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!

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

 

More councillors being sexist!

polly guardian

The report I wrote for the Fawcett Society really took off. I had my first appearance on Woman’s Hour, which for a professional feminist is about as good as it gets.

It also appeared in the Sunday Times,The ArgusThe GuardianThe Yorkshire Post and The Belfast Telegraph and the Metro.

You can read a copy of the report here.

Colchester Labour respond to #Vote4Equality questions

colchester labour partyIf elected would we do an equality impact assessment on all local budget cuts on women?

First and foremost I would say that we would not be looking at making cuts that impacted directly on any one group so the idea that we would be making local budget cuts to women directly is difficult to imagine. However if put in a situation where we had no option but to make cuts to any service, an EIA would always be undertaken.

If elected will you defend specialist women only services eg rape crisis centres and women’s refuges?
Absolutely – do we need to say more? Cuts to specialist services such as these need to be avoided at all costs. We will continue to work with the PCC in order to keep VAWG at the top of crime agenda.

If elected how will you improve representation of women on your council?
As a group we are aware that women can often be put off politics and that we do not have the proportionate representation in local politics. We have made a commitment to engaging people in politics at a much earlier age and that would include working with girls and encouraging them to think of politics as something they should/ could/would want to be involved in. We will work with our Equalities Officer and local women’s groups to identify ways in which we can make councils more inclusive.

If elected what will you do to re-open Sure Start centre that have closed and defend the one’s that already exist.
Sure Start Centres are funded by the Conservative run County Council and we are acutely aware that Essex County Council is looking to make budget savings of 2.5 million pounds in this area. We will continue to influence any decisions where at all possible and will campaign with families when fighting to keep services open. Fundamentally however we feel that these services will only be saved with a change of national administration.

If elected how will you ensure that women benefit from strategic/enterprise/partnership funding?
The Labour group acknowledges that women are the more likely to be users of public services and as such the current cuts are disproportionately effecting women (and in turn families) We are committed to defending public services and to working with unions and other organisations who also believe in the public sector.

If elected will you undertake a gender pay audit in your local council?
Yes, we agree that this would be a positive move.

If elected how will you improve your councils engagement with local women and women’s organisations.
We will work with our Equality Officer to look all possible ways of maximising engagement, we will work with local unions and their Women’s Officers, we will access appropriate training in order to our knowledge around these issues. We will engage with local women’s organisations to seek representation in all areas that effect women.

What will you do to tackle sexism and sex discrimination in your council.
We will acknowledge that it exists!
We have robust policies which seek to minimise any opportunities for such behaviour. We will also ensure that our policies do not disadvantage women
We will take all such accusations seriously .
We feel that sexism is far less likely to take place in a workplace where women are properly represented throughout the workforce and in positions of power so we would seek to get rid of any imbalances that exist in his area.

Podcast on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace

5015254002_0159f2fe31_zI was delighted to talk to Freelance Bristol Mum, Faye Dicker for her regular podcast about the work I do at Maternity Action on raising awareness of pregnancy discrimination.

You can listen to the podcast here.

It is estimated that around 60,000 women a year are forced out of their jobs just for being pregnant or on maternity leave and although the government have announced £1 million fund to research this issue, there is plenty the government can be doing to end pregnancy discrimination now. This includes removing the £1200 it costs women to take a discrimination claim to tribunal, ensure fully and sustainably funded legal aid and advice services so women know their rights and reinstate the questionnaire procedure which allowed companies and individuals to determine if discrimination had taken place. Read more in Maternity Action’s report ‘Overdue: A plan to tackle pregnancy discrimination now‘.

If you’ve experience bad treatment at work because you were pregnant or on maternity leave, tell your story anonymously to the When I Had My Baby campaign run my yours truly!

Photo of Licia Ronzulli, Italian MEP shared under Creative Commons by the European Parliament

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.

