Most sexist part of tax code?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the 15:13 poster and I completely agree, PP.

I guess all I meant to say was that since I was planning to stay home regardless, its a pretty nice tax cut!

Exactly! My state Senator referred to the marriage penalty that Maryland instituted last year as a "tax cut for SAHM's"...doesn't sound as good to working moms!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

14:48 PP here - Yes they do affect women more but while I'm as big as feminist as the next person, I think we do ourselves a disservice to throw around the word "sexism" when it isn't really true. Frame it as a family friendly policy and you might get conservatives and men onboard. Call it sexism and probably not.

But it's not "family un-friendly". It's policies created to keep married women out of the workforce-- many developed after WII to get Rosie the Riviter out of the factory and back back in the kitchen. That's sexist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

14:48 PP here - Yes they do affect women more but while I'm as big as feminist as the next person, I think we do ourselves a disservice to throw around the word "sexism" when it isn't really true. Frame it as a family friendly policy and you might get conservatives and men onboard. Call it sexism and probably not.

But it's not "family un-friendly". It's policies created to keep married women out of the workforce-- many developed after WII to get Rosie the Riviter out of the factory and back back in the kitchen. That's sexist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

No. These topics are not female only, and they weren't crafted to disadvantage women by taking advantage of the proportion of one gender or the other. I am a SAHD, and the same rules apply to me -- rightly, I think.

You think it's fair that I can deduct job search expenses after getting fired, but you can't deduct them after being a SAHD for 2 years? Really?

It may not be fair, but it's not sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

No. These topics are not female only, and they weren't crafted to disadvantage women by taking advantage of the proportion of one gender or the other. I am a SAHD, and the same rules apply to me -- rightly, I think.

I don't know when these rules were crafted, but SAHDs are not in the majority and it's safe to say they account for less than 10 percent. So, iimplicitly these rules for geared toward the SAHMs, the women.

[Anonymous]

14:48 PP here - Does anyone have any solid evidence that the marriage penalty or the job search deduction were instituted as female-unfriendly policies?

From what I've been able to find, the initial married classification system did not produce a marriage penalty even if the couple had similar income levels. It wasn't until 1969 - well after Rosie had headed home - that a "marriage penalty" was instituted. See e.g.
http://www.ctj.org/html/marpen.htm or
http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

And the job search expense thing - I mean it says nothing being a SAHP, just that you can't have been out of the job market for a significant time. It also says you can't be looking for your first job, or being changing careers. But would you call the law ageist or anti-career changing????

[Anonymous]

I don't see why it matters how they were instituted. What matters is the modern effect. After all, separate black schools were instituted for good-- to educate black children, who had no schools prior--- that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been outlawed later as civil rights progressed. Same with tax policy. Sometimes public policy can simply overlook the unique circumstances of women or minorities, and it needs to be rectified. Sounds like the case with the job search deduction. It doesn't do our society any good not to encourage women to re-enter the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

No. These topics are not female only, and they weren't crafted to disadvantage women by taking advantage of the proportion of one gender or the other. I am a SAHD, and the same rules apply to me -- rightly, I think.

I don't know when these rules were crafted, but SAHDs are not in the majority and it's safe to say they account for less than 10 percent. So, iimplicitly these rules for geared toward the SAHMs, the women.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. The job search one affects anyone who has not worked in over a year. Plenty of men qualify who aren't even parents. And the marriage penalty, as far as I can tell, affects exactly the same amount of men as women. So no, they aren't implicitly geared toward SAHM's.

[Anonymous]

The marriage penalty waaaay hurts women more. I know tons of women who dropped out of the workforce all together because of the ridiculous tax structure.

[Anonymous]

20:44 -- the marriage penalty creates a disincentive for married women to work bc/ in most families the husband is the primary breadwinner with the larger salary. as a technical matter there is no gender discrimination, but the result is a disproportionate negative impact on families with a working mom, as opposed to a stay at home mom.

the tax code shouldn't distinguish btw/ married and single anyway - what is the rationale for that??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you only get a tax deduction for childcare expenses if someone else is watching your kids

When you watch your kids it's not a service, it's called "parenting."

[Anonymous]

the marriage penalty creates a disincentive for married women to work bc/ in most families the husband is the primary breadwinner with the larger salary.

http://www.womanlinks.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225&Itemid=36

"Real life has its own emerging trend in the world of role reversal. In the past 30 years, women have made enormous strides in the workplace, which has paved the way for relationships where the woman makes more money than the man.

Roughly one-third of married women now bring home a bigger paycheck than their husbands. "

your response is sexist, not the tax code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The marriage penalty waaaay hurts women more. I know tons of women who dropped out of the workforce all together because of the ridiculous tax structure.

I find it hard to believe that the tax code causes women to drop out of the workforce. The tax change just isn't great enough to offset the income. If there is blame, it should go either to the husband for his chauvinism, or the wife for her earning situation, not to the IRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The marriage penalty waaaay hurts women more. I know tons of women who dropped out of the workforce all together because of the ridiculous tax structure.

do you even have any idea what you're saying? "tons of women" -- really? i think you're likely prone to exaggeration and ignorance. the so called "marriage penalty" was greatly reduced in 2003 when congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. in fact, it has in large measure eliminated the penalty, although not entirely. it has not, admittedly, been eliminated in the higher tax brackets, so perhaps your "tons of women" acquaintances were making huge sums of money and dropped out b/c they had to pay on average $1400/year in taxes (the average increased payment for married couples who make the same amount of money as 2 unmarried individuals). seems like a smart move. quit your high paying job to save $1400.

[Anonymous]

Roughly one-third of married women now bring home a bigger paycheck than their husbands. "

your response is sexist, not the tax code.

12:57 - my response isn't sexist. in fact, you made my point for me -- 2/3 of women make less than their husbands. how is that not a disproportionate impact on women's salaries?

this is just a basic fairness issue - why should my co-workers with stay-at-home wives get to keep more of their salary then I do? why should the tax code favor their choice over my family's choice?