Good God. Where to begin-- well you could make the same case for taxing black people or Asians or whomever else less or more categorically just because *on average* they make less/more than some other group. Which group is to be considered the reference point? WASP males? Do they have to be heterosexual too? If a study showed that the income of gay men with red hair were more "elastic" than that of straight Asian females, would that mean that gay red-headed men have a claim to a lesser tax rate? I can't believe (or maybe I can) that an Ivy League school would still be touting this nonsense. But then again, the Ivy League is not the font of excellence in academia that it used to be. Next, this article assumes that men and women live together in married couples. That is not the case as a general rule anymore. Half of the adult US population is unmarried, most living alone or in group housing with friend or housemates, and at any given point roughly 30% of marriages in the US are headed for breakup within 5 years; 50% don't last 20 years. The "quaint" belief that Ma and Pa America sit around at home in the evenings after Ma has slaved away all day in the home while Pa has had his work done at 5:00 is total HOOEY. Well I could go on, but you get the idea. Oh yeah, I do have to mention the whole Equal Protection thing too-- but I guess these "Harvard scholars" haven't gotten around to reading the Constitution yet.