« Don't just do something... | Main | After the market falls »

July 26, 2007



Maybe that is because the State had more time to expand before womens enfranchisement in Catholic countries?

I wonder how marriage would influence the argument you described. Voting for higher taxes on your spouse does not seem very sensible.


How does this bear on the removal of the franchise from those women who had it by the 1832 Great Reform Act?


UNESCO reckons that the simplest and most achievable way to expand nations' economies is to expand women's rights. [I accidentally mistyped that as "expand women's tights" -- a quite different tactic.]

Matt Munro

Surely taxes will always rise when women are empowered as they will start working and stop looking after their own parents and children. Women (at least those that have children) work fewer hours for fewer years, earn less, pay less tax and live longer, so are inherently economically dependent. In catholic countries that dependence is on the husbands pay packet, in non catholic countries (where the state usurps the church and the family) that dependence is on the welfare state which neccesarily expands to fill the gap. So the priest is replaced by the social worker, the vatican by the government, church charity with child tax credits.

I'm only just getting my head around pareto efficient, but I'm sure it isn't.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad