If it´s for mothers it would be a help to get them back in work-it has to be said it´s a bizarre idea though! Let´s face it help for working families in IRL is minimal-better to split up get the missus in a state sponsored flat-an idea more common to the underclass

A tax cut for women? No thanks. A tax cut for the second earner in a family? Sure. Equal pay for equal work for women? Definitely.

Sounds like a completely bizarre suggestion. As Paul says above, by all means a tax cut for a second earner in a family unit, that might alleviate pressure on bill payment, stop debt further increasing and reduce the overall hardship felt by families. However, a tax cut on the sole basis of gender and nothing else? Surely there is more to this story? Not all women have children; some men are stay at home parents; some men when given the chance are single fathers with sole custody; isn’t there already a single parent allowance? Rationally I would have to say that the full details of this suggestion have yet to be published. If not then this bailout isn’t going to go too well.

Even as a woman i don’t get it,I’m all for equality here, would it be too far a thing to expect affordable childcare Instead of all that money they gave away(which indirectly funded some people ssia’s) in Early Childcare Allowance could of easily opened up community based Childcare facility’s just like a few other European Country’s?

As a women and the principle earner in my household, this seems crazy – should all women get the tax cut even if they aren’t going to have kids or are past their child-bearing years? It seems like crazy discrimination to me. Better to give tax breaks to people for the first 5 years after children are born or for those paying for childcare, but across the board? Crazy!

As I understand it, the IMF are not suggesting a tax cut for women in the usual sense of the term. They are suggesting a reduction in the *implied* tax rate to women, which includes the cost of taxes, social security, benefit losses and childcare costs. Such costs taken together are more than 70 per cent of the potential earnings of a second earner (mainly women but including men too) in Ireland, but also in Austria, France and the Slovak Republic.

A reduction in these implied costs from say 70 to 65 per cent (e.g. by reducing childcare costs or dole payments) would result in increased labour force participation among women (but also among the men who face similar costs). *On average*, these countries would benefit from increased employment and therefore a 1.75 “percentage point” (surely you mean per cent, IMF?) boost to GDP. However, that benefit is an average.

The problem here is that we already have a massive surplus of labour supply (14.1 per cent unemployment), so adding workers to the labour force will result in no such boost.

Since I’ve actually read the memo in question, and know that it doesn’t say any such thing (it’s a tax reduction for secondary earners), I have no strong opinion on the chimera you made up for the sake of a good headline.

Really. The idea of a 5% tax incentive for secondary earners should surely be a pretty meaty idea to dig into at any time, and all the more so where we find ourselves now. Why do we have to discuss this in sentences of ten-words or less? Is it the tie-break answer to a competition draw on the back of a box of teabags?

You seem to be presuming women are secondary earners, Jon. Besides that, the beneficiaries of the cuts identified here are women – not men. So, as it stands, the cuts would be based solely on gender. That is sexist.

Introducing more affordable child-care services would be infinitely more reasonable, as it would better enable parents – of either sex – to be involved in the workforce.

Also, if you wish to discuss cutting the taxes of secondary earners you are free to do so… this is the forum for it.