Going on the Today Programme

IMG_3403As someone who is dedicated to feminist economics I understand that this is (wrongly) considered by most to be quite a niche subject and will rarely warrant discussion on national radio programmes. So you can imagine my delight when I was asked to appear on BBC Radio 4’s the Today Programme to discuss this very issue.

It was all thanks to Yvette Cooper who in her leadership speech in Manchester had said we must organise the family in a feminist manner, so Today thought they would get some of us on to discuss it. You can listen here until it expires – I’m endeavouring to permalink. I’m on in the last 10 minutes of the programme.

 

 

Feminist economics at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

I was delighted to be asked to come and discuss feminist economics at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York. I did two sessions – the first was a general talk about the ways in which gender interacts with the economy, you can see that session captured in the video below. The second was a session for the policy staff who asked a lot of tough questions! We looked more specifically at some of the measures the Women’s Budget Group advocate for in order to create a more equal society.

Great to be up in York with you all!

Porn! At King Alfred School, London

I was excpornited to go to King Alfred school and discuss pornography and sexting. I held an assembly on the issue, which was a bit tricky, but the students were very receptive and we ended up having a good chat.

We examined what porn is, why we might watch it and how we can compare sex in pornography to sex in real life. I tried to make it as unjudgemental as possible –  I don’t think you can engage young people in issues like this by telling them something is wrong.  We did examine some stories of ex adult movie actors who talked about their struggles and we also talked about orgasms in pornography and how real they were.

The issue of sexting is more black and white – there are many laws that prohibit the sending of sexual images to other people. Releasing pictures of yourself naked can be a minefield and very few young people (or adults!) are prepared for the consequences if these pictures make there way on to the internet which they very often do.

All in all, a fascinating morning!

 

 

Talking about feminist economics on the Weekly Economics Podcast

I had an excellent time last week joining the Weekly Economics Podcast as their first ever guest. This week I was talking about the Women’s Budget Group response to the Budget 2015 and what ‘social infrastructure’ really means. I’ll be sure to link to the podcast once it’s published.podcast @ NEF 20150410

Resist! Against a precarious future

I was really delighted to be part of this book. I’ve written an essay on how care work makes the world go round and it’s part of this collection. We’re crowd funding for the £2k publishing costs to get it out as a free e-book and although we have some of the costs covered by the publisher we still need a bit of money. Here is the blurb, please consider giving some money there are some awesome perks!:resist

Resist! is the third book in the Radical Future series: publications written and edited by young* activists, journalists and artists calling for radical alternatives to the status quo. We’re interested in social justice, liberation and collectivity, and the ways young people are organising to create change. If you think mainstream politics is a dismal failure and you still have hope we can do better, this book is for you.

The first book in the series, Radical Future: Politics for the next generation, was written before the 2010 election (remember back when things were bad, but we had no idea how much worse they were going to get?). The follow up, Regeneration, was published in 2012, and received over 50,000 downloads.

Resist! includes chapters about youth activist movements, re-envisioning work, feminist economics, direct action against the housing crisis, alternative media and organising after the London riots, from contributors like feminist campaigner Polly Trenow, activist Wail Qasim and openDemocracy journalist Adam Ramsay. It is edited by journalist and openDemocracy editor Ray Filar.

We’re really excited about this next book and can’t wait to get it published.

But to get there, we need your help.

Like the first two books in the series, we want to make Resist! as accessible as possible by also offering it as a free ebook (as well as a paperback version). But ironically, publishing a free ebook is expensive. The publisher, Lawrence & Wishart, is covering most of the costs, but we need help with the final £2000. And we need it sharpish to get it out before the general election. So that’s why we’re asking you to donate. Your money will go towards typesetting, copy editing, proofing, and promotion.

We’ve put together some amazing rewards. As well as beautiful merchandise designed by our talented cover artist Yoav Segal, we’re harnessing the talents, pub-debating skills and canal boats of our contributors. We’re offering prints that you can put on your wall, and tote bags with our cover art on. You’ll also find a great selection of workshops, excursions and experimental fun, all there to encourage you to part with your cash.

If we get more money than our target, we’ll divide it up to pay everyone who has given their time for free. Anything over that we’ll put towards the next book in theRadical Future series. You can read the first two books in the series right now. For free!

The full list of contributing authors to Resist! Against a Precarious Future are:

Sarah AllanCraig BerryMatthew CheesemanRhiannon ColvinSean FarmeloRay FilarRobbie GillettDeborah GraysonNoel HatchIzzy KoksalBen Little, Wail QasimAdam RamsayNiki Seth-SmithMike ShawPolly TrenowMatt Adam Williams.

*in some cases, at heart

 

Adventures at Unison Women’s Conference

Last month I was delighted to be invited to present at Unison Women’s Conference in

unwc15Southport on behalf of the Women’s Budget Group. Last year I also presented at the Local Government Conference and there was a lot of enthusiasm for my analysis of local government spending and the impact on gender equality. I also gave a similar talk to the Essex Feminist Collective who were the ones who recommended me to speak at Unison.

unwc15 2

It was a fascinating morning as the caucus passed motions. Much to my delight

one of these motions was a call to continue to work closely with the Women’s Budget Group on the ongoing impacts of austerity on women, which was an

excellent start to the day.

In the afternoon I was presenting in the main conference hall which was slightly terrifying. We first looked at some of the problems with economic theory which is predicated on the household male-breadwinner model and does not have any means for understanding how resources are split within the household. Secondly there is a total failure by mainstream economics to take into account the impact of unpaid care work. We then moved to local government and looked at equality impact assessments. These can be quite dry but they are a good tool to show how the basics of gender budget analysis works.

