Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 12 °C Wednesday 22 February, 2012

IMF suggests cutting tax – but just for women

Image: Paul Hocksenar via Flickr/Creative Commons

THE IMF HAS controversially suggested a 5 per cent tax cut for women – a move which it believes could increase GDP by 1.75 per cent when combined with better childcare.

In a memo published on its website, the IMF suggests that imposing a tax cut for women would attract second earners to join the work force.

The paper states:

The implicit tax on the gross income of a second earner tops 70 percent when including social security contribution, benefits loss, and the cost of child care in Austria, France, Ireland, and the Slovak Republic.  

Measures especially geared toward second earners, combining tax incentives—including allowing women to file their labor income separately from their husband in countries with joint family taxation—and better child-care support, could be specifically targeted at raising female participation.  

It concludes that if such measures taken would ultimately raise GDP:

IMF staff estimates show that cutting labor income taxes paid by women by 5 percentage points would increase the GDP level by 1¾ percentage points, for a fiscal cost of ½ percentage point of GDP.  

The memo also proposes a gradual reduction in dole payments and a drop in the minimum wage – as well as advocating that more resources be given to Fás.

Poll: Do you support the IMF proposal for a 5 per cent tax cut for women?

Already a fan? Complete your signup...

Get breaking news from The Journal.ie via Facebook. Just click 'Like'.

Read Next:

Comments (6 Comments)

  • Ann Donnelly 457 days ago #
    Report this comment

    At first look I thought this was a good idea, but are there jobs for these women to return to the workforce to?

    Reply
  • An Spailpín Fánach 456 days ago #
    Report this comment

    It’s a good idea. Supports the economy and supports families who are doing their best and trying to get on without actually costing that much. Win, win, win.

    Reply
  • Gavan Reilly 456 days ago #
    Report this comment

    This would be a good idea if the proposal explicitly said the tax cut would be for women (or, preferably, any stay-at-home parent) to get back into the workforce, so that the money could be spent on childcare.

    This proposal doesn’t do that. While it’s an acknowledged goal of the plan, the recommendation is to bluntly reduce the income tax rate paid by women by 5%. That’s not pro-childcare, that’s outright sexism.

    Don’t allow a spin to distract from this: this plan wants the PAYE rates paid by a woman to be 5% lower than that of a man. Or, alternatively, for the male rate to be 5% higher than the female one. That’s a man tax.

    Reply
    • Steven Benson 456 days ago #
      Report this comment

      I have to agree, a blanket woman tax cut (or the cynical “man tax”) carries very little merit.

      The money would be much better invested in affordable, reliable and trustworthy childcare. Investing in the industry will not only make the second earner a viable option financially – but provide a benefit to both parents. In addition, large investment in childcare will also create jobs, particularly jobs more likely to be taken up by women.

      Because, lets be honest, children keep you away from work – not being a women.

  • Gina Jordan 456 days ago #
    Report this comment

    I agree Steven et all… more so.. here we go again, this promotes a false economy for people in the home. The carrot is 5% lets go! Hi Ho, Hi Ho, oh hang on… who will mind my kids? Better pay childcare… hey, where is that 5% now? IMF my ass… BS!

    Reply

Add New Comment