The government announced this week that they plan to withdraw child benefit for couples where either parent earns above £44,000. Some have seen this as an attack on women, as child benefit is one of the few benefits to be paid to the mother. But the devil in the detail may reveal just the opposite.
Why? Because the benefit will not actually be withdrawn, but clawed back through the tax system. And as there is a gender gap between male and female earnings, and women are more likely to work part time, the money will most likely be paid by fathers.
To illustrate how this might pan out, I’ve quickly visualised some pay statistics from 2008 which show how annual earnings are distributed between men and women (screengrab below). Men hit the £44,000 point around the 85th percentile – but women don’t hit it until after the 90th. In fact, even when you look at women working full time only, earnings at the 90th percentile are around £40,000, and there is no data on what percentage of women are earning over £44,000 (although I’m going to keep looking for this).
What does this mean? Well, some family discord at least, given that money is one of the subjects couples most argue about (statistical support needed!). You might also argue that it is – if ever so slightly – addressing the gender gap in pay, if clumsily to say the least.
How I got here: The data is available in full at this spreadsheet, which was obtained through this PDF on the national statistics website, which I found in turn from in the references on this study into gender equality, that I found from this search. The whole thing took less than 20 minutes.
I totally agree that it is very useful that the money will still be put in the hands of, in most cases, the mother and then paid back in tax by, in most cases, the father. If you want to look at the benefits for women you could almost argue that it is a kind of enforced payment from the father to the mother for her childcare efforts.But if I were to speculate about how this would influence the way that two parent families would organise childcare/work commitments it seems the most economical option is for one person to work fulltime (the higher earner, and therefore most likely the father given the gender paygap) and the other person to work part-time and take on the majority of the childcare/housework. i.e. a very traditional family model that has not served women’s interests well in the past. And that’s before you add in the tax break for married couples, only adding to the benefits for the ‘nuclear family’.Who loses out? Single mothers, families with lots of children, unmarried women with children, women who have chosen not to get married out of principle specifically because they feel the institution is harmful to women’s rights, couples where both adults pursue their own careers, share the childcare/housework, both work flexi-time and strive to afford childcare. The last example being exactly the people who, in time, could encourage employers to understand and acknowledge the importance of all workers (men and women) being able to meet their childcare responsibilities without them having to lose out on promotion/payrise.The result of this particular policy on ‘women’ is complicated, of course, because it is only affecting a small proportion who are either high earners themselves or in a relationship with a high earner but given that the Conservatives have said that the way the child benefit will now be administered is not by design, but because it is the cheapest option, does not give out the message to me that women’s rights are at the top of their agenda or are going to be nurtured during this administration.
Apologies – I was totally wrong in the above analysis.From here onwards…the exact opposite is the case!But if I were to speculate about how this would influence the way that two parent families would organise childcare/work commitments it seems the most economical option is for one person to work fulltime (the higher earner, and therefore most likely the father given the gender paygap) and the other person to work part-time and take on the majority of the childcare/housework. i.e. a very traditional family model that has not served women’s interests well in the past. And that’s before you add in the tax break for married couples, only adding to the benefits for the ‘nuclear family’….couples where both adults pursue their own careers, share the childcare/housework, both work flexi-time and strive to afford childcare. The last example being exactly the people who, in time, could encourage employers to understand and acknowledge the importance of all workers (men and women) being able to meet their childcare responsibilities without them having to lose out on promotion/payrise.Actually another seemingly unintended consequence is that it does in fact encourage both parents to work, each for less money as I suggest would be advantageous to women’s rights…