http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926
QuoteThe Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand
Omar Aziz
Government of New Zealand - Treasury
Norman Gemmell
Victoria University of Wellington - Victoria Business School
Athene Laws
Victoria University of Wellington
April 30, 2013
Victoria University of Wellington Working Paper in Public Finance No. 10/2013
Abstract:
This paper examines the age and gender dimensions of income distribution and fiscal incidence in New Zealand using Household Expenditure Survey (HES) data for 2010 and a non-behavioural micro-simulation model. Since many fiscal policies are likely to have quite different incidences across age groups and genders, and with population ageing changing the age and gender composition of the voting population in many countries, age/gender dimensions of fiscal incidence become increasingly relevant. While this single 'age distribution snapshot' cannot fully capture lifecycle incidences, it avoids the complex and uncertain assumptions implicit in the latter and is an important component of lifetime redistribution calculations. We explore alternative methods of intra-family allocation of resources including 'unequal share' assumptions based on recent research into how families allocate their spending. Our evidence, which in general is not highly sensitive to sharing assumptions, suggests a strong 'life cycle' aspect to fiscal incidence whereby net tax liabilities are low, and generally negative, at younger and older ages but positive during much of the 'working age' period. Women, on average, are found to have a systematically and persistently lower net fiscal liability than men, most pronounced at older ages when greater female longevity exercises a strong influence. Nevertheless, considerable heterogeneity of fiscal incidence for both men and women is observed with the distributions of various fiscal incidence measures showing substantial overlap.
Plot:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fom4a32X.png&hash=e499161bde452079188bb03150baa910f4d743dd)
You are welcome
Alternate interpretation: older men have managed to arrange society such that they are the primary beneficiaries.
My first reaction is that, the "positive territory" is very small when compared with the "negative territory" of both sexes. Females are completely negative during their entire lifespans. Males have a negative area during their youth, and a seemingly slightly larger positive area when they are old. My intuition is that the positive territories and the negative ones should cancel each other out but this does not seem to be the case.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
Alternate interpretation: older men have managed to arrange society such that they are the primary beneficiaries.
I might agree with you if I understood what the hell Fiscal Impact was :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kevinphipps.com%2F_Media%2Femporer_jade-throne_med.jpeg&hash=331321ce22935846071e9dfd5f0e7d523ee10fd4)
Of course.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2016, 09:00:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
Alternate interpretation: older men have managed to arrange society such that they are the primary beneficiaries.
I might agree with you if I understood what the hell Fiscal Impact was :P
My interpretation is the impact on government revenue. The average amount that one person pays in taxes minus what the government spends on this person. So one would expect negative numbers in the early years (education) and in the late years (health care), but positive numbers in a person's prime.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2016, 09:00:59 PM
I might agree with you if I understood what the hell Fiscal Impact was :P
I believe it means what an individual pays in taxes or receives in benefits.
"Income distribution and fiscal incidence in New Zealand using Household Expenditure Survey (HES) data"...? Seriously?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 18, 2016, 09:23:12 PM
"Income distribution and fiscal incidence in New Zealand using Household Expenditure Survey (HES) data"...? Seriously?
What is the impact of the sheep? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 18, 2016, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 18, 2016, 09:23:12 PM
"Income distribution and fiscal incidence in New Zealand using Household Expenditure Survey (HES) data"...? Seriously?
What is the impact of the sheep? :hmm:
New Zealand, could be beer for all it matters. Or shark victims. Or Peter Jackson scenery porn.
Can we put Hami back in the storage bin and then light it on fire?
I love that Hami posts a scientific article without any comment, and yet he gets attacked because the facts do not fit the narrative. :lol:
Positive impact in taxes? Society is not the government.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
Alternate interpretation: older men have managed to arrange society such that they are the primary beneficiaries.
So, your "alternate interpretation" is interpreting the results in the opposite to what they actually say? Hmmm. :lmfao:
The results are a no-brainer. Men more frequently than women engage in taxable activities (as many women stay at home to take care of kids etc.) and live shorter on average than women, so they become less of a burden on social and health services in their old age. It doesn't mean that men are "more valuable", or "better" - it just describes a social and biological fact.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 19, 2016, 12:39:35 AM
Positive impact in taxes? Society is not the government.
Yes, although arguably, unless you contribute to charity, what you pay in taxes is the only direct benefit to the society - because just working to increase the wealth and wellbeing of yourself and your immediate family is contributing to the society only indirectly, at best.
