Research reveals gender inequity in tax and welfare systems

Research reveals gender inequity in tax and welfare systems
Credit: Australian National University

New research from The Australian National University (ANU) has provided the first in-depth look for 30 years at gender inequity Australia's tax and welfare systems, revealing the key factors contributing to Australia's gender pay gap.

The results also revealed that make up less than one quarter of the top 10 percent of income earners in Australia and that lifetime wages of women are less than two thirds those of men.

University education leads to higher earnings for women, although not as much as men. Women who do Certificate I-IV training are no better off than if they left school at Year 12, in sharp contrast to men.

The low lifetime earnings of women means that many never pay off their higher education HECS debts, because they do not reach the income threshold required to repay the loans.

The research, published on Thursday in a book titled Tax, Social Policy and Gender: Rethinking Equality and Efficiency, points to issues with current child care and retirement income policy as some of the reasons women continue to face financial inequality.

Professor Miranda Stewart, Director of the ANU Tax and Transfer Policy Institute and editor of the book, said women were still bearing the brunt of work in caring for young children, which was seeing them fall behind in their careers.

"Gender equality is not being achieved and this is partly a result of the current tax-transfer system. We see it particularly in relation to care obligations," Professor Stewart said.

"Although there has been some progress in the last decade with the introduction of broader child care and paid parental leave policy, we still have settings in place that embed gender bias in the system.

"Successive governments have abolished universal child payments that used to be a feature of Australia's welfare system.

"If we keep pushing that care burden to be borne more by woman than men, and are also pushing them back into the workforce, at some point it becomes unsustainable."

Professor Stewart suggest Australia looks to countries like France, who have formalised early childcare education for 3-4 year olds as a way to reduce the burden.

"Our research found that the quality of care is a priority when mothers are deciding whether to return to work," she said.

"A more formalised early education program frees up women to return to work earlier knowing that there is quality care.

"This is an important investment in Australia's future."

The research also confirmed that women faced a retirement-income gap, as is well known.

"It's important for equality to support the age pension and the public retirement system," Professor Stewart said.

"Women have more interrupted work patterns than men over the course of their career, so they can't accumulate as much super.

"They are also paid lower wages, and super is dependent on income levels.

"The reality is that private savings are not going to deliver adequate retirement income for a majority of the population - we can't just rely on super."


Explore further

Older women in Hawaii 57% more likely to live in poverty than older men

More information: Miranda Stewart. Tax, Social Policy and Gender: Rethinking equality and efficiency, (2017). DOI: 10.22459/TSPG.11.2017
Citation: Research reveals gender inequity in tax and welfare systems (2017, November 16) retrieved 25 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-11-reveals-gender-inequity-tax-welfare.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 16, 2017
So government programs create gender inequity. So why doesn't government treat men and woman the same?

People who choose to raise children will of course forego the ability to work in another job and the income associated with it. I don't see that as a problem, but as a choice.

Nor do I see it as government's job to invest taxpayer money towards payments to people raising children. Because first of all, taking money from people isn't nice, and second it's not fair to those who can't or don't have children. My understanding is that governments are instituted among men, to protect our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, not to conspire with those who want to have children to get others to pay for it. That's not protecting our lives, that's hurting our lives and pursuit of happiness for the benefit of others.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more