The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should we introduce a gender tax?

I believe that we should introduce an extra tax for men, in order to reduce the current income inequalities between men and women.

The extra tax will be put towards activities which promote economic gender equality and can be used to fund tax reductions for women.

Furthermore, reduced taxes for women will mean that women will be cheaper to employ in the workforce, since they can be offered a lower gross salary for the same take home pay after tax as a male. This will increase the number of women hired in high paying jobs.
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Knugs
Knugs
12
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
I believe that we should introduce an extra tax for men, in order to reduce the current income inequalities between men and women.

The extra tax will be put towards activities which promote economic gender equality and can be used to fund tax reductions for women.

Furthermore, reduced taxes for women will mean that women will be cheaper to employ in the workforce, since they can be offered a lower gross salary for the same take home pay after tax as a male. This will increase the number of women hired in high paying jobs.


Speak of gender equality.
That makes no sense. As far as I see it the problem is poor couples being forced to share making money and childcare, and women claiming the childcare, or men not taking it up, or women being expected to do it, or men being prevented, or both or all. This isn't a problem for rich people who don't need to work to have children.

Either way parents need to take responsibility for their children not expect them to be dealt with by society. If a poor couple insists on having children then that's their challenge and whether a woman is always in charge of childcare is their problem.

I also don't think employers need to pay for someone's children indirectly, yes maybe they should equally expect men to leave to have kids, but in both cases they shouldn't subsidise childcare because I don't think there is any economic shortage of humans in that context. The solution to the workforce is not indiscriminate pumping out of children, but rather addressing the ageing diseases that disable already grown adults.
Original post by Knugs
Speak of gender equality.


In order to have an equitable society, sometimes it means giving more help to those who are disadvantaged.
Reply 4
Avatar for Knugs
Knugs
12
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
In order to have an equitable society, sometimes it means giving more help to those who are disadvantaged.


Or just put in the same hours as males do.
Original post by Knugs
Or just put in the same hours as males do.


It is difficult for many young women work full time jobs when they are discriminated against in the workplace because of the employer's fear that they may leave and have children.

With the gender tax however, the concerns of the employer can be alleviated somewhat because women become effectively cheaper to employ. This is because their after tax income would be higher than that of a male.
Reply 6
Avatar for Andy98
Andy98
20
What a load of *******s.
Reply 7
Avatar for Knugs
Knugs
12
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
It is difficult for many young women work full time jobs when they are discriminated against in the workplace because of the employer's fear that they may leave and have children.

With the gender tax however, the concerns of the employer can be alleviated somewhat because women become effectively cheaper to employ. This is because their after tax income would be higher than that of a male.


Show me evidence that suggests that this is true.
If anything women have it easier in male dominating careers nowadays because of ****ty equality rules.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Gender income inequality is not a laughing matter! :eek:


there is no gender income inequalities mate. That myth has already been debunked.

Also why do you want to increase the number of women hired in high paying jobs? There is a reason why there may not be that many, because women don't want to do those jobs anyway
Original post by Andy98
What a load of *******s.


Nice well thought out argument.
Original post by DanielBaranowski
there is no gender income inequalities mate. That myth has already been debunked.

Also why do you want to increase the number of women hired in high paying jobs? There is a reason why there may not be that many, because women don't want to do those jobs anyway


Women do want these jobs, but they often dismiss them because they are already fully aware of the sexism that's rife within.

By increasing the number of women working in highly respected, high paying jobs, the "boys club" sexist culture will begin to diminish, and the number of females who want to work in these jobs will skyrocket.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Women do want these jobs, but they often dismiss them because they are already fully aware of the sexism that's rife within.

By increasing the number of women working in highly respected, high paying jobs, the "boys club" sexist culture will begin to diminish, and the number of females who want to work in these jobs will skyrocket.

Tell me what jobs have this "boys club sexist culture" and I will take you seriously

Just because women in general don't want to do these jobs, no need to place males as the scapegoat
It's sad that aspirational feminism has been taken over by anti-male socialists.
Original post by DanielBaranowski
Tell me what jobs have this "boys club sexist culture" and I will take you seriously

Just because women in general don't want to do these jobs, no need to place males as the scapegoat


Check out this article for instance:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/surgeon-blows-whistle-on-medical-sexism-she-would-have-been-much-better-to-have-given-him-a-blow-job/story-fnkgbb3b-1227252345411

The female surgeon states:

FEMALE training doctors are better off giving “blow jobs” and accepting sexual requests than reporting harassment to authorities because their careers will be destroyed. That’s the extraordinary revelation from a high-profile female Sydney vascular surgeon on sexism in the medical profession.


So no boy's clubs exist anymore do they?

She also states:

“What I tell my trainees is if you are approached for sex, probably the safest thing to do in terms of your career is to comply with the request.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 14
Avatar for Andy98
Andy98
20
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Typical comment from someone not willing to discuss gender equality, due to a vested interest in the patriarchy.


No, I'm willing to talk about gender equality. It's just that placing a tax on having a penis isn't gender equality.
Original post by Rakas21
It's sad that aspirational feminism has been taken over by anti-male socialists.


socialist feminists have been around since like forever.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Check out this article for instance:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/surgeon-blows-whistle-on-medical-sexism-she-would-have-been-much-better-to-have-given-him-a-blow-job/story-fnkgbb3b-1227252345411

The female surgeon states:



So no boy's clubs exist anymore do they?

She also states:

Never stated or implied that boys clubs don't exits. Simply asked to tell me where they exist

And, fair enough
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
I believe that we should introduce an extra tax for men, in order to reduce the current income inequalities between men and women.

The extra tax will be put towards activities which promote economic gender equality and can be used to fund tax reductions for women.

Furthermore, reduced taxes for women will mean that women will be cheaper to employ in the workforce, since they can be offered a lower gross salary for the same take home pay after tax as a male. This will increase the number of women hired in high paying jobs.


Clearly the vast swathes of female only networking and recruiting events on offer by pretty much every bank in the city, lots of tech firms and so on have passed you by unnoticed. Positive discrimination is not the way to solve discrimination. :facepalm:
Original post by Astronomical
Clearly the vast swathes of female only networking and recruiting events on offer by pretty much every bank in the city, lots of tech firms and so on have passed you by unnoticed. Positive discrimination is not the way to solve discrimination. :facepalm:


So far positive discrimination has not fixed the pay gap, however my proposal will fix up the gender pay gap immediately at all levels of employment, in all sectors.

Traditional positive discrimination methods take time and rely on many variables for their successful implementation, however my proposal will tax men at such a rate so that it will immediately ensure that the median take home pay for full time working women is equal to that of men.

In addition, the long term benefit of my proposal will be increased women in better paying and more prestigious positions. Once this begins to occur, we can gradually reduce the tax gap as sexism in the workforce diminishes.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Women do want these jobs, but they often dismiss them because they are already fully aware of the sexism that's rife within.

By increasing the number of women working in highly respected, high paying jobs, the "boys club" sexist culture will begin to diminish, and the number of females who want to work in these jobs will skyrocket.


You're terribly ignorant.

Take City law as an example- about 60% of trainee solicitors are now female. City law is highly respected and very highly paying, and each generation is seeing increasing numbers of female solicitors. Doesn't seem like those thousands of women are dismissing those jobs at all...

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you