4 ms·
And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women.
by johncessna 4y ago
And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women.
- mjevans 4y agoAny tax should be based on fair standards and not arbitrary categories. I would hope this tax is based on E.G. the number of different fabrics in a garment, the complexity of construction steps / seam lengths relative to the utilized quantity of fabric (mm seam compared to mm^2 fabric), possibly excludes some considered basic nice things such as elastic support bands.
- tablespoon 4y ago> And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women. But of course if the headline and first paragraphs let the reader inaccurately assume it's the latter, you generate more outrage and more clicks. Honestly, for outrage-bait topics like this, the journalist isn't doing his job if he doesn't discover and explain the actual reason for the fact their reporting "'The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras,' Rampell writes," doesn't cut it.