Men, on average, earn more than women. Hence they pay more taxes than women do:

The pressure to cut taxes comes from those who pay relatively more in taxes, and benefit relatively less from government spending.

Men account for about half of those filing tax returns in Canada, but 59 percent of taxable income is earned by men. Because the income tax system is progressive, higher income earners pay a relatively higher percentage of their income in tax. That's why two-thirds of federal and provincial income tax revenues are collected from men.

The pressure for income tax cuts comes primarily from men, because men pay more, on average, in income taxes than women do.

Not all taxes have the same kind of gender split as the income tax. Men actually pay less in employment insurance premiums, relative to their income, than women do. That's because employment insurance premiums are regressive - they max out at a certain income level, so they are a lower percentage of income for high income individuals, and men make up the bulk of Canada's high earners. Also, EI premiums are only paid by employees, and more of men's incomes comes in the form of business and professional income.

Men might be willing to pay higher taxes than women if they felt disproportionately advantaged by government spending. Some types of government spending, like infrastructure or military spending, create jobs in male-dominated industries. Yet the bulk of government spending goes to health care, education, and support for people in need. Drawing again from Canada's taxation statistics, which summarizes the information reported on people's tax returns - and thus represents pre-tax amounts of benefits -



Women live longer than men, hence collect their Old Age Security pension (OAS) for longer than men do. The Universal Child Care Benefit is usually paid to women. Maternity and parental leave, combined with women's greater risk of poverty, mean EI and other (anti-poverty, income support) benefits go slightly more to women than to men.

A salaried employee with a stay-at-home spouse earning $150,000 or $200,000 a year pays a good percentage of his income in tax, but he is unlikely to benefit disproportionately from government spending. I use "his" and "he" advisedly - the majority of people fitting this description are men. That's the gender politics of taxation, the gender politics of support for income splitting, and the source of serious tension between the federal and provincial governments.

The federal government is seriously contemplating allowing families with children to split their incomes. This would cost billions in tax revenue, and no serious economist argues that it would have benefits in terms of economic efficiency, or do anything to reduce poverty or overall income inequality (although some argue income splitting is fair). The federal government can afford to give away this kind of tax revenue because it has unlimited taxation powers, and limited spending responsibilities. Provincial governments pay for health care and support for the poor and vulnerable - the spending areas that are set to grow in a serious way with population aging. Yet the provinces have a limited revenue raising capacity, because their tax base is relatively more mobile - see, e.g. Kevin Milligan and Michael Smart's work.

That we as a nation can contemplate the kind of tax cuts that income splitting would involve when the national finances - taking provincial and federal governments together - are in such precarious shape, boggles the mind.

But that's the gender politics of taxation.