“Here’s how the joint filing trap works: Under our tax system, higher incomes face higher marginal rates, meaning a couple’s combined income can push them into a higher tax bracket than if they filed separately. A married woman’s earnings, assuming she earns less than her husband, is taxed at the higher rate determined by her husband’s income. Joint filing essentially “stacks” her earnings on top of his for tax purposes.
To give a more concrete, albeit simplified, example: let’s say a woman, Kate, who earns $100,000, marries Jack, who earns $200,000, and they decide to file jointly. Together, their combined income of $300,000 would fall into the 24 percent tax bracket for joint filers. If Kate had filed individually, she would have been taxed in the 22 percent tax bracket, while Jack’s $200,000 would push him into the 32 percent bracket. Put simply, Kate’s earnings are taxed more when she jointly files with Jack.
Though married couples in the US have the option of filing separately, fewer than 7 percent actually do, as that almost always subjects their household to higher taxes than joint filing, in addition to causing them to lose other benefits.
These tax dynamics shape women’s behavior. Early in their careers, married young women often decide it makes more sense to quit working or go part-time, so their family can save on child care and pay less in tax.
Recent economic research has concluded that eliminating joint filing in the US would significantly increase married women’s workforce participation throughout their whole life.”
…
“America stands increasingly alone in maintaining this system. In the decades after World War II, most countries copied America’s joint filing approach, but by the 1970s and 1980s — both to advance gender equality and to boost overall employment — nearly all OECD countries reverted back to individual tax filing systems.
The empirical evidence from these reforms is remarkable: Sweden, which abandoned its joint filing system in 1971, saw significant increases in married women’s employment, as did Canada, which shifted to individual taxation in 1988. In a telling contrast, when the Czech Republic bucked the international trend and introduced joint taxation in 2005, the number of married women in the workforce went down.”
…
“The US system is particularly entrenched because health care and retirement systems have evolved for decades around joint family benefits. Married couples who file jointly, for example, typically qualify for lower health insurance premiums and more comprehensive coverage than those who file separately. Similarly, filing jointly gives married couples greater access to their spouse’s Social Security benefits.
Past decisions around work and family — including career gaps that erode skills and networks — have also created sticky “lock-in” effects that would be difficult for millions of couples to reverse, even if Congress abandoned joint filing tomorrow.
Still, more targeted reforms might work. During the Reagan administration, Congress briefly implemented a tax deduction for secondary earners, essentially reducing the tax penalty on wives by allowing couples to deduct 10 percent of the lower-earning spouse’s income, up to $3,000. Some economists have proposed bringing this idea back.
Michael Graetz, a tax professor emeritus at Columbia and Yale law schools, advocates both reinstating the secondary earner deduction and expanding child care subsidies. These changes would help protect secondary earners at a crucial career juncture, when child-rearing responsibilities often force women to reduce their working hours for financial reasons.
Tax policy might not be the first thing on the agenda for most feminist activists, but the case for rethinking joint filing is strong. As De Nardi’s research demonstrates, joint filing still poses a major barrier to women’s participation in the workforce, even for younger and more educated women.
“Over time, political inertia and the complexity of reforming entrenched tax systems have likely contributed to its persistence,” she said. “Policymakers and the public may also underestimate the long-term costs.””
“According to a new investigation from The Marshall Project, hospitals are giving women drugs during labor and then reporting them to child welfare services when they later test positive for those same drugs. These cases are one of the more maddening side effects of an out-of-control drug war combined with strict mandatory reporting laws.”
“It wasn’t even until 1977 that women in Western Germany became free to legally seek jobs without their husband’s permission. The country still has a tax structure that penalizes married couples if both individuals work full time.”
“In a dissenting opinion, Lumpkin argued that Aguilar’s marijuana use should have been illegal because “only [she] has a permit to use it, not her baby.” Thus, “the baby’s exposure to [Aguilar’s] use and possession of marijuana, a Schedule I drug, is illegal.”
Judge David B. Lewis takes up a similar theme in his dissent, writing that “a medical marijuana license is certainly not a legal authorization to share, transfer, or distribute marijuana to others who have no license, especially those for whom its use or possession is unauthorized by law.” And “who could really doubt that a licensed marijuana consumer would face legal consequences for willfully sharing, distributing, or permitting the unlicensed ingestion of marijuana by children for whose welfare they are responsible?””
…
“Fetal personhood is most often invoked as a justification for banning abortion. But it also can be used to justify all sorts of restrictions on pregnant women or criminal penalties for those who do anything that the state says isn’t in a fetus’ best interests. It’s grounds for everything from charges against women who do drugs while pregnant (something Rowland generally endorses, writing that “an expectant mother who exposes her unborn child to illegal methamphetamine could be convicted of child neglect”) to punishing a pregnant woman for getting shot because she put herself in harms’ way.”
“Trump’s first-term record on reproductive rights is clear: His three Supreme Court picks led directly to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. But as that record has become a political liability, the former president has been evasive about how far he’d go to curtail abortion access in a post-Roe United States.”
“Modern neopatriarchy begins from the opposite fear; the concern is not communist collectivism, but liberal individualism.
The neopatriarchs believe we live in an age where people prioritize self-actualization and fulfillment above all else. Young adults, they argue, live in extended adolescence, lost in some combination of video games, drugs, and casual sex; as they age, raw hedonism is replaced by single-minded foci on money and career. According to neopatriarchs, this liberal social model fails men and women alike, funneling them toward a spiritually empty existence that all but guarantees disappointment and depression, and it fails society by discouraging the production of children who are quite literally required if the country is to have a future. (Immigration, needless to say, is not seen as an acceptable solution.)
The solution, for neopatriarchs, is to return to the past. Men need to rediscover the old John Wayne vision of masculinity, making traditional male gender markers (including acting as fatherly provider) into defining aspects of their identity. The state should play a role in encouraging this reversion, primarily by changing policy to cultivate “masculine” virtues and incentivizing marriage and child-rearing.
In his recent book Manhood, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley urges men to embrace strength and stoicism as routes for self-improvement, calling on them to take on the roles of “warrior” and “builder” in their everyday lives. The psychologist Jordan Peterson has long dispensed similar advice, helping turn him into a conservative guru. In his forthcoming book Dawn’s Early Light, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts argues that contraceptive technologies “break the most basic functioning elements of civilization” by liberating individuals to have consequence-free sex out of wedlock. Vance, who wrote the forward to Roberts’s book, has mused about eliminating no-fault divorce for similar neopatriarchal reasons.
Neopatriarchy can be distinguished from straight-up patriarchy primarily through its treatment of women. Unlike some Christian fundamentalists or alt-right scribblers, neopatriarchs do not assert that women are obligated to be homemakers as a result of divine commandment or natural law. All they insist on explicitly is that women have lots of children, and that choosing to focus primarily on raising said children is no worse than having a career.
It’s obvious why liberals and leftists would have problems taking this seriously. If Americans are supposed to be having more kids, and American men are supposed to be more traditionally masculine, then who’s supposed to be doing the work of raising all of these kids? The answer, of course, is wives (as it’s certainly not immigrants). Neopatrarichy may not explicitly call for a reversal of the feminist revolution, but that’s basically what it’s going for.”
“Like Carlson, Vance had once opposed Donald Trump, and like Carlson, he had transformed into a prominent Trump supporter and a rabid participant in the culture wars. “We are effectively run in the country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs,” he told Carlson, “by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” He went on to name Kamala Harris (and Pete Buttigieg, and AOC) as his prime examples of the childless leaders who should be excluded from positions of power.”
…
“Vance appears to be a decent family man — someone who supports traditional conservative values, and is even willing to buck conventional GOP norms by supporting strong pro-family policies. But a quick perusal of his thoughts on women and gender reveal some unusual opinions that lie outside the American mainstream, beyond a stray comment about cat ladies.
Vance is staunchly opposed to abortion, and has suggested that it is wrong even in cases of rape and incest. He has compared the evil of abortion to that of slavery, and opposed the Ohio ballot measure ensuring the right to abortion in 2023. He also was one of only 28 members of Congress who opposed a new HIPAA rule that would limit law enforcement’s access to women’s medical records. He has promoted Viktor Orban’s pro-natalist policies in Hungary, which offer paybacks to married couples that scale up along with the number of children (a new Hungarian Constitution that banned gay marriage went into effect in 2012, so these benefits only serve “traditional” couples). Vance opposes same-sex marriage. During his 2022 Senate campaign, he suggested the sexual revolution had made divorce too easy (people nowadays “shift spouses like they change their underwear”), arguing that people in unhappy marriages, and maybe even those in violent ones, should stay together for their children. His campaign said such an insinuation was “preposterous,” but you can watch the video yourself and be the judge.”