated it really isn't worth it

Shouldnt this be given to the employer to encourage hiring?

Headlights · 26-11-2010 7:26pm

This is supposed to encourage women to get back to work?

'Well I wasn't going to work, but now that I see this 5% tax cut I've completely reversed my decision.'

Stheno · 27-11-2010 1:28am

metrovelvet wrote: »

But is upskilling the responsibility of the state? Shouldnt the parent/employee take care of that?

Personally I believe upskilling is the responsibility of the person benefiting, be it that they/an employer/the state pay.

I'm at the end of a contract at the moment, and am using some of my savings, and time prior to jobhunting again to upskill and add to my qualifications so that I am more qualified in the area of work I do and therefore more attractive to employers.

As for the "man tax" tone of this thread, as far as I am concerned anyone be they single or part of a couple should be able to avail of tax credits towards childcare, regardless of gender.

Ebbs · 27-11-2010 1:46am

I dont mean to be highly critical but.. they publish a horribly worded report on their website...and then expect us to welcome them with open arms. Surely a certain level of professionalism should be shown...maybe even somebody should you know....read over documents posted :rolleyes:

Im not in favour of tax breaks for "second rate earners". State should instead look into cheaper child care, perhaps utilising the high number of unemployed and making state run crèches, without the church involved.

Either way its not going to bring in billions to the taxman but atleast it gives people a little more to strive towards, with citizen moral a key problem.

27-11-2010 2:29am

metrovelvet wrote: »

But is upskilling the responsibility of the state? Shouldnt the parent/employee take care of that?

It's the responsibility of the employee. Which is completely irrelevant to the point. The whole argument is: a particular position is advertised. The offered salary is €30,000. For a primary-earner, €30k is €30k. For a second-earner (who is equally qualified, experienced etc,), €30k is €30k minus childcare costs minus stay-at-home benefits. So the author's position is that we should offer tax breaks so that €30k is €30k regardless of whether you're the primary or secondary earner

Ebbs wrote: »

I dont mean to be highly critical but.. they publish a horribly worded report on their website...and then expect us to welcome them with open arms. Surely a certain level of professionalism should be shown...maybe even somebody should you know....read over documents posted :rolleyes:

Im not in favour of tax breaks for "second rate earners". State should instead look into cheaper child care, perhaps utilising the high number of unemployed and making state run crèches, without the church involved.

Either way its not going to bring in billions to the taxman but atleast it gives people a little more to strive towards, with citizen moral a key problem.

They publish a report which, if you approach it with an already defined position, reads in a particular way which could be considered poorly worded. It's actually quite a good paper, with many positive points (even if they are a tad idealistic in places). Have you actually read the document? I linked to it above, so it's not like it's hard to find. Cheaper child-care is a tax-break for the second-earner, that's the whole point

I agree the point in question could have been phrased marginally better. But it does not say what the misandrists claim it says.

And it is not an official IMF stance, it is an idea that two people associated with the IMF think would be a good idea.

iptba · 27-11-2010 4:36am

People say it is badly worded. But I read somewhere discussing this proposal (can't remember where now - I had a quick Google Thursday night) that the IMF did a study and found that if one increases women's salaries they spend more which the IMF saw as good for economies. Or so this poster said (i.e. I'm going on second hand information). So there may be a reason they used the wording they did.

The Corinthian · 27-11-2010 1:17pm

iptba wrote: »

People say it is badly worded. But I read somewhere discussing this proposal (can't remember where now - I had a quick Google Thursday night) that the IMF did a study and found that if one increases women's salaries they spend more which the IMF saw as good for economies. Or so this poster said (i.e. I'm going on second hand information). So there may be a reason they used the wording they did.

My experience of organizations such as the IMF, WEF and WB is that they are run by bureaucratic academics and administrators, often with secondary ideological agendas. When they come in, they take the opportunity to 'reshape' the country they are giving aid or loans to, often applying theoretical or experimental economic policies.

