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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

2»

Comments

  • 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 Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭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 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