Gender Equality and Taxation: The Question of the Childcare Expenses Deduction (Égalité des genres : fiscalité et ‘garde d’enfants’ s’accordent-elles au féminin ?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: Greater neutrality of the tax system is now sought in the development of tax laws and in their interpretation. But this pressure toward neutrality sometimes obscures gender equality considerations, such as women’s reproductive activities, which most often include the responsibility for caring and educating the next generation. Despite the neutral context in which tax policy evolves, it is difficult to ignore the differential effect these policies can have on men and women. On this issue, the measures adopted to compensate for child care expenses are amongst the most criticized aspects of Canadian taxation. This differentiation is not necessarily voluntary and can be caused by historical and persistent inequalities. Thus, in budgetary matters and particularly in terms of fiscal policies, this presumption of neutrality must be constantly questioned. Gender-based analysis is often the proposal put forward to study these differentiated effects. This article is a reflection that aims to contribute to the dialogue already well underway by several Canadian researchers on gender-based analysis. Like other authors, it seeks to broaden fiscal policy considerations to other consideration than monetary impact of the measures such as the possible detrimental effects on the questions of identity and social construction of the role of the women as well as the possibility that these measures “invisibilise” power relations within the couple. French Abstract: Une plus grande neutralite du regime fiscal est aujourd’hui recherchee dans l’elaboration des lois fiscales et dans leur interpretation. Mais la pression fiscale occulte parfois certaines considerations concernant l’egalite des genres, comme les activites liees a la reproduction feminine, qui comprennent le plus souvent celles visant a prendre soin de la prochaine generation et a l’eduquer. Malgre le contexte de neutralite dans lequel evoluent les politiques fiscales, il est difficile de nier l’effet differencie de celles-ci en fonction du genre. Sur cette question, le regime fiscal des frais de garde d’enfants est l’un des aspects les plus critiques de la fiscalite au Canada. Sans etre volontaire, cette differenciation peut etre causee par des inegalites historiques et persistantes. Ainsi, en matiere budgetaire et particulierement en matiere de politiques fiscales, cette presomption de neutralite doit sans cesse etre remise en question. L’analyse comparative entre les sexes (gender mainstreaming) est souvent la proposition mise de l’avant pour etudier ces effets differencies. Le present article est une reflexion qui vise a contribuer au dialogue deja bien entame par plusieurs chercheurs canadiens sur l’analyse comparative entre les sexes. A l’instar d’autres auteurs, il cherche a elargir cette analyse, souvent limitee aux impacts financiers, pour y inclure d’autres aspects pouvant influer sur l’egalite tels que les questions d’identite, de construction sociale du role de la femme, d’acces au marche du travail, de meme que sur la possibilite que ces mesures rendent invisibles les relations de pouvoir a l’interieur du couple.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".