The Instigator
TheCave_TheLight
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RGarland
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should women pay less tax?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
RGarland
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,097 times Debate No: 71204
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

TheCave_TheLight

Pro

For the human race, we are attempting to achieve a utopian society where we have complete gender equality. By imposing an Act where women will be taxed less, women will have a 'head start' with their disposable income and therefore assets. Having more money to spend, women spending on themselves will promote economic growth as production will increase as demand for various products and services will increase as well (this model for economic growth will usually occur in a market capitalism system).

Yes, this may seem as a sexist motif against men but generally, men tend to earn more than women as men receive an average salary of "39,461 where women get "30,392 (1). Women having to pay less tax may close this harsh income gap of men earning more money, which will lead to a greater degree of equality within our nation(s).

With women paying less tax, a higher chance of gender equality and general pleasure within our social and economic world may occur.

(1)- http://www.theguardian.com...
RGarland

Con

Lowering taxes for women is move that will lead us away from equality. The concept of equality is not to necessarily level statistics, but rather to provide the same opportunities. Second, income tax is based on salary, therefore women are paying their fair share as men are. Third, and here's where it gets controversial; the wage gap doesn't exist. The feminist supporters took the statistics that were published out of context. If you go to the very report that showed the so called "wage gap", you will also see that men on average work longer hours and take less vacations. Additionally, if you look at the average salary of men and women that are not married and never have been, and are the same age, women actually make an average of over a thousand more than men. This is because when women get divorced they receive excessive compensation and usually cease to strive for better job performance and promotion, as they do when living with a man who also has disposable income. Therefore, the wage gap does not exist and needs no faulty attempt at a faulty correction. And in concept, even if it did exist, the solution would not be taking away women's responsibilities as adults and treating them differently because of their gender.
Debate Round No. 1
TheCave_TheLight

Pro

I of course understand what you're proclaiming about equal opportunities but throughout history women have generally been looked down upon by men. Women have had some equal opportunities recently and still, they are not equal to men thus this tax will support them. Typically men seem to dominate the workplace. The general scenario is women tend to stay at home while men go out and work. This concept may seem old fashioned but it is what it is. Even back to the start of time, women have been the sex that tend the stay at home and nurture the children while men go out and work. Now that we are approaching times where women have more rights, I believe it is only fair to give them an advantage so they can finally level out with men. You may assume that men take more holidays and work for longer hours but say you were an employer. Men have a higher rate of being hired as there is still discrimination in the workplace and I would tend to think it was the woman that would take more holidays. It all comes down to who the person is. Back to equal opportunities, It is stated that women are now more likely to have a tertiary qualification than men, but women graduates will earn $2000 less than male graduates and $7500 less by the fifth year after graduation. Also regarding the divorce thus them receiving excessive compensation, if this means that women won't strive for job performance and promotion, there still exists this stereotype that women tend not to work and this scenario where women live off their man especially if she is a 'gold digger'. This further proves my point of the wage gap if you're saying that women live off their man and receive compensation if they divorce. We need to find a solution where women will not receive a large amount of compensation when they divorce and a motivation for them to go out and work. But in saying this, there is still a large amount of women that go out and work even if their man has disposable income. Yes they may have money to live with but they are still not receiving a decent salary for them to live off. Another fact regarding mid life for women is women retire with less than half the amount of savings in their superannuation accounts compared with men.
RGarland

Con

I find this debate very easy to finish for me. As I said, the wage gap doesn't exist. Now, I would like to address how you talked about the stereotypes if you will, of men working and women staying home. This is because work is a male function. Biologically, (and historically if I may) men are better suited to working, whether it is a white or blue collar job. All significant things ever in the history of humans have been invented by men. Cars, the wheel, steam power, everything huge has been men. In advance, men are much more physically dominant than women. 100 times out of 100 I would rather a male firefighter save me from a fire than a woman. However, women aren't any less valuable. They are just less valuable when competing for male functions. They have their own functions that they are astronomically better at then men, such as raising children. Its may be a feel-good answer that "We're all equal" but we are equal in WORTH, not in FUNCTION. Men and women are VERY different biologically, in terms of intelligence and strength. However, when competing for their own functions they are dominant and better.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCave_TheLight

Pro

The wage gap does exist as I posted before there is evidence to prove its existence. How about we go around to random families and ask whom out of the father and mother makes more you. I am sure we can both agree that the father will tend to make more and using the men were biologically made to work, this exactly proves my point that men dominate the workplace thus earning higher wages. Thank you for supporting my stereotype, my good friend. I understand that we are not all equal and this is why schemes like taxing women less will support them in the short run, but in the long run we need to devise something more elaborate.
RGarland

Con

The so called "evidence" you posted was a biased opinion website. Go to the ORIGINAL study for your country (for me, the study is from the Department of Labor) and look at THE ORIGINAL STATISTICS. You will see there is NO wage gap. On average, women go into fields in the Social Worker area. They may OVERALL get payed less, but if you compare them to MEN doing the same job they are payed EQUAL OR MORE. Stop lying about the wage gap and go to the original study. Also, you are right, your idea isn't a long term solution (if it is one at all) further proving my point that it is a bad idea, along with sexist (discriminating against men because of gender) and furthermore ridiculous idea. A tax break based on gender is not the solution.
Debate Round No. 3
TheCave_TheLight

Pro

TheCave_TheLight forfeited this round.
RGarland

Con

Rather than present a credible source, you blatantly don't respond to the debate. I believe my points have been made.
Debate Round No. 4
TheCave_TheLight

Pro

TheCave_TheLight forfeited this round.
RGarland

Con

As I have displayed, the idea of women paying less taxes is sexist and unnecessary. The wage gap doesn't exist and women don't need a tax break. My opponent was not able to defend his points and therefore his idea has been proven faulty. Please vote carefully.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RGarland 2 years ago
RGarland
this is about to get very controversial
Posted by mdmark 2 years ago
mdmark
Even though I agree with @TheCave_TheLight on having lower taxes, I believe it should be for both man and women. I would also like to state that a utopian society could be potentialy threatening for the economy and the morality of workers. When everyone is equal there will be no push to strive for the better or be better than the one next to you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
TheCave_TheLightRGarlandTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's idea of "equality" is flawed in itself. Giving half the population a head start just because they're girls isn't equality. Pro also forfeited a round, so conduct goes to con. Pro's arguments were mainly opinion based, whereas con used logical rebuttals to each of them.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
TheCave_TheLightRGarlandTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF