A gender lens on the 2017-18 Budget exposes its class-ridden, misogynistic bottom line

In 2014 the Abbott Government ceased the thirty year-old federal government practice of releasing a Women's Budget Statement.

The National Foundation for Australian Women stepped in to fill the gap since then and this month has released its 97-page review of the Turnbull Government’s 2017-18 Budget, Gender lens on the Budget.

This budget review contains little that is unequivocally positive for women and summarises the bad news thus:

Women are overrepresented at lower income levels. Changes to government benefits and increases in taxes have a disproportionate effect on women. ATO statistics recently released show the median income for women was $47,125 in 2014-15, while for men the amount was $61,711.

Effective marginal taxation rates (EMTRs) measure the proportion of each extra dollar of earnings that is lost to both income tax increases and decreases in government benefits (for example, Parenting Payment, Family Tax Benefit, the Age Pension etc).

The increase in the Medicare Levy will affect those on incomes greater than $21,644. For those with eligible children, FTB A payment rates are frozen for two years. Those who pay child care fees will continue to face high EMTRs. University graduates will start repaying loans when they reach income levels of $42,000 per year.

These changes hit those on earning well below the average wage, and are particularly harsh for women. Combined, these changes could lead to effective marginal tax rates of possibly 100% or higher for some women, particularly as Family Tax Benefit Part A begins to decrease at $51,903. Graduates caught between these policies will experience considerable financial stress; graduates earning $51,000, most of whom are likely to be women, will have less disposable income than someone earning $32,000. Changes to penalty rates may also have a significant impact on some graduates if they are extended to the aged and health care sectors as well as the childcare sector.

The point to note is not just the harsh effects on low income women but also that it is not discussed in the Budget papers, with no modelling of the exact EMTRs for different groups of women provided. The way to improve incomes for most women is not to cut taxes but through improved welfare, social investments and increased wages (for example, by taking real action against the spread of precarious low paid work or by opposing cuts to penalty rates). Tax cuts, particularly those for top income earners, lower revenue at a time when investment is needed in public services and social infrastructure. ATO statistics show that in 2013-14 only 17% of women had taxable incomes greater than $80,000. This tax reduction has led to an increase in gender inequality.

Welfare payments to the unemployed are a small part of total welfare outlays. However, as ACOSS points out, the 2014 demonising of recipients continues. Many groups argue for an increase in the value of the Newstart payment, and an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. What we have instead is ineffectual drug testing, harsh compliance penalties and expanded income management. However, for sole parents there will be a new verification process that is especially demeaning.

There were no measures designed to specifically address gender inequality and the related entrenched financial vulnerability of women….

This Budget fails to address major challenges facing young women in Australia, and has no measures to improve financial, job or housing security for this cohort.

Youth unemployment is at 13.5% of the youth labour force, which is the highest rate in 40 years, and many young people are underemployed (18% of young people in the labour force) (Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2017, 3). Women aged 20-24 have a much higher rate of underemployment than men of the same age (Burgess, 2017). The job market is increasingly casualised and insecure, and as young people have little or no working experience they are more likely than other groups to work in nonpermanent jobs (Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2017, 4). There is nothing in this Budget to address the unemployment or underemployment that young people experience, and which have implications for the economic security of young women…..

The enhanced residency requirements for claimants of the Age Pension and the Disability Support Pension (DSP) from 1 July 2018 will require claimants to have 15 years of continuous Australian residence before being eligible to receive the Age Pension or DSP unless they have:

* 10 years’ continuous Australian residence, with five years of this residence being during their working life (16 years to Age Pension age); or

* 10 years’ continuous Australian residence, without having received an activity tested income support payment for a cumulative period of five years.

Approximately 40% of older Australians are born overseas and the majority of these are women (AIHW 2007, 4). Within CALD communities, as with the broader population, women are more likely to require age pension support because they have less superannuation (from lower paid jobs and from fewer years working). Women are therefore more vulnerable to economic insecurity and should not be punished in old age for being migrants or for not being able to meet the 5 cumulative years of no income support payments during the requisite 15 years’ continuous residency. CALD women are more likely to experience periods of income support due to their family care responsibilities and should not be punished for this.  [my yellow/red highlighting]

The Turnbull Government has been offering half-truths to voters once gain

In its 2017-18 Budget the Turnbull Government announced it would commence the phased re-introduction of Medicare Benefits Schedule rebates indexation.

