There has been so much talk about socialism in these last days of the Presidential race you’d think it was a dirty word. But, the U.S. has many allies which embrace its close cousin; social democracy. England is a social democracy. So are Sweden, France, Germany, Italy and Australia, too. This does not mean that it would be the right thing for money-loving capitalist pigs like us but, we might just learn a thing or two by seeking to raise the standard of living for those with the greatest need.
Case in point:
Both Presidential candidates claim to be for working families. But so far neither has offered any help for the unmarried childless woman.
Since women still routinely make 75% for every dollar men make for doing the same job (otherwise known as the gender pay gap), any woman who is childless and unmarried and without a trust fund or substantial investments (100k or more) including real estate, or other valuable assets or unlikely to inherit such, should pay lower taxes than their married counterparts.
Furthermore, any childless woman over the age of 60 should get an immediate tax refund for all the monies they paid into the system during their childbearing years. They helped pay for the education of children they never had and the basic upkeep of infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc their non-existent children will never use. And since they do not stand to have any financial protection or help from offspring they are particularly vulnerable in their later years.
It goes without saying that after the wealthy and very wealthy, working families need tax relief the very least of anyone. After all it could be argued that they have the benefit of the love and care of spouse and children whereas single adult women do not have any of the same protection. They are on their own. They don’t have the same social network as married women with children do and they don’t have the same interdependent relationships with other parents that foster bartering or free help in times of need.
Put plainly, it is poor and middle-class single adult childless women who are bearing more than their fair share of the burden for the rest of society.
Lest you think that such an idea would send childless couples into divorce court in droves in order to save a bit of cash from the taxman, the provision for tax relief for single childless women needn't be so enormous that it engenders envy from smug married couples. But, make it something not too small, either. Twenty percent less seems about right. And as for the refund? How about ten percent of the average tax paid paid over the past thirty years? It's time to give something back to working women who've earned their day in the sun.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday Soapbox: Tax Relief for Women
There has been so much talk about socialism in these last days of the Presidential race you’d think it was a dirty word. But, the U.S. has many allies which embrace its close cousin; social democracy. England is a social democracy. So are Sweden, France, Germany, Italy and Australia, too. This does not mean that it would be the right thing for money-loving capitalist pigs like us but, we might just learn a thing or two by seeking to raise the standard of living for those with the greatest need.
Case in point:
Both Presidential candidates claim to be for working families. But so far neither has offered any help for the unmarried childless woman.
Since women still routinely make 75% for every dollar men make for doing the same job (otherwise known as the gender pay gap), any woman who is childless and unmarried and without a trust fund or substantial investments (100k or more) including real estate, or other valuable assets or unlikely to inherit such, should pay lower taxes than their married counterparts.
Furthermore, any childless woman over the age of 60 should get an immediate tax refund for all the monies they paid into the system during their childbearing years. They helped pay for the education of children they never had and the basic upkeep of infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc their non-existent children will never use. And since they do not stand to have any financial protection or help from offspring they are particularly vulnerable in their later years.
It goes without saying that after the wealthy and very wealthy, working families need tax relief the very least of anyone. After all it could be argued that they have the benefit of the love and care of spouse and children whereas single adult women do not have any of the same protection. They are on their own. They don’t have the same social network as married women with children do and they don’t have the same interdependent relationships with other parents that foster bartering or free help in times of need.
Put plainly, it is poor and middle-class single adult childless women who are bearing more than their fair share of the burden for the rest of society.
Lest you think that such an idea would send childless couples into divorce court in droves in order to save a bit of cash from the taxman, the provision for tax relief for single childless women needn't be so enormous that it engenders envy from smug married couples. But, make it something not too small, either. Twenty percent less seems about right. And as for the refund? How about ten percent of the average tax paid paid over the past thirty years? It's time to give something back to working women who've earned their day in the sun.
Posts
