Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Poll: Your views on the IMF man tax

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


Poll Results:

No (291)
Yes (200)

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
4 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute vv7k7Z3c
    Favourite vv7k7Z3c
    Report
    Nov 23rd 2010, 2:10 PM

    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.

    7
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds