Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

  • 26-11-2010 3:53am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    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>


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭Mackman


    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 :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    (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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Eh what's this about?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 ButtersStotch


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


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Miller Sour Jury


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


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,458 ✭✭✭CathyMoran


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    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

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,185 ✭✭✭Rubik.


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    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

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    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

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    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

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,458 ✭✭✭CathyMoran


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,584 ✭✭✭TouchingVirus


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 Headlights


    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.'


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno



    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ebbs


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    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.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.
    It's possible, but I genuinely would not be surprised if they genuinely did mean for this to only apply to women. I'm not joking when I say these NGO's are full of ideological nuttiness that seeks to use countries in their debt as guinea pigs for their socio-economic experiments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭politicsdude


    what an absolute joke sexist $hit they might as well call it a penis tax


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    what an absolute joke sexist $hit they might as well call it a penis tax

    Nut taxes to come two years later.

    No respite for people with one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Nut taxes to come two years later.

    No respite for people with one.

    Well I guess that exempts Cowen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    should women not pay more? as over the cost of their lifetime they would contribute less taxes, get maternity leave and live longer, i.e claiming more in pensions? Ill tell you what, if this were introduced, to me the disgrace that is the government and the bank bailout etc would pale in comparison!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    It's possible, but I genuinely would not be surprised if they genuinely did mean for this to only apply to women. I'm not joking when I say these NGO's are full of ideological nuttiness that seeks to use countries in their debt as guinea pigs for their socio-economic experiments.
    In Haiti some NGOs only gave food to women, because they wanted to "empower" them. What men without female relatives, or who couldn't find their female relatives, did is uncertain


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The Mantax was proposed in Sweden a few years back and dropped.

    A far more worthwhile aim would be amending Article 41 to give equal rights to men and women as parents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    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.
    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.

    +1 all around here

    Our childcare provision are ludicous vs international practices and we need to lick in to a Belgian type scheme.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭kathy2


    I dont see how you got from there to Fathers rights.

    There are no right and wrongs in a child centred system.


    There are a collection of looney men out there making idiots out of the rest of the fair minded decent people who are able to put the child first.

    More total rubbish its not about the mum or dad its about the children constantly being abused my looney tunes.:pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    kathy2 wrote: »
    I dont see how you got from there to Fathers rights.

    :pac:

    I presume you meant my post. Others have mentioned back to work after having children and the difference in the treatment of the genders which is rooted in the constitution.

    So to imagine they are mutually exclusive and can be handled without looking at the constitution which enshrines a mothers right not to work outside the home rather than a families right to choose which parent works is unworkable if you do not tackle the Constitutional position. You just can't do it.

    The constitution was written in the 1930's and the world has moved on.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Sorry but lots of countries dont have any such thing in their consitutions but the issues remain the same, like women and childcare and hits on the career etc, such as the US.

    You can change the consitution but it wont change anything. You barking down the wrong manhole.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭kathy2


    Its the same old game exploiting differences

    Such a putting the public service and private service workers against each other.

    There are always those who are going to be sucked in

    This is certainly not about children or Caring or anything like that.

    There are a hard core of out and out loonys in every camp who can make an issue out of anything and this is exploited by the goverment so people cant see the wood for the trees and they dont even have to work at it there is always some idiot.

    If you want the credit good man yourself go for it!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Thats a bit silly, you either buy into the whole egalitarian thing or you don't and if you do it should be made as simple as possible.

    The objection to the codifications of womens roles is as old as the constitution itself some quite impressive names objected to it at the time
    Ward explains that women graduates from university issued a protest to de Valera's document. Women such as Mary Hayden, Agnes O' Farrelly, Mary Macken, Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, and Mary Kettle refused his backward and regressive description of womanhood along with Article 45 which stated that women and children should be kept from work which they were unsuited for, leading feminists to predict its utility as an instrument in discrimination.

    de Valera ignored women, just as he always had.

