Working Women Laboring for Less on Labor Day; Working Women Ages 22 - 55

[Omaha Steve]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71482



Working Women Laboring for Less on Labor Day; New Book Demonstrates Working Women Ages 22 - 55 Pay Some of Highest Tax Rates in U.S.

8/30/2006 9:57:00 AM

To: National Desk, Labor Reporter

Contact: Joy Lutes, 703-362-0150, for National Center for Policy Analysis

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Married women who choose to work outside the home are likely to pay the highest marginal tax rates in the country according to a new book, "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws." In fact, women earning only modest wages often find themselves paying taxes at a rate double that of multi-billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

This is just one of many troubling facts contained in the book "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws," co- authored by renowned Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel and John Goodman and Celeste Colgan of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

"The entry of women into the workforce has been the greatest economic and sociological change in our society in the past 60 years," said Strassel. "Yet despite this momentous transformation, our public policy institutions have failed to adjust."

Two-earner families now constitute two-thirds of all married couples and women account for 59 percent of the American workforce. Yet according to the book, major economic institutions -- including tax law, labor law and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security and retirement policies -- reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse and by comparison punish every other arrangement.

"Women play a vital role, both at home and in the larger economic health of our country," said Leslie Morgan Steiner, author of "Mommy Wars" and a washingtonpost.com columnist. "Our public policy institutions need to drive reform that reflects this gender revolution and support the growing need for flexibility for our modern labor market."

The book highlights several examples of the high taxes and tough choices working women face. For example:

-- The first dollar a woman earns (assuming she earns less than her husband) is taxed at her husband's highest rate -- even if she only earns the minimum wage.

-- And even if her husband has maxed out on his Social Security payroll taxes, which are levied on the first dollar you earn up to a cap (currently $90,000), she must pay Social Security taxes on every dollar she earns (up to the same maximum). And she will get few, if any, extra benefits in return.

-- When all taxes and other costs associated with working are considered (including child care and other services previously provided by the working woman as a homemaker), a woman in a middle-income family can only expect to keep 35 cents out of every dollar she earns.

"This book has been a labor of love," Goodman explained. "By taking the time to profile actual working women, we were able to supplement the statistics and demonstrate how our antiquated public policies are hurting real women and their families."

The book provides a variety of solutions to address these inequities and make life easier for today's working families.

"In a free labor market, one would expect to find a wide array of work arrangements," Strassel stated. "Obviously, not every two-earner couple will want to each work 40-hour weeks. Unfortunately, rigid tax and employee benefits laws make alternative arrangements next to impossible for people who need health insurance, pensions and other benefits."

Other recommendations from the authors include initiating a benefit system that gives employees more choices and makes benefits portable as well as making the tax system fairer for two-earner households.

WHO:

-- Kim Strassel, columnist, Wall Street Journal

-- John Goodman, president, National Center for Policy Analysis

Interviews: The spokespeople are available for interviews

To access more information or obtain a copy of the book please visit http://www.leavingwomenbehind.com.

-----

[pooja]

1. And I'm going to have to say... Working is highly over rated.

It takes time away from your children... there should be at least one parent that can be at home with small children (at least until they are in school). And the duties at home are just as hard to keep up with. Sometimes I don't want to go home because I know its one more job to tackle (and I don't care how modern or progressive a man is, the jobs usually fall back on women).

I would be so happy if our family could make it on one income. Oh well..

[ieoeja]

2. This is so flawed...

... I hardly know where to start. I suppose the title. The story discusses married workers. Not unmarried working women. Nor is it really discussing the condition of only, or even primarily, women versus men.

And that is where I have the biggest issue with this column. "The first dollar a woman"

Or man

"earns (assuming she "

Or he

"earns less than her husband"

Or his wife

"is taxed at her husband's"

Or his wife's

"highest rate -- even if she"

Or he

"only earns the minimum wage."


--we now end The Life of Brian tribute --


This article is built on the assumption that the husband is the primary breadwinner. The wife is merely supplementing that income. And it's hardly that one sentence. In the very next sentence, "she", not "he", has little more to gain from social security by working when her, not his, spouse is already working.

Of course, the reality is much different. I am 44 years old and grew up on a farm a long, long way from the nearest city. When I was a child, a number of my friend's families included a housewife. But even then the majority did not. Currently I can not think of even one married couple I know with a non-working spouse.

In most of these their incomes are comparable, usually with the wife slightly edging the husband. In a few the wife makes a LOT more. In none does the husband make a lot more.

Is this a midwestern phenomenan? Are the working women on the coasts mostly a bunch of bored housefraus just looking for a way to pass the day?


And back to that social security statement. It's not only amazingly ignorant on the male-female dynamic, but in a country where the majority of marriages end in divorce, the claim of "few, if any, extra benefits," makes the ridiculous assumption that the couple will retire together. Or perhaps they are assuming the MAN will work himself into the grave leaving the LITTLE LADY with survivor benefits. Come to think of it, that probably is what they are assuming. It fits the tone of the rest of the piece.

Not to mention the fact that even if they do stay together, the extra benefits will only be "few" if the MAN's income exceeded the social security cap. Two people with typical incomes will benefit GREATLY from TWO social security checks instead of one.

As I said at the outset, I hardly know where to begin, or now end, with this crap article.