Treasurer and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison stated in his Budget Night speech that “We are lifting the freeze on the indexation of the Medicare Benefits Schedule. We are also reversing the removal of the bulk-billing incentive for diagnostic imaging and pathology services and the increase in the PBS co-payment and related changes.”

It now appears that it was premature to expect that out-of-pocket expenses for a number of radiology and diagnostic imaging services might be contained after the rebate freeze was lifted for these services in three years time.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 May 2017:

The Medicare rebate thaw will not apply to 93 per cent of scans, including the X-rays, MRIs and ultrasounds used to diagnose some of the most common forms of cancer.

Health Minister Greg Hunt's staged four-year thaw has been widely welcomed by doctors' groups such as the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of GPs. Under the plan, indexation will gradually be reapplied to bulk-billing incentives, visits to the doctor and allied health services.

On budget night, the Turnbull government said the final stage of the thaw, due in July 2020, would lift the freeze on "targeted" radiology and diagnostic imaging services - the first indexation since 2004.

Prime Minister Turnbull puts pressure on the Senate to back the increase to the Medicare levy after the release of two new opinion polls. Vision courtesy Seven News Melbourne.

But new Department of Health figures reveal precisely how "targeted" the changes will be: the freeze will be lifted on 59 of the 891 radiology items listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule - just 7 per cent.

While mammograms and a number of CT scans will be indexed under the plan, X-rays, MRIs, PETs and ultrasounds for such common conditions as brain, lung, breast and ovarian cancer will not. The rebate on common scans for arthritis and nuclear medicine will also remain frozen. [my yellow highlighting]

As for the promised reversing of the increase in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), this is only the potential for a flow-on effect from other changes in the PBS and is in no way guaranteed to occur.

Has the Republican Party finally pushed the American people too far?

Facebook News Feed:

 Weakley County Sheriff's Department

11 May at 08:23 · 

PRESS RELEASE 05/11/17

INVESTIGATORS FROM THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OF THE WEAKLEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAVE ARRESTED 35 YEAR OLD WENDI L. WRIGHT OF 4004 HUBERT HARRIS ROAD IN OBION COUNTY TENNESSEE AND CHARGED HER WITH FELONY RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AFTER AN INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN WEAKLEY COUNTY ON MONDAY MAY 8TH 2017. DURING THAT TIME IT IS ALLEGED THAT WRIGHT FOLLOWED A VEHICLE OCCUPIED BY UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN DAVID KUSTOFF AND HIS AIDE MARIANNE DUNAVANT WHILE THEY WERE GOING DOWN HIGHWAY 45 SOUTH OF MARTIN . THEY HAD BEEN AT A TOWN HALL MEETING ON THE CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN. WRIGHT PLACED THE OCCUPANTS IN FEAR OF BEING FORCED OFF OF THE ROADWAY. THEY TURNED ONTO OLD TROY ROAD AND INTO A DRIVEWAY OF A PERSON THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH. WRIGHT EXITED HER VEHICLE AND BEGAN SCREAMING AND STRIKING THE WINDOWS OF THEIR VEHICLE AND AT ONE POINT REACHED INSIDE THEIR VEHICLE. SHE THEN STOOD IN FRONT OF THEIR VEHICLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THEM BLOCKED IN. A 911 CALL WAS PLACED DURING THIS TIME BUT WRIGHT LEFT THE AREA BEFORE DEPUTIES ARRIVED. WRIGHT WAS IDENTIFIED AFTER SHE POSTED DETAILS OF THE ENCOUNTER ON FACEBOOK. WRIGHT WAS LOCATED BY DEPUTIES FROM THE OBION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND TAKEN INTO CUSTODY ON THE WEAKLEY COUNTY ARREST WARRANT. SHE HAS BEEN RELEASED AFTER POSTING A ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR BOND. WRIGHT WILL BE ARRAIGNED ON MONDAY MAY 15TH 2017 IN WEAKLEY COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT.

