according to the post,

women are working in unpaid economy:

If any one think doing work for her family is “unpaid work” and deserve paying separately, then what about a man’s spending on that family…. a social service, or charity work…? I am just saying they are doing for their family. for this charity work, men also need to get some concession in the tax, isn’t it? I don’t how people think, what ever wife doing is unpaid work and what ever men spending their hard earned money for the family is “his duty” and that family (especially wife’s right).

I am sorry to say, remaining reason’s not even have worth to comment.

As far as *unpaid job* like parenting is concerned now a days even if the mom is not working the kid will be sent to day care or play school saying “he is too naughty at home and hard to manage”!!!

Presicely majority of the women around the globe doesnt like to take any responsibilty and want to have fun at someone else’ cost (either father or husband) also claims all the benefits like tax rebate alimony maintenance etc.

Men are just funding these thinking women will gain some self-esteem in the near future. Unfortunately non of the so called feminists are working on to build us women’s self-esteem self-confidence or what so ever ‘self ‘ it is and make them think that they are not beggars or refugees. They just keep saying that hey women we are helpless good for nothing creatures and we need tobe supported by men.

And that’s just the extreme case. Technically speaking, any woman whose contribution to household income relative to the average contribution of women to household incomes is lower than her share in household expenditure relative to the average share of all women in household expenditure will not be adequately compensated by a policy that uses direct tax breaks to correct for indirect tax inequalities – with the result that such a policy will only serve to perpetuate inequality, not correct it.

And all that’s assuming that the true gender effect of indirect taxation is accurately measured in calculating the extent of the direct tax break to provide, which is almost sure not to happen if people who call themselves feminists are willing to blindly accept the sop of a direct tax break in compensation for unequal indirect taxes without thinking through the implications and impact of such a policy.

[1] The only way this wouldn’t happen is if the direct tax break for women was entirely made up by an increased incidence of tax on men. Anyone seriously think that’s going to happen?

The overall point is that you shouldn’t give tax breaks on something that’s correlated to disadvantage – you should give tax breaks for the source of the disadvantage itself.

And you still haven’t given us a reason why gender-bias in indirect taxation should be fixed through gender-bias in direct taxation, instead of by correcting the gender bias in indirect taxation itself. I’m all for scrutinizing tax impact from a gender perspective. In fact, I’m suggesting that instead of providing some arbitrary compensation for unspecified and unmeasured inequalities in indirect taxation through tax breaks in direct taxation (your suggestion) we actually scrutinize and measure these alleged inequalities in indirect taxation and fix them at their source, rather than trying for a piecemeal direct tax break that is likely to be both inefficient and ineffective.

women earning lower wages, even when their tax incidence is low are being burdened through indirect taxation. Indirect taxes are not neutral and the impacts needs to be scrutinised from a gender perspective is waht I was pointing out.

“I’m not sure why tax breaks for child-rearing costs should translate into tax breaks for women generally”.

well women, whether they like it or not are esponsible- emotionally, physically and financially for childrearing- across the board so why shouldn’t women have tax breaks in general? the overall point is that you can’t decide tax based only the income that is earned without factoring in other disadvantages that being woman entails.
@bombay dosti
it was good for me to tackle a different subject, glad you found it interesting
@ Shreya Bhandari
yes we have to understand equality in some depth. it is not just formal but needs to tanslate substantively into wome’s lives.

Equal rights for men and women should be asked for when they reach the same level. It is also an indirect way for the men to encourage girls and women to be undergo higher education and consequently take up jobs in tertiary sectors which are highly paid.

Your fourth point, makes the biggest sense to me.
Many studies indicate that ,a bigger percentage of a woman’s earning, flows into the family compared to that of men -A reason why a number of poverty alleviation programmes have been directed to women. Therefore a lenient tax system would not only improve their own lives but also that of the family.

But it remains to see whether differential tax must be applied to the higher income brackets.
Interesting Post!