    It's worth noting that one of the most significant dissenting groups consisted of Irish feminists who strongly objected to women's domestic roles as wife and mother being formally codified and inscribed into the Constitution. Margaret Ward, a brilliant historian, explains de Valera's limited understanding of women and his commitment to men's gender privilege in Irish civic affairs:


    "The initial impetus behind the proposed constitution was the necessity of establishing the sovereign independence of Ireland, of tearing away the last remnant of the 1922 Treaty Constitution. But de Valera's new constitution was far removed from the liberal-democratic ethos of the 1922 document, being imbued with all the reactionary values of Catholic social teaching, particularly in its insistence upon the primacy of women's role within the family. It echoed many Papal encyclicals, all of which de Valera had studied in detail as he formulated what was to be the climax of his political career. He had refused to let women into Boland's Mill in 1916 and he had disregarded the contribution made by women during the Civil War, finding women activists an anomaly he preferred to ignore in favour of a vision of an Ireland 'whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose villages would be joyous with the romping of sturdy children, the contests of athletic youths, the laughter of comely maidens.' Now as President, he took the opportunity to ensure that women, whether they liked it or not, would give priority to their duties as wives and mothers. He had never wanted women in the public sphere and was going to enshrine these prejudices within the constitution. His attitudes were so well known that no one was taken in by his protestations of concern for women's well-being." Unmanageable Revolutionaries 237-8.
    For example, in Nuala Ni Dhomhnaill's "Selected Essays" she discloses that her mother was a doctor who had to abandon her practice upon marriage and lived through a deep depression that lasted 15 years at the loss of her professional livelihood. Article 41 made discrimination against women the norm for most of the twentieth century.

    http://dante-andthelobster.blogspot.com/2007/07/irish-constitution-bunreacht-na.html

    So the constitution has had and does have implications on peoples lives..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Its not going to make any difference because its an economic and cultural one that spans many countries that dont have such a clause in their consititution.

    Many women had to give up their jobs under law and could not be on juries etc but that was not the consitution that was in legislation. My grandmother was sick of having to give up her job so she left her husband, dumped her son in a boarding school when he was 7 and ****ed off to Chicago. Nice eh?

    I dont know too much about Irish History but my sense is women would have had more rights without the theocracy that replaced the colonial powers. The men probably would have too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    But the world has moved on and we have some say as to what we want in the future. That is why I suggested the Belgian system as it is practical and uses subsidies and tax reliefs applied to childcare.

    The application process for state crèches should start in the fourth month of pregnancy when an interview is organised to discuss how many days a week the child with attend and the date he or she will start at the crèche. Confirmation is sent in the seventh month of pregnancy. Every case is dealt with in chronological order.
    The crèches are open throughout the year, usually from 7am to 6pm (depending on local working hours), except on weekends and national holidays. The cost varies, according to the family income bracket. The price of private crèches, however, is freely set by the owners.
    The financial contribution for official crèches in the Flemish system cost between July 2005 and June 2006 between EUR 1.31 and EUR 23.31 per day per child, depending on the net joint income of the married, co-habiting or single parent household. There is a tax deduction of up to EUR 11.20 per day.
    In the French-speaking system costs range from EUR 1.99 to EUR 28.04, depending on household income, but tax deductions of up to 70 percent are also available.
    At official childcare centres there are also reductions granted to parents placing more than one child in the same crèche.
    Several of the English speaking, international schools offer programmes for the pre-school age child, increasingly with an exposure to a second language. There are also privately run pre-schools similar to American nursery schools, but, as yet, the co-operative nursery school concept has not caught on in Belgium.
    Full details on all areas of Belgium can be obtained from the organisations that supervise and set the national standards.
    Office de la Naissance et de l'Enfance (O.N.E) (French)
    Chaussée de Charleroi, 95
    1060 Bruxelles
    Ph: 02 542 1211
    Fax: 02 542 1261
    Email info@one.be
    Online: www.one.be
    http://www.expatica.com/be/essentials_moving_to/essentials/childcare-in-belgium-1445_8443.html

    From a practical point of view I find a gender based tax nasty but an alternative might be subsidised and tax deductable childcare.


Advertisement