INVESTIGATOR CAPTAIN RANDALL MCGOWAN

WEAKLEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

Screenshot from CNN Politics video

iOTW Report, 14 May 2017:

A man got physical with Republican North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer at a town hall meeting Thursday before being escorted out by police.

The man was yelling at Rep. Cramer, "Will the rich benefit from, if the health care is destroyed, do the rich get a tax break? Yes or no?" He then shoved cash into the congressman's collar, saying, "There you go, take it."

Cramer responded, "That's too far," and police escorted the man from the meeting.

Tit for tat in face off by Tweed Shire mayor and wealthy developer

Local government can be an interesting space on the NSW North Coast……

Echo NetDaily, 9 May 2017:

Tweed shire mayor Katie Milne has been awarded $45,000 in damages plus costs after winning a defamation case against billionaire developer Bob Ell.

Mr Ell is involved in two massive developments in the Tweed Shire and his relationship with the council, and Cr Milne in particular, has not been smooth.

Ironically, Cr Milne brought her case as a result of comments Mr Ell made to a Murdoch newspaper, the Gold Coast Bulletin, after he won a defamation case against her.

In that case, Mr Ell was awarded $15,000 damages against Cr Milne but Justice Rothman ruled in the Supreme Court yesterday that was not a reason to minimise the damages awarded to her.

After Mr Ell’s case was ruled by Justice McCallum on March 7, 2014, Mr Ell was contacted by a reporter from the Gold Coast Bulletin on March 12, and ‘made comments to the effect that Ms Milne is not a “fit a proper person to be a councillor” and the Gold Coast Bulletin reported that comment together with reporting that Mr Ell has stated that he hoped speculation that the payments would bankrupt her were true, so that she would not be able to retain her place as a councillor,’ the facts of the case revealed.

The newspaper ran the headline ‘KATIE LOSES BILLIONAIRE BOB BATTLE “I HOPE THIS SENDS HER BROKE” P8’ on its front page.

On page 8 the story ran under the headline titled ‘Developer hopes fine bankrupts councillor’.

For all those avid court watchers out there the finer details of the outcomes of these legal clashes can be found in Ell v Milne (No 9) [2014] NSWSC 489 (11 April 2014) and Milne v  Ell  [2017] NSWSC 555 (8 May 2017).

Trumponomics and media in the United States of Dystopia

"President Trump spoke with @TheEconomist about Trumponomics and every answer is bananas" 
[Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Justin Wolfers on Twitter, 11 May 2017]

Who thought that Anthony John Abbott when he was Australian prime minister was the most ill-intentioned, ignorant  and embarrassing leader of a nation to have ever existed to date in the developed world during the 21st century?

Well he now pales in comparison with Donald John Trump (pictured above).

Excerpts from the transcript of The Economist interview with the U.S. President on 4 May 2017:

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan’s tax reform didn’t.
[President Trump] Well, it actually did. But, but it’s called priming the pump. You know, if you don’t do that, you’re never going to bring your taxes down. Now, if we get the health-care [bill through Congress], this is why, you know a lot of people said, “Why isn’t he going with taxes first, that’s his wheelhouse?” Well, hey look, I convinced many people over the last two weeks, believe me, many Congressmen, to go with it. And they’re great people, but one of the great things about getting health care is that we will be saving, I mean anywhere from $400bn to $900bn.

…………

That all goes into tax reduction. Tremendous savings.

But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll… you understand the expression “prime the pump”?

Yes.
We have to prime the pump.

It’s very Keynesian.
We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just… I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.

It’s…
Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

………

So you would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime the pump that would lead to faster growth?
So I happen to think that 3% is low. But you can’t do it if your companies are leaving the country because taxes are too high. Now, I’m going to do something there too. If our companies leave the country, number one they’re leaving for numerous reasons but one of the big reasons is the taxes are so high. When they leave—go back to trade for a second, when they leave the country, go to a certain country wherever it may be, and they fire all their workers in the United States and on the assumption they build cars or air conditioners or whatever they’re building, and they open a plant someplace else and then they send the air conditioner or the car into our country with no tax, that’s not going to happen anymore. They’re going to have a very large tax to pay, in the vicinity of 35%.

