More evidence that some people, and even economists, see nothing wrong in principle with discrimination:
MINNEAPOLIS – Want to reduce the overall level of income taxes and see more women taking home paychecks?
Lower income-tax rates for women while raising them for men, according to Harvard University economist Alberto Alesina, who calls the idea “discrimination, the good kind.”
Such a policy, Alesina and his co-author write, would result in more women choosing to work. And, they add,
“These effects are consistent with the stated goal of affirmative action policies geared toward correcting discrimination and inequities in the labor market against women,” Alesina and Ichino wrote. Lowering income-tax rates on women would be a more efficient way of bringing women into the workforce than anti-discrimination policies imposed on business, in their view.
Not only would such a policy be consistent with the goals of affirmative action; it would also be consistent with its theory: if anti-discrimination policies don’t produce the desired result, use discrimination.
Alesina and Andrea Ichino of Italy’s University of Bologna argue that tax codes in the United States and around the world already apply different standards to all manner of people — the single and the married, for example, and families with children and those without.
This argument is a good example of what I have called, nearly five years ago (here), “The Fallacy of Fungible Discriminations”:
This is the argument that all discrimination is alike; if you can discriminate for one reason, you can discriminate for any reason. Thus if it’s acceptable to give preferences based on athletic or musical ability or the alumni status of parents, it’s also legitimate to give preferences based on race or religion. Preferences, in short, are preferences; if one is O.K., all are O.K.
I have collected a number of examples of this unappealing, unprincipled argument under the category label IUNS, for Iniquitous Ubiquitous Non-Sequitur, which is searchable from the menu on the right.
Utter drivel.
Why in the world does anybody (any woman) think it’s their place to decide whether women unknown to them need to be “coaxed” into the workplace? What glib arrogance.
Furthermore: I work very hard and in fact am the principle breadwinner in my family. I do NOT want to give any prospective employers the idea that they can treat me like a second-class citizen, i.e. pay me less, because the tax code will make up for it. No thank you. They need to leave that alone.
I have a much better idea. How about raising the income tax rates on Harvard economists. Even better how about raising the income tax rate on all academics. After all since they are so worried about the less fortunate, this will be their way to contribute. I am sure they would be more than willing to make such a sacrifice.
Alesina and Andrea Ichino of Italy’s University of Bologna.
I would suggest that they worry more about the high taxes rates in their own country and less about the tax policies in a country that they are not citizens of.
Laura makes a great point, and I wonder if the economists have thought about it. It is really a gift to businesses.
It’s the same thing with the tax deduction given to home owners. Everyone thought it would encourage home buying. Actually, it just raised the cost of homes. People thought: Well, my home is worth 50K, but with the tax break, I can sell it for 55K and attract the same people. It was a gift to home sellers, not home buyers.
i read your post about the “fallacy of fungible discriminations” and it wasn’t persuasive at all. first, the same “history” which you invoked also brought us the idea, still relevant and authoritative, that minorities (and blacks in particular) deserve more “protection” than whites. second, your position is way too simplistic. you basically said that “the constitution says it’s so; therefore, it’s so.”
kind of a letdown. i was expecting a bit more, i guess.
Sorry you were disappointed. I rather like that post.
Insofar as minorities deserve any extra “protection” (presumably because they are discriminated against more), that would consist only of more vigilant efforts to see that they are treated equally, not treating them unequally here in a misguided effort to compensate for their mistreatment there.
Dear John – Are you denying that Women historically & currently enperience the most sexism in the US or People of Color historically & currently experience the most racism in the US?
I have a much better idea. Instead of taxing males more than females, why don’t we pay males to stay home and not work. That would open up the workplace for women and most men would be quite happy to accomodate.