• Full Story

Pay equity group opposes income share bill

Print

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 5:55a.m.

The bill didn't get far in the last Parliament and cabinet is not keen on it but Dunne insists it goes further

The bill didn't get far in the last Parliament and cabinet is not keen on it but Dunne insists it goes further

A pay equity lobby group is urging Parliament to scrap a bill that is part of National's support agreement with United Future.

The Taxation (Income Sharing for Tax Credit) Bill was drafted by United Future leader Peter Dunne.

It did not get far in the last Parliament and the cabinet is not keen on it but Mr Dunne is insisting it goes further in the next one.

It would allow couples with children to add their income and split it down the middle for tax purposes.

Income sharing significantly reduces tax liability if one partner earns a lot more than the other because it puts income into lower tax brackets.

The Pay Equity Challenge Coalition says the only people who benefit from it are high earners, particularly men.

"The coalition is very concerned that with women's wage levels lower on average, it could result in more women staying at home or reducing their hours in the paid workforce while for most men it would be business as usual," says coalition spokeswoman Angela McLeod.

"Income sharing returns us to the past with its stereotypes about women's roles and reinforces the gendered nature of child caring."

The coalition says it does not even begin to address real issues like child poverty and raising the income of low and middle income families.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

07 Dec 2011 10:20p.m.

Mindyrbeeswax wrote:

I'm pro equal pay for equal work, but agree this discussion has little to do with the pay equity debate. The income split is equally applicable to families where the female earns more than the male - tax benefits all round sounds good to me!

07 Dec 2011 02:38p.m.

simon wrote:

I'm all for it.And I imagine that some women who work hard would appreciate the fact that a scheme such as this could allow both parents to be able to spend a bit less time at work and a little more with their kids.

07 Dec 2011 01:51p.m.

DC wrote:

We are a middle-income family and if our family income was split for tax purposes, we would have an additional $4,888.40 a year to spend - that would have almost paid 80% of our child's dental bill this year. We asked our children some years ago if they would like Mum to work for more money for the family. They all said "no"; they preferred Mum over money and things. Besides, this policy is about lowering the tax burden on families and nothing to do with pay equity. Isn't pay equity simply about whether a woman gets paid the same rate as a man for doing the same job? If you are talking about equal opportunity, then that is irrelevant when a mother chooses to be there fulltime for her children. The bill would actually give mothers a greater opportunity to choose; we know mothers who would prefer to stay home for their children than go to work to support the family; therefore, the current law limits that choice. Even if a mother does choose to be with her children, these days, they can also work from home if they choose. The PECC would probably say, “That means a mother won’t earn as much as she could if she was out in the work force.” My response again is that the PECC would then be talking about equal opportunity, which is irrelevant if a woman chooses to stay home. I suggest the last PECC statement that sharing income sends us back to gender role stereotypes is unintelligently considered and unfounded. My wife and I are BOTH hands on in caring for our children and we have observed many couples from diverse backgrounds do the same with great success. It is a shared responsibility that both have the opportunity/choice to contribute equally. Again, this is a matter of choice, not pay equity, which is a totally separate issue. I therefore find the statements from the PECC very misleading and grossly generalised. Sincerely DC

07 Dec 2011 12:32p.m.

Homer wrote:

@Wondering, That's what National are about, helping the rich guys. That is what the country voted in and that is what they are going to get. It's what National have always stood for, they haven't changed one bit.

07 Dec 2011 10:37a.m.

Mike wrote:

Don't understand how this bill would be bad?
For a couple, isn't it fairer that the total family income is split between the 2 individuals?

07 Dec 2011 10:27a.m.

Countrypete wrote:

Wondering - you will always be wondering because you can't figure things out for yourself. Income splitting in no way disadvantages women - how can it? What it does is benefit families with kids, without having any affect whatsoever on others. As usual, the naysayers spin this around and imply that those who aren't advantaged, are therefore "disadvantaged". Politic of envy....

07 Dec 2011 10:20a.m.

J wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why this is discriminatory? My understanding of this proposal is that families can pay a lower tax bill overall if one parent is earning less, e.g. a stay-at-home parent. In these instances, one wage is being used to support more people. This doesn't have anything to do with gender. What about the well paid business women, whose husbands stay at home to look after children? No difference. It is acknowledging that working families usually pool their resources to make up the family finances. It is also encouraging parents (of either gender) to spend time with their children. Seems like a good idea to me.

07 Dec 2011 10:00a.m.

Ricardo wrote:

It benefits woman more. Think about it. If the guy earns a lot and the woman gets to spend more time with the kids (isn't that what you all want) then the family can more easily afford to do so. Can't see anything wrong with it. Families should be jumping at the opportunity. What shallow reporting without any thought at all.

07 Dec 2011 09:53a.m.

westie wrote:

get a job then stop being lazy shouldnt have to look after the poor everyone else goes gets jobs even if they dont pay the best, yes some people are rich but they worked for it and saved dont complain because your to lazy to do the same

07 Dec 2011 09:44a.m.

Glenn wrote:

What it actually means is that mothers of young children who want to stay home and care for their children and don't WANT to work will have less NEED to work to make ends meet. It's too late for my family now but if this had been tax law ten years ago we would have been thousands of dollars better off over that time. Maybe we could have even had a holiday once a year...