Now when you do that, number one they're not leaving the country anyway. So we’re not leaving. I don’t know if you saw what’s happening. Ford has announced massive expansions in the United States. General Motors cancelled a big plant in Mexico and a big plant in Europe. They’re all cancelling plans because I told them, I said… I get along with them great. But I said, “Look, we don’t mind if you leave the country. You can build all you want out of country, I hope you enjoy your plant. But when you build your car, you’re going to have a 35% tax when you bring it back in. And if your numbers work, we wish you well. But that’s what you’re going to have. You’re going to have a 35% tax.”

So I mean, I have, it has, I haven’t been given massive credit for it yet, but I have been given some because I just see polls out in Michigan and different places, that really are affected by this, have been unbelievable, you know, much bigger than election day. But that’s not a tax increase, that’s no tax. In other words, all you have to do is don’t leave and you won’t have a… but we’re bringing our taxes down so low that you won’t even need the barrier because the taxes are so low, that people are going to stay.

The other thing, just in case we… I believe it could be anywhere from $4trn to $5trn outside, you know don’t forget we’ve been talking about $2.5trn for four years now. I’ve been using $2.5trn, the same number we’ve all been using for years. Well, you know, it grows. I think it… I wouldn’t be surprised if it was $5trn but, you know, we’re close. We’re letting that money come back in. And that has two barriers which you have to watch. It’s got a barrier of the tax, which we will take care of. We’re going to make it 10%. Now it’s 35%...

Sorry, 10%? The repatriation taxes?
The repatriation. Inversion. The corporate inversions, which is a disaster, with the companies leaving. But they want to bring back their money. Number one, the tax is too high but the other thing that’s too high is the bureaucracy.

……….

I have a friend who said even if you wanted to bring it back in you can’t because you have to go through so many papers, so many documents, so many…

You have to do… Steve, they told me you’ve got to sign books and books of stuff, you pay millions of dollars in legal fees and they almost don’t allow you to bring it back in.

Can I ask you a question about the politics of tax?
It should be like one page.

Excerpts from the transcript of a Time interview with President Trump, published 11 May 2017:

For instance I don’t watch CNN. I don’t watch MSNBC. Scarborough used to treat me great. But because I don’t do interviews and stuff and want to … He went the other way. Which is fine. He’s got some problems. But I don’t watch the show anymore. It drives him crazy. I don’t watch the show.

I do watch Fox in the morning, and their ratings have gone through the roof because everyone knows I’m watching Fox. But they’re pleasant. And if I do something wrong they report on it. I don’t mean they – if I do something wrong. But it’s really, honestly it’s the most accurate.

CNN in the morning, Chris Cuomo, he’s sitting there like a chained lunatic. He’s like a boiler ready to explode, the level of hatred. And the entire, you know the entire CNN platform is that way. This Don Lemon who’s perhaps the dumbest person in broadcasting, Don Lemon at night it’s like – sometimes they’ll have a guest who by mistake will say something good. And they’ll start screaming, we’re going to commercial. They cut him off. Remember?

I’ve seen things where by mistake somebody they bring in a guest and it turns out to be a positive. And they go, I mean they get just killed. The level of hatred. And poor Jeffrey Lord. I love Jeffrey Lord. But sometimes he’s sitting there with eight unknown killers that nobody ever heard of. And CNN actually is not doing nearly as well as others. They’re all doing well because of me. But it’s not doing as well as others that are doing better actually. But Fox treats me very fairly. MSNBC is ridiculous. It’s just bad.

It’s an ability I never thought I’d have. I never thought I’d have the ability to say, they’re doing a big story on me on CNN and I won’t watch it. And it’s amazing, it doesn’t matter. But it really, the equilibrium is much better. As far as newspapers and things, I glance at them. They’re really dishonest. I mean they’re really dishonest……

You see a no-talent guy like Colbert. There’s nothing funny about what he says. And what he says is filthy. And you have kids watching. And it only builds up my base. It only helps me, people like him. The guy was dying. By the way they were going to take him off television, then he started attacking me and he started doing better. But his show was dying. I’ve done his show. … But when I did his show, which by the way was very highly rated. It was high highest rating. The highest rating he’s ever had.

Political Meme of the Week

via @LesStonehouse 

Tweet of the Week