The creation of new citizens who don't become net burdens is one of the most important responsibilities of men. Also, thinking of society in terms of only government is far too limiting.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 19, 2016, 12:46:28 AM
The creation of new citizens who don't become net burdens is one of the most important responsibilities of men.
It doesn't mean it contributes to the society in material terms, at least on an individual basis. Essentially, if you remove an average 2+2 family from a society, the overall impact on its wealth should be neutral (at best). Of course, on a global scale, you need people to have kids or the society will die out - but if you are looking at an individual contribution to the society, only taxes and charity count, imo.
Edit: And besides, even you qualify the creation of new citizens by saying they must not "become net burdens". What does this mean, if not taxes vs. state expenses on such citizen? I mean, by this graph, an average woman becomes a net burden on the society - so does it mean only birthing boys is a contribution? :lol:
So that's why I'm drowning in grateful submissive young women!
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 12:50:19 AM
It doesn't mean it contributes to the society in material terms, at least on an individual basis. Essentially, if you remove an average 2+2 family from a society, the overall impact on its wealth should be neutral (at best). Of course, on a global scale, you need people to have kids or the society will die out - but if you are looking at an individual contribution to the society, only taxes and charity count, imo.
Edit: And besides, even you qualify the creation of new citizens by saying they must not "become net burdens". What does this mean, if not taxes vs. state expenses on such citizen? I mean, by this graph, an average woman becomes a net burden on the society - so does it mean only birthing boys is a contribution? :lol:
I don't know what to tell you except society is not the state, and the state is not society.
The Nazis did a pretty good job of combining both. :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 12:36:36 AM
I love that Hami posts a scientific article without any comment, and yet he gets attacked because the facts do not fit the narrative. :lol:
Yeah he titled the thread with the name of the paper ..
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2016, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 12:36:36 AM
I love that Hami posts a scientific article without any comment, and yet he gets attacked because the facts do not fit the narrative. :lol:
Yeah he titled the thread with the name of the paper ..
Point taken.
And how well would these 40+ guys be doing without the younger people working for them I wonder?
The graph is of cumulative net fiscal impact, therefore to work out if a person is making a positive fiscal contribution at any particular age one has to look at the slope of the graph rather than the cumulative position.
On that basis men make a net positive fiscal contribution all the way from 20 to 65, whereas women make a net positive fiscal contribution from 40 to 60 (ie after their child-bearing and rearing years).
So the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2016, 03:43:14 AM
And how well would these 40+ guys be doing without the younger people working for them I wonder?
Wtf. :lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AM
The graph is of cumulative net fiscal impact, therefore to work out if a person is making a positive fiscal contribution at any particular age one has to look at the slope of the graph rather than the cumulative position.
On that basis men make a net positive fiscal contribution all the way from 20 to 65, whereas women make a net positive fiscal contribution from 40 to 60 (ie after their child-bearing and rearing years).
So the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Ah ok. I was curious why a newborn baby was making a larger fiscal positive contribution than a person in their 20s.
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2016, 05:22:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2016, 03:43:14 AM
And how well would these 40+ guys be doing without the younger people working for them I wonder?
Wtf. :lol:
Wtf wtf?
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2016, 06:10:50 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AM
The graph is of cumulative net fiscal impact, therefore to work out if a person is making a positive fiscal contribution at any particular age one has to look at the slope of the graph rather than the cumulative position.
On that basis men make a net positive fiscal contribution all the way from 20 to 65, whereas women make a net positive fiscal contribution from 40 to 60 (ie after their child-bearing and rearing years).
So the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Ah ok. I was curious why a newborn baby was making a larger fiscal positive contribution than a person in their 20s.
Those are
cumulative numbers, not instantaneous numbers or annual numbers.
As RH points out, only the slope matters on an annual basis, which is why Hami's title demonstrates how hilariously poorly he understood his own link. :lol:
Here is the non-cumulative version. Someone teach grumbler how to read papers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhUP4pSX.png&hash=307ad4321582bd52c5a088158796421cc66cba73)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AMSo the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Yes but this is a hatefact to the progessive Left since that generally means women, except maybe the spinster career types, are dependents, economically speaking.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AMSo the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Yes but this is a hatefact to the progessive Left since that generally means women, except maybe the spinster career types, are dependents, economically speaking.
The real problem is that you can barely mention such research in the public square these days. Merely raising the data would get me shunned in many circles. Hooray for anonymous internet forums?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 19, 2016, 12:39:35 AM
Positive impact in taxes? Society is not the government.
I was going to say that. You can have a Wall Street robber baron paying plenty of taxes (though not as much as he should be due to carried interest loophole), and yet still do plenty of damage to the economy and livelihood of other people.
