Tax the Patriarchy

[laylalex 7,293]

Quote

 

The code is progressive, shunting money from rich to poor, and contains many provisions aimed at boosting women’s employment and earnings prospects, she noted. Nevertheless, that close look still showed “a landscape of comprehensive disadvantage,” she told me, one that surprised her in its pervasiveness.

 

For one, the tax code subtly pushes women out of the workforce through the so-called marriage penalty and secondary-earner bias. Many women are the lower-earning partner in a married couple, thanks in part to forces that relegate women to less remunerative professions and pay them less for the same work. These married women often pay higher tax rates than they would if they were single, in some cases losing access to lucrative tax credits too. That discourages them from working; indeed, studies demonstrate that tax policy is a major reason for the persistence of the gender labor-participation gap and the gender wage gap in the United States. (The Trump tax cuts eliminated many of these penalties and biases, but not all of them.)

 

It's good to know that there is something in the tax cuts that is beneficial to women, but I think the author is right that eliminating the disincentives to marriage would be in everyone's interest. If we are disincentivizing women from working, the nation suffers from their loss in the workforce.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/tax-patriarchy/601864/

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I call BS.  How do women pay higher taxes if they are married?  There is NOTHING in the tax margin charts that delineates gender, period.

 

What "lucrative tax credits" are withheld from women?

[laylalex 7,293]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

I call BS.  How do women pay higher taxes if they are married?  There is NOTHING in the tax margin charts that delineates gender, period.

 

What "lucrative tax credits" are withheld from women?

Have you read the article? It isn't necessarily by gender, but that women are more frequently in economic positions that are disadvantageous when married. Men can also suffer, but as a society, wives of men tend to earn less than their husbands.

[Boketto 211]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

I call BS.  How do women pay higher taxes if they are married?  There is NOTHING in the tax margin charts that delineates gender, period.

 

What "lucrative tax credits" are withheld from women?

No, only the marriage penalty in some cases where if the couple both work with similar incomes and filing jointly, then their tax bracket is higher than if both persons had filed as singles.

 

However if one (usually the woman) earned nothing and the couple filed jointly, then they would save more in tax. So this article implies that the tax code disincentivizes women in some cases from making a higher income. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

Have you read the article? It isn't necessarily by gender, but that women are more frequently in economic positions that are disadvantageous when married. Men can also suffer, but as a society, wives of men tend to earn less than their husbands.

Nope, didn't get past the silly quote and your incorrect comment.   Taxes have zero to do with gender.   Being married has nothing to do with it either, except for a bit I'll mention in my next post.  The biggest "disadvantage" i have seen in the past 30 years is women opting to stay home and raise kids.  But that is a choice.  And a character trait of women, being more nurturing/mothering than men (in general).

 

Wives of men tend to earn less than their husbands?  Perhaps.  Sometimes.  But are all other things equal?  Education? Drive?  I have worked two solid careers, and many smaller jobs where men and women earn equal pay, so perhaps I have been immune to this alleged pay disparity.  But I just don't see it in my world.

 

But I have known some driven, successful women who make more than their husbands (different career paths) as well.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Boketto said:

No, only the marriage penalty in some cases where if the couple both work with similar incomes and filing jointly, then their tax bracket is higher than if both persons had filed as singles.

 

However if one (usually the woman) earned nothing and the couple filed jointly, then they would save more in tax. So this article implies that the tax code disincentivizes women in some cases from making a higher income. 

The only time this happens is somewhere in the middle of the 35% bracket and the 37% bracket.  IOW, if each individual makes more than $210,000.  Only then will married filing jointly cause higher taxes to be owed.

 

If one (usually the man) earned nothing... see what I did there?  Again,  gender has no bearing on taxation.  Personal life choices do.

 

And no one "saves more in taxes" by making less.  They OWE less taxes due to their lower income.  

 

And again, the tax code does nothing to disincentivize women.  The tax code is gender neutral, always has been.  If a woman earns enough income and the husband stays at home, the tax liability is the same were the genders reversed.  Ues, the article implies it. Hence my BS comment above.

[Boiler 45,638]

Maybe some sort of super tax on divorce settlements?

[laylalex 7,293]

I do try to read articles that others have posted before commenting. I know of one time I posted that I wouldn't because of the source which I thought was particularly untrustworthy. But you know what? I went back and looked at a later time. I don't think you (and I mean that in the impersonal "you" sense) do yourself favors by closing your eyes and saying, I know best about something I've only read a headline about. We should be more open to challenging our beliefs, even if by challenging them we only strengthen them. If I don't want to read an article, I try not to comment. 

 

I think the author makes some comments that might add to your understanding here. It's not just women who are affected, but women are disproportionately affected due to ongoing, systemic social constructs. The author even says the tax code is gender neutral, but it's the effects of the drafting of the code that create non-neutral outcomes. That's all. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Bleh

Edited November 16, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

35 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I do try to read articles that others have posted before commenting. I know of one time I posted that I wouldn't because of the source which I thought was particularly untrustworthy. But you know what? I went back and looked at a later time. I don't think you (and I mean that in the impersonal "you" sense) do yourself favors by closing your eyes and saying, I know best about something I've only read a headline about. We should be more open to challenging our beliefs, even if by challenging them we only strengthen them. If I don't want to read an article, I try not to comment. 

 

I think the author makes some comments that might add to your understanding here. It's not just women who are affected, but women are disproportionately affected due to ongoing, systemic social constructs. The author even says the tax code is gender neutral, but it's the effects of the drafting of the code that create non-neutral outcomes. That's all. 

Ok.

