Posted in Uncategorized

Progressive Tax is Discrimination Against Men

Legally, discrimination does not only refer to overt and explicit discrimination, such as denying a position for the sole reason that the applicant is of a certain color, religion, or sex. Yes, that is illegal, but discrimination extends to all practices that disproportionately affect a certain group.

This is called adverse impact. Adverse impact is defined as “a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decision which works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group.”

adv
It’s all about the proportion, regardless of the intent. 

That is why background checks and IQ tests are losing in popularity in hiring practices. A black person can sue an employer who used background checks, and didn’t hire them. Since a larger percentage of blacks have a criminal background, using background checks of criminal record is legally a form of discrimination towards black people. Employers need to be able to justify their use in court, if need be.

Since women have higher rates of absenteeism than men, documented as early as the 1800s up until now, a woman could sue her potential employer if he requires a flawless absenteeism record in the past.

The bottom line is this: men are over-represented in the highest end of the income distribution, and progressive tax rates affect them disproportionately.

wagg
(Arulampalam, Booth, Bryan, 2006)

Throughout the world, there is an increasing earnings gap at the top of the distribution. Imagine that the highest tax rate starts at the 8th quantile, a steady 20% to 30% more men than women  would be affected. In raw taxes, the gap might be gigantic, like in New-Zealand, where only men have a positive net fiscal contribution.

In essence, progressive tax rates disproportionately affect men, which constitutes the legal definition of discrimination through adverse impact.

Static tax amount: equality

Static tax rate: equity

Progressive tax: inequality

Progressive tax rates make very little ethical sense. But can we seriously expect a movement to protect the rights of rich men?

Subscribe to me on YouTube

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Advertisements

Author:

I am studying psychology (Honours) in Groningen, Netherlands. I have been volunteering in social psychology since 2013. My interests are evolutionary psychology and clinical psychology, even though this distinction is arbitrary and socially constructed. As everyone should know, evolutionary psychology is is the broadest and most fundamental field of psychology. Interested in what clinical psychology says about evolutionary psychology. There. Inductive reasoning.

2 thoughts on “Progressive Tax is Discrimination Against Men

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s