Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T14:33:32.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discriminatory System of Personal Taxation: Some Proposals for Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Margaret Wilkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The system of personal taxation in the United Kingdom is under attack because of the way in which it discriminates between taxpayers on the basis of sex and marital status. Criticisms are allied with proposals for reform, all of which are primarily concerned with the social effects of changing the system. In this paper the various proposals have been categorized under the heads ‘conservative’, ‘radical’, and ‘moderate’ according to the social implications of the changes they advocate. Each set of proposals is discussed and evaluated in terms of revenue costs and savings to the Exchequer and real costs and benefits to the community. The proposals of the recent Green Paper are categorized as conservative and discussed under that head.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , July 1982 , pp. 307 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bird, F. (1970), Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, Information Canada, Ottowa.Google Scholar
Clark, Colin (1958), ‘The Economics of Housework’, Tle Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Statistics, 20:2, 205–11.Google Scholar
Cmnd 8093 (1980), The Taxation of Husband and Wife, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Central Statistical Office (CSO) (1979), Social Trends, No. 9, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Central Statistical Office (CSO) (1981), National Income and Expenditure, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cullivier, Rolande (1979), ‘The Housewife: An Unjustified Financial Burden on the Community’, Journal of Social Policy, 8:1, 1–26.Google Scholar
Davie, Ronald, Butler, Neville, Goldstein, Harvey (1972), From Birth to Seven. A Report of the National Child Development Study, Longman, London.Google Scholar
Department of Employment (DE) (1980), New Earnings Survey, 04, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
EOC (1977), Income Tax and Sex Discrimination, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester.Google Scholar
EOC (1979), With All My Worldly Goods I thee Endow…Except my Tax Allowances. The response received by the EOC to its consultative document Income Tax and Sex Discrimination. Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. K. (1975), Economics and the Public purpose, Penguin, Harmondsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartle, Douglas G. (1968), ‘Taxation of the Incomes of Married Women’, a study prepared for the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, unpublished (cf. Bird, 1970, pp. 294–7).Google Scholar
Hughes, Martin, Mayall, Berry, Moss, Peter, Perry, Jane, Petrie, Pat, Pinkerton, Gill (1980), Nurseries Now, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Inland Revenue (IR) (1979), Inland Revenue Statistics 1979, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
James, Simon and Nobes, Christopher (1978), The Economics of Taxation, Philip Allan, Oxford.Google Scholar
Meade, (1978), The Structure and Reform of Direct Taxation, report of a Committee chaired by Professor Meade, J. E., The Institute of Fiscal Studies, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) (1978), General Household Survey 1978, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Margaret Wilkinson (1980), ‘Estimates of the Effects of Proposals for the Reform of the Personal Tax System in the U.K.’, mimeograph, University of Bradford.Google Scholar
WNAC (1979), Women and Tax, Report of the Committee on Women and Tax, chairman Shelagh Roberts, Women's National Advisory Committee of the Conservative Party, London.Google Scholar