 

First line:

33 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I do try to read articles that others have posted before commenting. I know of one time I posted that I wouldn't because of the source which I thought was particularly untrustworthy. But you know what? I went back and looked at a later time. I don't think you (and I mean that in the impersonal "you" sense) do yourself favors by closing your eyes and saying, I know best about something I've only read a headline about. We should be more open to challenging our beliefs, even if by challenging them we only strengthen them. If I don't want to read an article, I try not to comment. 

 

I think the author makes some comments that might add to your understanding here. It's not just women who are affected, but women are disproportionately affected due to ongoing, systemic social constructs. The author even says the tax code is gender neutral, but it's the effects of the drafting of the code that create non-neutral outcomes. That's all. 

Ok.

 

First line:

Quote

Tax the Patriarchy

The U.S. tax code helps entrench gender divisions. It doesn’t have to be that way.

 

Poppycock

 

 

Quote

The Rube Goldberg mess of the United States tax code picks winners and losers as... snip ...And, in many cases, it advantages men over women.

More poppycock

 

Quote

Many women are the lower-earning partner in a married couple, thanks in part to forces that relegate women to less remunerative professions and pay them less for the same work. These married women often pay higher tax rates than they would if they were single, in some cases losing access to lucrative tax credits too. That discourages them from working; indeed, studies demonstrate that tax policy is a major reason for the persistence of the gender labor-participation gap and the gender wage gap in the United States.

I already took the time to outline the popp & ycock of this paragraph.  No need to rehash it.

 

Quote

The tax code also cements existing disparities between men and women through the preferential treatment of investment income and benefits. “Low effective tax rates on the highest-income earners widen the disparities between executives, who are typically white men, and the poorly paid workforce, often made up of women of color,”

Low tax rates on highest income earners?  Can you explain how this is even possible in a progressive margin tax system?  Would a person earning more not be taxed more as their income creeps into ever-higher margins?  I mean, I only have 40 years of experience, but every year (or few years) my taxes have increased.  And if my income went down, so too would my taxes.  And "treatment of investment income"?  Well, that has more to do with where one opts to invest their hard-earned dollars, and again, has zero to do with ANY of the 69 genders.  So... more poppycock. 

Had to stop there. A handful of facts interspersed among a whole lots BS does not an accurate article make.  I'm not buying any of it, and I doubt anyone with much understanding of income and taxation would either.

I don’t think this article says what you wished it said.  I seems to want to speak to women on how unfair taxes are for them, but it falls flat due to all the inaccuracies therein.

 

Let’s do it this way... you tell us (me, whomever) how you think you are unfairly taxed as a woman, and we can go from there.  

 

 

[Boiler 45,638]

Strikes me a a Gender Pay Gap issue that has been discussed previously.

[Boketto 211]

14 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

The only time this happens is somewhere in the middle of the 35% bracket and the 37% bracket.  IOW, if each individual makes more than $210,000.  Only then will married filing jointly cause higher taxes to be owed.

 

If one (usually the man) earned nothing... see what I did there?  Again,  gender has no bearing on taxation.  Personal life choices do.

 

And no one "saves more in taxes" by making less.  They OWE less taxes due to their lower income.  

 

And again, the tax code does nothing to disincentivize women.  The tax code is gender neutral, always has been.  If a woman earns enough income and the husband stays at home, the tax liability is the same were the genders reversed.  Ues, the article implies it. Hence my BS comment above.

No. Unfortunately it applies to low income earners too, not just to people making $210k and above. The middle class is largely unaffected. 

 

“Saving more on taxes” is a correct colloquial term to use here. It means paying less in taxes whether through tax deductions or other means. In the case of a married couple where one makes nothing, the couple gets a tax break that is far preferential to if they did not file jointly. 

 

The tax code is indeed gender neutral and I was agreeing with you on that. My comment was that I felt the article is based on a general social trend instead of the tax code alone, hence the “implied” part of my statement. Since women are the ones who are more likely to not be the breadwinners based on many factors (childcare, pregnancy, social roles etc), the tax penalty is one more disincentivizing factor. However, the tax code itself has no inherent gender bias. 

 

 

[laylalex 7,293]

Personally, and as I've said before, I did well from the recent tax changes. If anything, I am likely to do worse by marrying, from what I understand from my accountant, though things are in a little flux at the moment due to his upcoming move down here (I just got into Santa Monica about half an hour ago) and some changes in his compensation. 

 

Sorry if I reply in sort of piecemeal fashion, because I don't have a ton of time at the moment -- I might just address parts as I can. Again, I am but a simple art history major and not a finance person like he is. But yes, tax rates can go down as income comes up, depending on what the source of income is. Taxes on wages are simply higher than taxes on unearned income. I'm someone who has more income that is unearned than earned, and I don't pay payroll taxes on that (duh). And the simple reality is that men are more likely (note that is not an absolute, look at me) than women to have greater access to larger sources of capital that provides unearned income. 

 

No one is saying here that the tax code is written to disadvantage women; it's gender neutral. But the effects are not neutral. 

 

Hopefully I'll have some more to write on this later.  

[90DayFinancier 910]

57 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Personally, and as I've said before, I did well from the recent tax changes. If anything, I am likely to do worse by marrying...

 

You cannot put a price on love. Good luck with Santa Monica. Xoxo

[laylalex 7,293]

4 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

You cannot put a price on love. Good luck with Santa Monica. Xoxo

Thanks! At the risk of offending some  I can report that we had a fairly enjoyable evening with my childhood BFF who lives down here. We finished up with a drink at Chez Jay, which if you've ever watched the show Goliath on Amazon you'll be familiar with. Tomorrow is neighborhood exploration and we're going to look at a couple of units, just to see what the stock looks like. Still not sure whether I'm going to move immediately or at some point next year -- I have his support, whichever I choose. As ALFKAD said to me the other day, there's no need to rush.