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.

it may be likely that if you can bear children you will

Okay, so the ability to bear children makes a person a liability to an employer (in your view, edd.)

And you consider that reasonable? Are you saying the only way to level the playing field is for men to bear children?

Because it looks like it

Jennie, I've always been well paid in employment. I did hit a glass ceiling, but there were other things going on so I can't say that was due to my gender. There were women board directors at all of my employers - large corporations. One had a woman CEO.

As far as I could establish, my pay was generally equal to men in similar positions or, sometimes, better. I do not have children.

These facts don't make me any less aware of the real and damaging sexism that still holds sway and keeps women underpaid. The statistics are comprehensive, reliable and verified.

I'm not saying "I want" lower taxation. Apart from anything else, I don't currently pay tax. I'm saying I want decisive action taken, to force employers to observe the law, which mandates equal pay for equal work, and is broken thousands of times a day.

Garlic That part I can agree with, but I do not think having a second-class female tax band is anything but a retrograde step. If a woman is poorly paid they are on a lower tax band, equal to that of a man paid the same.

I'd really like lower tax for everyone of course, but it has to be fundamentally equal which includes things like taxation absolutely centrally, or what's the point of striving for equality in the fluffy things on the periphery? Equal work for equal pay. End of.

garlicnutter Yes, it is a liablility, didn't Alan Sugar himself quote something similar? Look at similar stories in the Daily Mail and look at the comments section

I'm not saying to get a level playing field that men must bear children, now you're putting words in my mouth (quite common on this forum)

Without sounding to negative, the chances are there will never be a level playing field. As I mentioned in another thread, the only way you'll see equality as such is if we have a PM like that of Norway, Sweden or Iceland

"Once they progress past that, the usual pay gap (eg Men earning more) applies."
Progress past junior executive? How many people actually do this? A fraction of a percent of the working population?

Is it any wonder that people think of feminists as being posh women fighting on behalf of other posh women?

Maybe more women would {progress past...} if things were fairer.
Maybe the best way would be to force men to go to at least half of all nativities/doctors appointments/parents evenings (ok not realistic but would even things out)

jennie, Joan Smith's tax idea was, as someone said, a thought experiment to highlight the reality of the pay gap and what it means. As you said, you're in a pay-scaled job so you can see what others are earning. Smith's other proposal - mandatory disclosure - would achieve that easily. It would have to include bonuses, commissions and perks, which make up a large part of remuneration in sectors like my old one.

edd, you are basically saying that women are worth less, money-wise, because women have children. I've tried to talk round this issue with you but you don't budge (or seem to grasp what I'm trying to say). So it's pretty pointless to engage with you any further.

Daily Mail comments are renowned for epitomising the sexist, racist, views of a bigoted minority!

Bonnie, junior executive doesn't mean much in terms of status. The people in that article are trainee sales reps, estate agents and recruitment consultants, etc. If they complete their first year or two without getting fired, they'll become executives.

I never said that. I stated that from an employer pov it makes sense to employ a man. if there is a genuine pay gap then why aren't employers having only women if you pay them less?

Because it's illegal to discriminate?

Would it be a good idea for women to band together, go out for the weekly grocery shop, and pay 80p on the £ one fine day?

After all, feeding the family costs the same for women as it does for men.

Edd, used to be the case in the linen industry in NI. Women were employed and men stayed home to take care of the children. It's illegal now. You need token women in the workplace to look as if you are not discriminating in your hiring, but you can pay them buttons compared to men because employers can forbid discussion of salary and are not forced to disclose what they pay.

So it's illegal to not employ women but easier to cover up the illegality of paying them less? This sounds like what your saying

Yep.

And I don't think it's actually illegal to pay women less. An employer can argue that they are not as valuable as they take more family time off, and can explain lack of promotion too -- they are clearly not executive material as they have babies/take time off.

Maybe as more men exercise their right to take parental leave upon the birth of a baby (or adoption) the tide will turn and men will be seen as a liability too.

Maybe as communication becomes easier and easier and the office becomes more and more portable, employers will start understanding that face time and productive time are not necessarily the same thing.

garlic my point was that there are a fair number of jobs like mine that are payscaled and open about it, so from my pov at least the suggestion of making this mandatory for everyone is entirely reasonable. Yes include bonuses, benefits in kind etc. It'll show how different careers really stack up to young people entering the employment market instead of going on rumour while they're at it. They should put an hourly overall rate in there too.

While more women work part time than men the average weekly'monthly pay will be different though, even if the hourly rates are the same. Tax is done as a percentage though, so eg 20% of £2000=£400, but of £1000=£200, so pay less if you earn less. The bit I'm against is the inference of "Oh but you're only a girl, we'll only take 15% off you" because there's a shorter step between that and "You're only a girl, you have less/no say in what's going on in the country because you pay less in than the men do". Then it's a slippery backwards slope to being told what to wear, how to act, which jobs we can aspire to...eventually leading us back to metaphorically chaining ourselves to railings or leaping under horses just to be heard.