The Curious Doublethink of the Child Care Narrative in Australia

[Metaphor]

The Canberra Times

A woman with children in childcare will face an effective marginal tax rate of 59.4 per cent under Labor in 2024, compared to 56 per cent under the Coalition. The average man faces a 33.2 per cent tax rate under Labor and 28.8 per cent under the Coalition.

Immediately and forcefully, in the first sentence, we are given a demonstration of the problematic way Australia both wants to encourage women's workforce participation, but then misleadingly distorts the narrative to genderise the barriers faced by families.

This very first sentence compares the "effective'' marginal tax rate of women with children in childcare (a calculation that includes the loss of government childcare subsidies as income rises or reaches a threshold) to that of 'men'. Do men not have children?

(For context, child care fees in Australia are subsidised by the federal government, payable up to a certain amount of household income.)

But why do people "gender" Australia's gender-neutral child care fee policy? "Women" don't face EMTR of 60%. Child care fee subsidies are not based on personal income but household income. Why do people, and the media, base the calculation solely on a woman's income, including in dual-parent and dual-income households? Do the fathers of these children also not bear half the responsibility for caring for their own children? Do these cohabiting couples with children not combine their finances in the running of their household? Can every heterosexual co-habiting couple with pre-school age children in Australia really expect that child care (and therefore child care fees) are somehow the sole responsibility of the mother?

And yet it's no wonder the media distorts this way, because everybody I know with children also thinks of it this way. Because Australia's welfare system is highly targeted, it is often the case that once a household's income exceeds a certain threshold, it's possible for a family to be worse off financially because of the loss of child care subsidies. But it's always women who decide to reduce the number of days or hours they work to maximise the government benefit, as if the fathers in the household reducing their hours was out of the question.

Australia's targeted welfare system can also perversely inflame entitlement complexes. In a different story talking about the changes to Australia's child care subsidy, there was an interview with a woman who was complaining that she (that is, her household) would get no subsidy under the new system (whereas even quite high-income households got a subsidy under the system that was replaced), and therefore her children would miss out on the positive influence of early social interaction of children. It did not appear to occur to her that perhaps her husband's money (she did not work and therefore failed the 'work' test necessary to get the subsidy) could be used to pay for child care if she thought it was that important.

How can raising children be be more evenly shared when public policy encourages it or is neutral about it, but wider society works from a seemingly unshakeable base of ''it''s all a woman's responsibility"? I've spoken to people about this and they see my point, but it's met with a shrug of the shoulders, as if it didn't really apply to their own thinking or they just don't think it's important.

 

[laughing dog]

You answered your own question - because that is the way Australians as a society think. My guess is that in two earner household, the tertiary worker is the one who reduces hours and in a heterosexual household, the tertiary worker is the woman.

I suppose you could start a movement to refer to the "tertiary" or "secondary" household earner. Or, perhaps, you could be less sensitive about this sloppy thinking.

 

[Metaphor]

You answered your own question - because that is the way Australians as a society think. My guess is that in two earner household, the tertiary worker is the one who reduces hours and in a heterosexual household, the tertiary worker is the woman.

I suppose you could start a movement to refer to the "tertiary" or "secondary" household earner. Or, perhaps, you could be less sensitive about this sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy policies and sloppy evaluation of those policies.

 

[dismal]

You answered your own question - because that is the way Australians as a society think. My guess is that in two earner household, the tertiary worker is the one who reduces hours and in a heterosexual household, the tertiary worker is the woman.

I suppose you could start a movement to refer to the "tertiary" or "secondary" household earner. Or, perhaps, you could be less sensitive about this sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy policies and sloppy evaluation of those policies.

Without a “women are victims” angle this would be like one of those stories about government programs destroying the incentive to work we get from the Cato Institute. In other words, it wouldn’t appear in a mainstream newspaper. Doesn’t fit the agenda.

 

[Toni]

The Canberra Times

A woman with children in childcare will face an effective marginal tax rate of 59.4 per cent under Labor in 2024, compared to 56 per cent under the Coalition. The average man faces a 33.2 per cent tax rate under Labor and 28.8 per cent under the Coalition.

Immediately and forcefully, in the first sentence, we are given a demonstration of the problematic way Australia both wants to encourage women's workforce participation, but then misleadingly distorts the narrative to genderise the barriers faced by families.

This very first sentence compares the "effective'' marginal tax rate of women with children in childcare (a calculation that includes the loss of government childcare subsidies as income rises or reaches a threshold) to that of 'men'. Do men not have children?

(For context, child care fees in Australia are subsidised by the federal government, payable up to a certain amount of household income.)

But why do people "gender" Australia's gender-neutral child care fee policy? "Women" don't face EMTR of 60%. Child care fee subsidies are not based on personal income but household income. Why do people, and the media, base the calculation solely on a woman's income, including in dual-parent and dual-income households? Do the fathers of these children also not bear half the responsibility for caring for their own children? Do these cohabiting couples with children not combine their finances in the running of their household? Can every heterosexual co-habiting couple with pre-school age children in Australia really expect that child care (and therefore child care fees) are somehow the sole responsibility of the mother?