It was a fantastic day and I am looking forward to working with Unison more closely this year.

.

Amiel and Melburn Trust Residential Weekend

Slide from Amiel and Melburn Turst Residential Weekend

I was delighted to be invited to present at the Amiel and Melburn Trust weekend where campaigners, activists and thinkers were brought together to exam contemporary capitalism and the economic crisis.

The Trust was founded in 1980 by Norman Melburn and named for his friend and fellow Marxist, the lawyer Barry Amiel. The general objectives of the Trust are to advance public education, learning and knowledge in all aspects of (a) the philosophy of Marxism (b) the history of socialism, and (c) the working class movement.

I talked about capitalism and gender inequality and had a great response to my talk. Gender often gets left out conversations of the economy I was glad to be there and hope to work with the Amiel and Melburn Trust again soon.

The transferable tax allowance for married couples: another blow for women?

My article on behalf of the Women’s Budget Group for Society Central. First published here. Photo – hands with wedding rings by Greg Kendall-Ball shared under a creative commons license.

———————————————————————————————

On announcing the Transferable Tax Allowance, David Cameron said: I believe in marriage, I believe marriage should be recognised in the tax system. I see this as….a start of something I would like to extend further.” 

wedding ringsThe TTA (or Marriage Tax Allowance) is a scheme that allows the high-earning partner of married couples (or those in a civil partnership) to use some of their low/non-earning partners’ tax-free allowance.

The move promises to reward couples that have taken a vow of commitment to each other but on closer inspection the policy is deeply flawed. Leaving aside the morality of using fiscal policy to shape interpersonal relationships and the radical departure this represents from the Conservative policy of independent taxation, the benefits of this scheme are frankly, unequal.

New analysis from the Women’s Budget Group using data provided by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that, far from helping families, the beneficiaries of the TTA are actually 85% male. Women are more likely to be the low-earning partner in couples for reasons including (but not limited to) the fact they tend to work part-time or not at all to care for children or relatives. It is mostly men who are the high-earning partner in couples and, therefore, men who will benefit from this tax break.

Proponents have argued that a tax break for one partner is saving for all the family. But the idea that an individual’s income is split equally with their partner is questionable.

Financial power dynamics between couples are complex and often unequal. There is little evidence to suggest that men split their income equally with their spouses. In fact available evidence suggests that men are more likely than women to use their income for personal spending. This gendered tax relief is therefore unlikely to benefit the rest of the household.

It is important not to overstate the impact of this policy, as the rewards are relatively meagre. High earners will be able to transfer £1000 of their annual personal allowance of tax-free income between themselves, as long as neither pays income tax at more than the basic rate. This will mean the high earner in eligible couples will pay up to £200 less tax a year or around £4 a week.

Given Cameron’s commitment to extending the tax allowance in the future, this announcement is only the thin end of the wedge. Yet increasing this type of tax allowance will only create further economic disparity between men and women and put increasing pressure on low earners, namely women, to remain unemployed or in part-time work.

The limitations also mean that very few married couples will actually benefit. If both partners earn over the income tax threshold it won’t apply. The poorest families (where both partners don’t earn enough to pay tax) also won’t benefit, even though they are most in need of support.

Moreover, only 18 per cent of families with children will be eligible, calling into question the Conservative pledge to do “everything [they] can to support families during tough times”. This is because of the eligibility criteria outlined above, but also because many couples with children are not married including the 2 million single parents in Britain today.

Finally as couples will need to apply to receive the their tax allowance, this automatically reduces uptake for the sizeable proportion of those who don’t know or don’t know how, to claim.

Stranger still, this policy represents a radical departure from Conservative party ideology.

Prior to the 1980s, a married woman’s income was treated as her husband’s. Following a consultation on the matter, the Conservatives (along with all the other major parties) rejected a transferable tax allowance, opting for independent taxation instead. The move made sense.

Marriage has no financial need in and of itself and independent taxation is better for women’s economic autonomy. So why this sudden shift? Few couples will actually benefit from the TTA and those who do, will receive only a token amount.

The £700 million that it will cost to fund the TTA could be used instead to tackle some more urgent social needs. For example, this figure could be used to make up for two of the four years for which child benefit has been frozen or raised by less than inflation.

Alternatively, the money could be used to reinstate child benefit as a universal benefit for all children. The higher income charge was projected to take £690 million from parents in 2013/14, almost exactly the same amount as would be paid out to married couples through TTAs from 2015/16.

Rather than further reducing the incentive for women to return to work, the money could also be spent on improving childcare, the cost and availability of which remains one of the biggest hurdles for women returning to the workforce after childbirth.

Only £200 million – about one third of the amount being spent on TTAs – would be needed to extend the proposed additional childcare help in Universal Credit to all, rather than restricting it to those earning above the tax threshold, as currently proposed.

Sue Himmelweit of the Women’s Budget Group said that it was:

both morally suspect and almost certainly counterproductive to bribe people into marriage.”

And given how few married couples will actually benefit from the programme, this can only be seen as Cameron’s attempt to appeal the social conservatives of his party.

Yet the announcement of the Transferable Tax Allowance in the Autumn Financial Statement passed with little remark from either public or press. Perhaps it was seen as small fry compared to the other headline-grabbing commitments of continued austerity or perhaps the public doesn’t see it as a threat.

Either way, if this really is the thin end of the wedge, we should be concerned. The government would be better off helping the most vulnerable in our society rather than using tax to reward one type of living arrangement over another.