Pay Equity via Taxation...

My wife brought to me the other day an article from the Star Tribune titled Taxing women less: Gender pay equity? When the idea was first mentioned, I admit to being a little skeptical, as I am when intentional inequity is put anywhere into law. However, it was definitely an idea worth pondering.

Through much of the article was the presentation of those who originally came up with the idea. They say that to even the playing field, women be taxed no more than 80% of the level a man does, and most likely less than that. Though this creates a discrepancy, there are already plenty of others in the tax code for marriage, children, etc. So adding one more to entice more people into the workforce would not be unreasonable.

That is the primary goal of reducing the tax rates for women. The reasoning is that by lowering the tax rate, more women could join the work force and actually increase the amount of income to the government through greater numbers of people being taxed. It is a grand idea, and I would be in favor of it if it were on the table.

The authors claim that women tend to be more attuned to changes in tax codes than men, and I can vouch for that. My wife takes into account more of that, whereas I would rather just see a bigger number on my paycheck. My theory is that women like to figure in discounts more than men ("Aren't you glad I found this unnecessary expensive item on sale!?") and taxation brackets bear similarities to that.

I think the biggest argument against this idea, as good as it is, is the reason most women do not join the workforce has little to do with money and is more of a personal choice in life. Also, if child care was not so bloody expensive, it would be far easier to justify going to work and paying that care expense. Even having just our one child in daycare cuts out a huge chunk of our income, to the point where unless one of us broke enough past even on that, she or I would just stay home with the boy instead of working and him going to daycare.

I am not sure how many women a lowering in taxation would bring into the workforce, but if the US truly needed that many more people working, I would not oppose it. I think it is a good idea and a rather viable one, and even if it turned out did not make a difference, would be worth trying. If nothing else, it would give single mothers a better shot at raising their children in a more economically stable home, and I do think stability in general is an important factor in raising kids.

That all being said, I would like to state that my opinion is the world will never have full employment equality based on numbers. Equal pay for equal work, that is certain to come, and it damn well better soon. But I do believe that there will simply be corners of employment where men should exclusively rule. Why? Because we men are expendable.

Yes, I do see women as fully capable of operating as well as men deep in dangerous mines or on battlefronts. But when it comes to the most dangerous of work, we as a species (a supposedly intelligent one at that) have a responsibility to not put the carriers of our offspring into harm's way. I do not feel this is sexist; it is just reasonable to say that men are better off being killed as they will never be capable of bearing our children into this world.

Or maybe it's close to Mother's Day and I'm just protective of my mom and my wife.