Our trolls have taken a strange stance in this thread.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 19, 2016, 08:10:55 AMThe real problem is that you can barely mention such research in the public square these days. Merely raising the data would get me shunned in many circles. Hooray for anonymous internet forums?
Nothing better than a good shitpost after a long, stifling day. :showoff:
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2016, 08:20:07 AM
Our trolls have taken a strange stance in this thread.
Yeah I don't understand. Progressives will often bring up statistics showing women make less money.
And will point out that it's women who normally have to sacrifice their careers when they have children so we either need a change in social attitudes or far more affordable childcare to correct that.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2016, 08:32:43 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 19, 2016, 08:10:55 AMThe real problem is that you can barely mention such research in the public square these days. Merely raising the data would get me shunned in many circles. Hooray for anonymous internet forums?
Nothing better than a good shitpost after a long, stifling day. :showoff:
The oppression in Iceland must be monumental.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
And will point out that it's women who normally have want to sacrifice their careers when they have children
Fixed.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 19, 2016, 08:38:03 AMThe oppression in Iceland must be monumental.
:lol: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
And will point out that it's women who normally have to sacrifice their careers when they have children so we either need a change in social attitudes or far more affordable childcare to correct that.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-women-are-no-longer-catching-up-to-men-on-pay/
Why, 538 was on about this topic just today!
QuoteWhy Women Are No Longer Catching Up To Men On Pay
If you were an American man working full-time in 1984, you earned, on average, a bit more than $22 an hour (adjusted for inflation to 2014 dollars). If you were particularly ambitious, or particularly in need of cash, you could make more money by working more hours, but on a per-hour basis, you'd still be making about the same — a bit more than $22 per hour.
Fast-forward to 2015, though, and the picture looks a lot different. The average man working a typical full-time job, 35 to 49 hours a week, now earns about $26 an hour. But the man working 50 hours a week or more now earns close to $33 an hour. Hourly pay has risen more than twice as fast over the past three decades for men working long hours, as employers increasingly reward employees willing to work extra hours with raises or promotions. (The pattern crosses educational and industry lines, and holds when excluding overtime pay.)
Notice that I said "men." Men make up a bit more than half the full-time workforce, but they account for more than 70 percent of those working 50 hours a week or more. So as wage gains have gone disproportionately to people working long hours, they have also gone disproportionately to men, widening the earnings divide between men and women overall.
The gender wage gap has narrowed significantly over the past 50 years. In 1964, according to data from the Census Bureau, the typical woman working full time made about 59 cents on the dollar earned by a man; by 2004, that had risen to 77 cents. (These calculations don't take into account differences in experience, industry or other factors.) More recently, however, progress for women has nearly stalled out: In 2014, the latest data available, women earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men, a 2-pennies-an-hour improvement over a decade.
Other measures of women's progress in the workforce — their rate of employment, the likelihood that they will work in a historically male-dominated field, the rate at which they run big companies — show a similar pattern of what researchers Martha J. Bailey and Thomas A. DiPrete, in a new essay, call "five decades of remarkable but slowing change" for American women.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fespnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F08%2Fcasselman-irt_0819-2-fixed.png%3Fquality%3D90%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall%26amp%3Bw%3D574%26amp%3Bssl%3D1&hash=e8886c758a0a75ad9ab929fd4b2cc33792057370)
Bailey and DiPrete's essay serves as the introduction to a remarkable new collection of papers from the Russell Sage Foundation that examines the progress that women have — and haven't — made over the past half-century. It isn't a simple story. The U.S. has already made major, albeit incomplete, progress on many of the most obvious causes of gender inequality — explicit discrimination on pay,3 overt barriers to employment, taboos against working while raising children. What is left is a tangle of cultural norms, implicit biases, individual preferences and other, subtler forms of discrimination that are much harder to change or even to measure.
Take the long-hours anecdote I described above. The rapid rise in pay for people working long hours has played a major role in the persistence of the overall gender wage gap, particularly for parents; new research in the Russell Sage Foundation volume estimates that the wage gap between mothers and fathers would be 15 percent smaller if the extra-hours increase hadn't occurred. But that premium itself isn't the result of discrimination, explicit or implicit; women who work long hours have seen even faster gains than men (although they still earn less on average).
