Joan Smith: What if women paid less tax?

[garlicnutter]

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

Am just off to post supportive comments on her article.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

Brilliant.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Work less hours you earn less money, simples

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.

Not so simples when you have unpaid domestic support to enable that.

I'm speaking hypotheticly LilBB

So edd, just to confirm, you'd argue in favour of employing a single, childless woman with no personal commitments over a married man with children who occasionally took time off because his child was ill/he wanted to go to their nativity play etc?

It didn't seem hypothetical. It reads as a direct response to my post with you agreeing that I shouldn't get a new job if I'm not flexible or work part time in an executive role.

No MooncupGoddess, i'm talking from a business standpoint which is the logical action to take. There's no problem with employing women who have children, the fact still remains however that if she works say 30 hours a week then she takes home less than someone who works 39 hours a week

I'll say again. Work less hours - earn less money. That's how it works

Edd you are (deliberately I think) missing the point. No-one is saying people who work part time hours should be paid as much as their full time counterparts. We are arguing against the fact that women often get passed over for jobs/promotions because it is ASSUMED that we will take more time off and not be "flexible" (as LilBB pointed out from her own personal experience) due to maternity and child care arrangements. I've had this happen to me, too, so I know it happens.

What LilBB said is true, edd. That assumption is made even if the woman being considered for a post has full-time paid childcare in place.

Now I've thought of it, I reckon it's a great idea for employers to pay 21% of their full-time workers' pay to the carer of their children

It wouldn't rectify the sexism issue, but it would make people think ...

because it may be likely that if you can bear children you will. This is a complete slippery slope from an employers pov however

Edd- there are part time JUDGES, a far more important job than an 'executive'.

The gap in pt pay between men and women is even greater than ft. How do you explain that?

I can google my basic pay online. I then have a multiplier to take account of rotaed overtime. I'm on the same payscale as anyone in my role regardless of gonads- only variation is from years of service (which you can work out tbh)

I know it's not the same for the private sector but I really don't see the point of the knicker-twisting about it.

The thought of paying less tax though - NO
I don't want anyone to have the excuse to say I don't pay my way/ deserve as much from public services etc than a man purely because I'm a woman, and would have thought those who see themselves as feminist would see that flaw too.