Women left behind in the Autumn Statement

women against the cutsThis blog first appeared on the TUC’s Touchstone Blog and is written on behalf of the Women’s Budget Group.

This morning’s Autumn Statement felt rather too familiar. Not only because the headlines were leaked to the press in advance but also because, once again, women were left behind.

Osborne congratulated himself on the indicators of recovery, but at the Women’s Budget Group we asked, recovery for who?

Unemployment is falling, yet women’s unemployment has fallen by less than 4% since 2011, half as fast as men’s (9%). Real earnings are not recovering; instead they have continued to fall for both men (0.4 % for gross hourly earnings) and for women (0.7%). As the cost of living rises and progress on the gender pay gap stalls, inequality only becomes further entrenched.

Yet again the Chancellor’s announcement focused on investment in physical infrastructure and said nothing about care services for children, elderly and disabled people. Investment in social infrastructure is just as important for the long-term health of the country and the further £3 billion cuts in public spending will continue to hurt women the most.

The £700 million married couples tax allowance would be better spent elsewhere. Only 18% of families with children will benefit from this measure. This money will go to the higher earner (the vast majority of whom are men) which will worsen income inequality within married couples.

Taxation policy is no place for moralistic judgements and the tax allowance will not help Britain’s poorest families: couples where both partners earn below the basic tax rate or lone parents (92% of whom are women). What’s more it appears this announcement is only the thin end of the wedge as Osborne promises to extend this tax allowance in the future.

In September 2013 the Women’s Budget Group argued for Plan F – economic recovery for gender equality but this financial statement does nothing towards that.

George Osborne claims Britain’s economy is on the up, but with low wages, spiraling costs of living and a dramatic decrease in social security, whose boat is lifted by the rising tide?

Women are feeling the pinch more than most, and the Autumn Financial Statement does little to alleviate the pain.

Osborne’s recovery is an illusion, women still feel the pinch

Women’s Budget Group press release on the Autumn Financial Statementwomen & economic recovery cartoon

George Osborne claims Britain’s economy is on the up, but people are still struggling to cope with low wages, a rising cost of living, and a dramatic decrease in social security. Women are feeling the pinch more than most, and the Autumn Financial Statement does little to alleviate the pain.

Women’s unemployment has fallen by less than 4% since 2011, half as fast as men’s (9%). Real earnings are not recovering; instead they have continued to fall for both men (0.4 % for gross hourly earnings) and for women 0.7%. Progress on closing the gender pay gap has also stalled.

Yet again the Chancellor has focussed only on investment in physical infrastructure and said nothing about investing in care services for children, elderly, and disabled people. Making long-term plans investment in social infrastructure is just as important for the long-term health of the country. The cuts in spending continue with a further £3 billion over the next three years.

The £700m given away on the married couples tax allowance would be better spent on elsewhere. Only 18% of families with children will benefit from this measure. This money will go to the higher earner, the vast majority of whom are men, which will worsen income inequality within married couples.

Professor Diane Elson, chair of the Women’s Budget Group, said: “The chancellor talks of recovery but it to doesn’t feel like it to most people with real earnings still falling. The Autumn Financial Statement does nothing to ensure a recovery that supports gender equality”

The WBG’s Sue Himmelweit said: “Transferable Tax Allowances are a bad idea and we concerned to hear the Chancellor plans to build on them. Money given away on the married couples tax allowance would be better spent on real social priorities. One of these would be to extend help with unaffordable childcare costs to the lowest earners among families on Universal Credit, a measure that would cost just £200m.”

 

ENDS.

For further comment, please contact:

Sue Himmelweit : 07963951333

Jerome De Henua: 07860556254

The Women’s Budget Group is a network of over 200 academics and activists. For more information, please visit www.wbg.org.uk or contact Amy Watson (admin@wbg.org.uk) WBG Coordinator

NOTE: An in-depth analysis of the impact of the Transferable Tax Allowances will be published by Women’s Budget Group on Saturday 7th December 2013.