Facts and figures about UK taxes, benefits and public spending.
Income distribution, poverty and inequality.
Analysing government fiscal forecasts and tax and spending.
Analysis of the fiscal choices an independent Scotland would face.
Case studies that give a flavour of the areas where IFS research has an impact on society.
Reforming the tax system for the 21st century.
A peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing articles by academics and practitioners.
Authors: James Browne
The Equalities Act 2010 places an obligation on the government to give 'due consideration' to the effects of its policies on gender inequalities. The IFS was asked by the Fawcett society to consider ways in which our tax and benefit microsimulation model, TAXBEN (which we use for our distributional analysis of tax and benefit changes after each Budget) could be used as part of an assessment of the separate impact of Budget measures on men and women. We have today published some simple analysis that does this.
It is straightforward to compare the effects of tax and benefit changes on single men and single women living in households without other adults. The budget measures hit single women somewhat harder than single men, largely because lone parents were net losers from the changes, and most lone parents are women.
It is harder to distinguish the effects of changes on men and women living as couples or in bigger households in part because we don't know how much sharing of resource there is in households, and in part because it is slightly harder to allocate benefit eligibility between individuals in households.
TAXBEN calculates households' tax liabilities and benefit entitlements for each household under different tax and benefit systems, enabling us to calculate how much each household would gain or lose from a particular set of tax and benefit changes. This means that the comparison between men and women is straightforward for single people not living with any other adults. In Figure 1 we compare the average loss from the austerity measures that are being introduced between 2010-11 and 2014-15 as part of the government's deficit reduction package for single adult households according to the sex of the adult.
Figure 1: Impact of tax and benefit reforms on household incomes for single adult households by sex of adult, with average loss for couple and multi-family households for comparison
We find that overall, single women lose more as a percentage of their income than single men largely because the more than 90% of lone parents are women. In fact, single women without children lose less than single men without children, but because lone parents are a group that loses a particularly large amount from tax and benefit changes to be introduced after 2012-13, the average loss for single women as a whole is larger than that for single men.
Figure 2: Impact of tax and benefit reforms on household incomes for single adult households by sex of adult, couple households and multi-family households by presence of children
What can we do about people in couples? One option would be to examine the income of individuals rather than households and examine how this is affected for men and women by changes to direct taxes and benefits. Although such an analysis may not give us an accurate view of the effect of tax and benefit changes on the welfare of individuals, as we would expect at least some degree of income sharing within households, it might still be of interest in itself. Unfortunately, TAXBEN is not currently set up to give entitlements to benefits to the correct member of each couple and it was beyond the scope of this project to carry out the modifications that would have been necessary. Nevertheless, this is something that the government could consider doing as part of an assessment of the effect of tax and benefit changes on men and women.
Any gender impact assessment should also consider behavioural responses to tax and benefit changes. Since taxes and benefits clearly affect the incentives of individuals to do paid work and to increase their earnings, of particular importance here are changes in labour market behaviour. The paper published today also considers how these incentives are affected for men and women by the tax and benefit changes being introduced between 2010-11 and 2014-15. While women, on average, tend to have stronger incentives to do paid work and increase their earnings than men we find that this is little affected by the tax and benefit changes coming that are being introduced between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
In short, there are some simple ways in which the government could have chosen to show that it had undertaken its statutory duty to consider the impacts of its policies on gender inequalities. Performing this analysis need not require large additional resources - all of the charts in the report could be produced by HM Treasury using the data underlying the charts it presents in Annex A of the Budget document. Administrative data available to various government departments may also provide larger sample sizes to examine more robustly the impact of individual policies on smaller groups. That said, what is possible falls a long way short of a full gender impact assessment. Because most people live in households with others, and we don't know how incomes are shared, it is very hard to look at effects separately for many men and women. Furthermore understanding the impact of cuts to public service spending could be at least as important as the changes to personal taxes and benefits that I have considered, but doing this is even more fraught with difficulty.
View all Observations in the series
Cutting the deficit: three years down, five to go?
The UK is in the fourth year of a planned eight-year fiscal tightening. Following further announcements made in Budget 2013, this fiscal consolidation is now forecast to total £143 billion by 2017–18. The UK is intending the fourth largest fiscal consolidation among the 29 advanced economies for which comparable data are available. By the end of this financial year, half of the total consolidation is expected to have been implemented. However, within this tax increases and cuts to investment spending have been relatively front-loaded, while cuts to welfare spending and other non-investment spending have been relatively back-loaded.
The March Budget forecast that borrowing would fall by £0.1 billion from £121.0 billion in 2011–12 to £120.9 billion in 2012–13. On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics is due to release its first estimate of public sector net borrowing in March 2013 and, therefore, for the whole of 2012–13. Borrowing could easily end up being higher or lower than it was in the previous year, either due to backwards revisions, the uncertainty inherent in forecasting borrowing even a month in advance, or both. However, whether borrowing is slightly up or down in cash terms is economically irrelevant. Either way, the bigger picture is that having fallen by roughly a quarter between 2009–10 and 2011–12, borrowing is forecast to be broadly constant through to 2013–14.
Women working in their sixties: why have employment rates been rising?
Employment rates through the recession have been remarkably robust, with today’s ONS figures showing employment remaining close to 30 million. The young have experienced historically low employment rates and high unemployment rates but the employment rate of women aged 60 to 64 has increased as fast since 2010 as it did during the 2000s. An important explanation is the gradual increase in the state pension age for women since 2010, which has led to more older women being in paid work. Without this policy change, the employment rate for 60 to 64 year women would have been broadly flat since 2010.