Rather, the trend contributes to the wage gap because men are so much more likely than women to work those long hours. That, in turn, is the result of a confluence of factors that are deeply embedded in the American economy and society: Women, on average, spend much more time than men on housework, while men — especially a certain category of highly educated, elite men — are expected to work as much as possible. And of course, most importantly, mothers are still far more likely than fathers to be the primary caregiver for their children. Government policies could make a difference — affordable child care, for example, could make it easier for women who want to work long hours to do so — but they can only go so far.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fespnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F08%2Fcasselman-irt0819-1.png%3Fquality%3D90%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall%26amp%3Bw%3D575%26amp%3Bssl%3D1&hash=566df673bed439b6945d6f5f1eeef15eb035879a)
The Russell Sage Foundation papers are full of such thorny issues. A rising share of the gender wage gap is driven by "pre-market" factors such as choice of industry and occupation; those issues can also be the result of explicit or implicit discrimination but are much harder to address than wage differentials within a given job. And even forces that should help close the gap, such as education, have proved insufficient: Women have for decades been more likely to attend college than men — there are now for the first time more female than male college graduates — yet the pay gap is widest among the most educated workers. Girls now outperform boys in many science and math subjects in high school, but women are still much less likely than men to work in many of the most lucrative technical fields; women have actually lost ground to men in computer science in recent decades. And the overall rate of "occupational desegregation" — women entering traditionally male-dominated fields and vice versa — has slowed.
There are some encouraging signs for women. Those who do go into science and technology fields earn nearly as much as equally experienced men (though that isn't true in computer science), suggesting the overall wage gap would narrow if more women entered so-called STEM fields. Moreover, the "motherhood penalty" — the relative decline in wages for women when they have children — has disappeared or even reversed for highly paid, highly educated women, perhaps because they are the most likely to have access to (and be able to afford) child care. That suggests that making child care more widely available could help narrow the gender pay gap for less-educated women, too — something that is looking more likely now that both major presidential candidates are advocating affordable-child-care plans. Culture is changing, too: Men are taking on a larger share of child-rearing responsibilities, though the division is still far from equal.
Still, the overall picture painted by the Russell Sage Foundation research is one of slow, grinding and unsteady progress, and of barriers that are hard to define and even harder to resolve. Hillary Clinton may be poised to crack the ultimate glass ceiling, but true gender equality remains a long way off.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AMSo the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Yes but this is a hatefact to the progessive Left since that generally means women, except maybe the spinster career types, are dependents, economically speaking.
I see that but it one of the reasons why I don't get on too well with the "progressive left". To me it is clear that around half the work is performed outside the formal economic sector, most of it by women. As sexual equality becomes a reality we can expect the percentages to change (perhaps, many women may have a genuine preference for work within the household structure); until then it seems strange to insist that they do an equal amount of paid employment as well as the majority of the informal work.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AMSo the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Yes but this is a hatefact to the progessive Left since that generally means women, except maybe the spinster career types, are dependents, economically speaking.
It's more like a foundational fact for radical feminism which argues that the structure of society inherently reduces women to dependence.
Eh I know I am dependent on several people to make my life work. Just because you are making the money doesn't mean you don't heavily depend on people. I think only a tiny minority of people are truly rocks and islands. Like Simon and Garfunkel.
I mean by its very nature society makes us dependent. If we weren't there would be no society.
Women just need to pay their fair share in taxes :angry:
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
Alternate interpretation: older men have managed to arrange society such that they are the primary beneficiaries.
I dont have that kind of superpower
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 19, 2016, 07:57:15 AM
Here is the non-cumulative version. Someone teach grumbler how to read papers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhUP4pSX.png&hash=307ad4321582bd52c5a088158796421cc66cba73)
Oh he can read alright. But there is no fixing his assitude.
Quote from: derspiess on August 19, 2016, 08:59:11 AM
Women just need to pay their fair share in taxes :angry:
And get back in the kitchen.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 19, 2016, 05:09:13 AMSo the graph is really saying that workers make a net positive fiscal contribution to the state whereas their dependents do not, this is not a stunning insight.
Yes but this is a hatefact to the progessive Left since that generally means women, except maybe the spinster career types, are dependents, economically speaking.
I see that but it one of the reasons why I don't get on too well with the "progressive left". To me it is clear that around half the work is performed outside the formal economic sector, most of it by women. As sexual equality becomes a reality we can expect the percentages to change (perhaps, many women may have a genuine preference for work within the household structure); until then it seems strange to insist that they do an equal amount of paid employment as well as the majority of the informal work.
So by "'progressive' left" are were referring to some sort of leftist group that only exists in theory? I'm not sure I've seen a call for women to do all work. :unsure:
As an aside the term "progressive left" is a bit odd. Is there such thing as a "progressive right" or a "progressive middle"? Is there a regressive left?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2016, 09:06:03 AM
Is there a regressive left?