Additionally, many of the policies favoured by these organizations have political or social agendas that are not necessarily optimized for the economic benefit of the country in question; women's rights, free market economics (globalization) and (western) democratization are a few of the things that tend to be pushed for example, and you really only need to attend one or two dinner parties with these people to realize how politicized they are in reality - the economic well-being is only a means to the political end, not the other way around.

That they may have done a study that demonstrated the positive benefits of a policy is in reality pretty meaningless. They operate like gigantic multinational bureaucracies and the validity of such reports is often very questionable and subject to manipulation of data, over-extrapolation of models and the internal politics of the organization.

Looking at this, my guess is that the original studies were probably gender neutral, and when they got passed around they got hijacked by political agendas. That adopting a more cost efficient, gender neutral approach (such as making child day-care more affordable) might make more sense for Ireland, becomes a secondary consideration, because that was not what their study was based on. It's not what is being pushed ideologically.

It really comes down to the negotiation skills of the national government that gets aid from these NGO's. If they have little leverage then the economy will become the test-bed for socioeconomic experimentation. They've done it before - Argentina being a case in point.

I think Ireland is in a position to force compromise on many of the wackier experiments, although it would involve the threat to refuse aid and bring ourselves and the rest of the Eurozone down with us. If such brinkmanship was believed, then the EU would place pressure on the IMF to back down on their more ideologically-orientated policies.

Unfortunately, we have a government which at the best of times was mediocre, and at this stage I suspect they're exhausted and ready to bend over if it makes it all go away. Lenihan additionally has had health problems, on top of the stress of the current climate, and if that wasn't enough the government now needs to contend with the dubious loyalties of TD's who will soon be up for reelection and are likely to rebel so as to distance themselves from the present fiasco.

Not that the opposition is any more competent, and I suspect that they will soon draft in another 'media economist' (probably Marc Coleman) to do their economic thinking for them.

In short; bend over Ireland...

donfers · 27-11-2010 11:00pm

it's just plain wrong, there shouldn't even be a debate around it, anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's wrong....to address the problems surrounding childcare by implementing a man tax or first carer tax is like hoping throwing a grenade into a minefield will help your company make your way through it i.e. it's insane and there are an infinite number of preferable ways to approach the problem

Logical Fallacy · 28-11-2010 11:20am

You can't tackle inequality with inequality. If they want to sort something out then ensure equal pay for the job worked, end of.

Man, people always get this stuff ass backwards.

iptba · 28-11-2010 1:34pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You can't tackle inequality with inequality. If they want to sort something out then ensure equal pay for the job worked, end of.

I think there generally is. If there isn't, employers can get into trouble/employees can seek redress.

I think the statistics quoted on equal pay are based on comparing apples and oranges. Some jobs have better conditions than others - being a miner may pay better but the work environment is worse and it's more dangerous. Given the gender differences in death and serious injury rates, one could show that there isn't equality in terms of exposure to death or serious injury in the jobs men and women do - but that seems to be ignored. Maybe a discussion for another thread?

Nevyn · 30-11-2010 7:34pm

They have it named wrong, it should be stay at home parent/homemaker back to work tax break and it should be for parents of either gender, it's sloppy calling it a woman's back to work tax.

Stheno · 01-12-2010 12:54am

Thaedydal wrote: »

They have it named wrong, it should be stay at home parent/homemaker back to work tax break and it should be for parents of either gender, it's sloppy calling it a woman's back to work tax.

I'd agree here, what I don't like about the proposal talked about by the OP is that it doesn't seem to take into account single parents?

What about the widow/widower who can't afford to work and is better off on benefits?

Perhaps it should be introduced as a universal benefit for those who are working and have full time care of children? Maybe as an alternative to child benefit, with child benefit being linked to earnings? Probably sounds a bit hamfisted but the general idea is that parents would be rewarded for working rather then punished in terms of childcare costs?

IMF's suggestion of a "man tax" (or lower taxes for women)

Comments