Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Joan Smith: What if women paid less tax?

64 replies

garlicnutter · 01/09/2011 20:42

Sorry if this has already been posted; I did look but my lenses are playing up ...

I really enjoyed reading this Independent article in the sunshine today!

Final summary:
Gender pay gap is still 21%.
Ms Smiths' proposal:
either
force companies in the public and private sector to be completely transparent about how much they pay all their employees
or
have a "woman discount" on fixed costs such as council tax, utility bills, national insurance and so on. Twenty per cent is a nice round figure

Certainly gave me a "Now why didn't I think of that?!" moment Grin

Am just off to post supportive comments on her article.

OP posts:
LilBB · 02/09/2011 16:41

I think you will find I work the same hours as the male colleague who got the new job. It was assumed I may need time off/finish early if my children are ill/need picking up from childcare.

Also you can't just assume that all executive roles are important an require someone full time. You don't know what they do or how long it takes to do it.

edd1337 · 02/09/2011 16:41

Work less hours you earn less money, simples

Original poster
garlicnutter · 02/09/2011 16:38

So should 21% of the man's salary be paid direct to his child-carer?

OP posts:
edd1337 · 02/09/2011 16:32

Of course, and more work = more money so we're back to where we started

Original poster
garlicnutter · 02/09/2011 16:29

Sorry, I didn't mean the man's employer hires bot A and B, I meant that A's employer gets the benefit of B because she makes A available for more work.

OP posts:
Original poster
garlicnutter · 02/09/2011 16:28

I suppose you could get round this by hiring 2 people, but why would someone work more for less? ... when you can have Person A and his partner, Person B, who works for less in order to facilitate him having a family without the responsibilities that go with it.

OP posts:
edd1337 · 02/09/2011 16:27

Yes, that's what I meant. Same message though

LittleWhiteWolf · 02/09/2011 16:26

Garlicnutter said everything I tried and failed to write in my attempts to reply to Edd.

Edd, why bother with Person A and Person B? Clearly you mean Man and Woman. Hmm

happybubblebrain · 02/09/2011 16:23

Brilliant.

edd1337 · 02/09/2011 16:22

Because that's the way it works. Think about it, you're a manager/CEO or whatever and you want some help to run a flourishing company

Person A is reliable and works 9 - 17 5 days a week and hardly ever has time off
Person B can only work 9 - 15, 3 days a week and is quite unreliable because Person B sometimes cannot come to work due to the children being unwell

You will choose Person A

I suppose you could get round this by hiring 2 people, but why would someone work more for less?

Original poster
garlicnutter · 02/09/2011 16:16

edd, your post at 15:42 highlights why the stucture of most businesses is inherently sexist. Women can't ALL decide not to have babies. ONLY women can have babies. Therefore, if anybody at all wants a family, women are going to have to get time off for their pregnancy and birth.

Try and think outside the box a little - Why do men not take as much time out of work for child-related needs? Would it be because they think they'll be perceived as not taking their job seriously? Yet somebody has to fetch the DC if they're sick at school, take them to the doctor's, go to the carol concert, etc, etc. Women do that. Consequently, they're perceived as not taking their job seriously.

By logical deduction, then, being responsible for children means you're not a good promotion prospect. And yet, men want families. If they're fit for promotion, does that mean they're not fit to take care of their children?

I suggest that business, the way it's currently structured, says Yes.

OP posts:
edd1337 · 02/09/2011 15:48

LilBB if you are not flexible enough then that means the company must use time and money to make it work for you. Why do that when it's easier to pay a man to do it? Executives have an important role so full time hours are needed for the company to succeed. You can't just do an important job part-time, it just doesn't work like that

LilBB · 02/09/2011 15:10

I work for a company with graded pay scales. So I earn the same as men doing the same grade job as me. However I've been passed over for a new job for not being 'flexible' enough (having babies), been treated differently when taking maternity related hospital appointments than male colleagues who have taken hospital appointments, a male colleague who was ill was put on reduced hours on full pay but I've been forced to take maternity leave early as my pregnancy illness is causing me to struggle to work. I also know that there are no executive jobs at the company that can officially be done part time thus ruling out many working mothers from furthering their careers.

So if all the data was released for this company it would look like there is no pay gap but in reality there is. It's just done by keeping most women at a low grade.

LittleWhiteWolf · 02/09/2011 15:05

Edd, are you 100% sure of that? Have you compared your wage with every woman and man you have worked with?

Besides, the fact that you have always been paid the same as women does not mean that a paygap does not exist, it just means that you have the good fortune never to have experienced it. Mind you as a man, you aren't likely to, are you?

edd1337 · 02/09/2011 14:54

It's ok reading it online, firsthand i've never experienced a paygap in all my years in work. I get paid the same as women for doing the same job, always have done

MooncupGoddess · 02/09/2011 14:53

'I don't actually have anything concrete to back up what I said.'

Then, er, why did you say it?

DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 02/09/2011 14:47

I nearly spat my drink out at this comment.... (It's copied as it was; I nearly had a heart attack at the spelling and grammar.)

NO the reason why there is not good cjhild care in this country is simple - the people who are supposed to accept the responsibility of taking care of the children have abandond them and gone to worl elsewhere.

Welcome to 21st century Britain, people... Hmm

DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 02/09/2011 14:44

Oh woop, the female junior executives are earning, on average

drumroll please

£602 more than their male counterparts.

Hardly makes up for the fact that those men at the top are earning, on average £10k more than their female counterparts. Hmm

DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 02/09/2011 14:37

I can see from the URL though it's the bit about Junior Executives, and women being paid more than men in that area. Yes. That's about it. Once they progress past that, the usual pay gap (eg Men earning more) applies.

DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 02/09/2011 14:36

The page isn't available...

Perfectwhirled · 02/09/2011 14:35

A different view of the statistics.

reverse pay gap

DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 02/09/2011 14:21

Can you imagine if the Rad Fem's exaggerating data line was applied on a DV or Rape thread? Think before you post.

Also, check the CMI. That's where the data had come from. It's been heavily reported this week.

edd1337 · 02/09/2011 14:15

sorry DontCallMeFrothyDragon I didn't mean to sound offensive. I don't actually have anything concrete to back up what I said. It's just my perception on said data

DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 02/09/2011 14:10

Hmm edd???

Lost for words here. Are we on Misandry101 or Mumsnet Feminism... I'm blardy lost.