I presume there is. Marty talks about them all the time.
Quoteprogressive middle
I like to think that is me :P
Or maybe just a complaining tax. Could work sort of like a swear jar.
Quote from: derspiess on August 19, 2016, 09:11:14 AM
Or maybe just a complaining tax. Could work sort of like a swear jar.
Or a shoe tax. Over 5 pairs of shoes? Time to pay.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2016, 09:06:03 AM
Is there a regressive left?
In case you are not baiting, yes, yes there is.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 19, 2016, 07:57:15 AM
Here is the non-cumulative version. Someone teach grumbler how to read papers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhUP4pSX.png&hash=307ad4321582bd52c5a088158796421cc66cba73)
So, looking at that graph, do you still want to argue that "only older men really contribute to society?" Look carefully at men aged 23 to, say, 50, before you answer.
Someone teach Hamilcar how to read graphs... and, for that matter, how to troll without looking foolish.
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2016, 09:34:28 AM
.. and, for that matter, how to troll without looking foolish.
Waa waa look at me, I'm grumbler, I accuse everyone of trolling, and now I'm surprised that it doesn't stick anymore. Waaa!
Let's get back to the more important thing, my misogyny.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 19, 2016, 09:39:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2016, 09:34:28 AM
.. and, for that matter, how to troll without looking foolish.
Waa waa look at me, I'm grumbler, I accuse everyone of trolling, and now I'm surprised that it doesn't stick anymore. Waaa!
Wow. Has that whining thing worked for you since, oh, third grade? :lol:
Obvious evasion is obvious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
And will point out that it's women who normally have to sacrifice their careers when they have children so we either need a change in social attitudes or far more affordable childcare to correct that.
Indeed, which was my point.
It's the same basic fact "men make more money than women" but presented (at least by Hami) as "so men are clearly better" rather than "society is organized so men make more money".
Quote from: Jacob on August 19, 2016, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
And will point out that it's women who normally have to sacrifice their careers when they have children so we either need a change in social attitudes or far more affordable childcare to correct that.
Indeed, which was my point.
It's the same basic fact "men make more money than women" but presented (at least by Hami) as "so men are clearly better" rather than "society is organized so men make more money".
It's a little ironic that one of your and Shelf's solutions to the issue raised by Hamilcar's article is to increase subsidies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
It's a little ironic that one of your and Shelf's solutions to the issue raised by Hamilcar's article is to increase subsidies.
I'm afraid I don't follow... what is the proposed increase in subsidies I have proposed?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
It's a little ironic that one of your and Shelf's solutions to the issue raised by Hamilcar's article is to increase subsidies.
But that's counted against the kid, not the mom. :P
The mom gets to work more and so pay more taxes. Yay, mom!
Quote from: Jacob on August 19, 2016, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
It's a little ironic that one of your and Shelf's solutions to the issue raised by Hamilcar's article is to increase subsidies.
I'm afraid I don't follow... what is the proposed increase in subsidies I have proposed?
I think he means affordable childcare.
For what it's worth, none of this is news to me. It's just a different spin on an old tale. Hamilcar and Legbiter call women "dependents" and "takers", but the reality is that the reason women are on the lower end of the pay scale - if they're getting paid at all - is because they're taking care of the household most of the time. You can't have it all ways.
Those who stay home create the opportunities for those who work to make more. To disregard that is rather foolish. A person can't have a family and work 50 hours a week without having someone else willing to take care of the household. It's a balance. One is no better, nor worse, than the other, regardless of gender. They just contribute differently to society and to the family unit.
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2016, 03:49:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2016, 12:49:09 PM
It's a little ironic that one of your and Shelf's solutions to the issue raised by Hamilcar's article is to increase subsidies.
But that's counted against the kid, not the mom. :P
The mom gets to work more and so pay more taxes. Yay, mom!
Exactly. It allows longer continuous economic participation by the mum while the kid's fiscal drag increases in years 0-4
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2016, 03:55:58 PM
Exactly. It allows longer continuous economic participation by the mum while the kid's fiscal drag increases in years 0-4
Ah I see. I wasn't aware that I'd been advocating for subsidize childcare, but it seems like a reasonable solution :)
Yi - I don't think it's ironic, since subsidized childcare should be counted against the kid's "contribution" or alternately spread evenly between both parents, rather than solely against the mother's - so it would still push those graphs towards a more equal distribution I expect.