And yet it's no wonder the media distorts this way, because everybody I know with children also thinks of it this way. Because Australia's welfare system is highly targeted, it is often the case that once a household's income exceeds a certain threshold, it's possible for a family to be worse off financially because of the loss of child care subsidies. But it's always women who decide to reduce the number of days or hours they work to maximise the government benefit, as if the fathers in the household reducing their hours was out of the question.

Australia's targeted welfare system can also perversely inflame entitlement complexes. In a different story talking about the changes to Australia's child care subsidy, there was an interview with a woman who was complaining that she (that is, her household) would get no subsidy under the new system (whereas even quite high-income households got a subsidy under the system that was replaced), and therefore her children would miss out on the positive influence of early social interaction of children. It did not appear to occur to her that perhaps her husband's money (she did not work and therefore failed the 'work' test necessary to get the subsidy) could be used to pay for child care if she thought it was that important.

How can raising children be be more evenly shared when public policy encourages it or is neutral about it, but wider society works from a seemingly unshakeable base of ''it''s all a woman's responsibility"? I've spoken to people about this and they see my point, but it's met with a shrug of the shoulders, as if it didn't really apply to their own thinking or they just don't think it's important.

It takes a while for people to catch up to policy, sometimes.

Reality is that in many households, the overwhelming bulk of childcare falls on women, regardless of income level/educational level. This is the most true of families with very young children, especially infants. Not very many men are very comfortable assuming care of a young infant. Add in that early infancy coincides with a woman's need to recouperate after pregnancy and childbirth plus breastfeeding and at least in the US, the cost of good quality of childcare for infants is outrageous and it all simply reinforces: babies are women's work. YES men are capable to doing an excellent job of caring for babies. Not many are very willing to do so. For women, at least in the US, careers take big hits to accommodate family leaves--which certainly must influence at least some men to not engage in as much childcare in early years. Regardless of availability of childcare, at least in the US, if a child is sick: fever, vomiting, diarrhea, they must be excluded from childcare during and for 24 hrs after symptoms subside--and that means a parent (usually) must stay home to care for the child. Most often, it is the woman who does this because it is usually the woman who has chosen a less well paid/more flexible career path in order to have the flexibility to care for sick children. And so on in an infinite loop.

And yes, some people will complain no matter what. I've had coworkers who complained bitterly about any (very limited) childcare assistance/work hour flexibiliyt that their coworkers with children received--and then jump in with both feet, hands waving the second they had a child. I have a hard time being patient with people who wish to deny benefits to people that don't directly and personally benefit them.

 

[dismal]

The Canberra Times

A woman with children in childcare will face an effective marginal tax rate of 59.4 per cent under Labor in 2024, compared to 56 per cent under the Coalition. The average man faces a 33.2 per cent tax rate under Labor and 28.8 per cent under the Coalition.

Immediately and forcefully, in the first sentence, we are given a demonstration of the problematic way Australia both wants to encourage women's workforce participation, but then misleadingly distorts the narrative to genderise the barriers faced by families.

This very first sentence compares the "effective'' marginal tax rate of women with children in childcare (a calculation that includes the loss of government childcare subsidies as income rises or reaches a threshold) to that of 'men'. Do men not have children?

(For context, child care fees in Australia are subsidised by the federal government, payable up to a certain amount of household income.)

But why do people "gender" Australia's gender-neutral child care fee policy? "Women" don't face EMTR of 60%. Child care fee subsidies are not based on personal income but household income. Why do people, and the media, base the calculation solely on a woman's income, including in dual-parent and dual-income households? Do the fathers of these children also not bear half the responsibility for caring for their own children? Do these cohabiting couples with children not combine their finances in the running of their household? Can every heterosexual co-habiting couple with pre-school age children in Australia really expect that child care (and therefore child care fees) are somehow the sole responsibility of the mother?

And yet it's no wonder the media distorts this way, because everybody I know with children also thinks of it this way. Because Australia's welfare system is highly targeted, it is often the case that once a household's income exceeds a certain threshold, it's possible for a family to be worse off financially because of the loss of child care subsidies. But it's always women who decide to reduce the number of days or hours they work to maximise the government benefit, as if the fathers in the household reducing their hours was out of the question.

Australia's targeted welfare system can also perversely inflame entitlement complexes. In a different story talking about the changes to Australia's child care subsidy, there was an interview with a woman who was complaining that she (that is, her household) would get no subsidy under the new system (whereas even quite high-income households got a subsidy under the system that was replaced), and therefore her children would miss out on the positive influence of early social interaction of children. It did not appear to occur to her that perhaps her husband's money (she did not work and therefore failed the 'work' test necessary to get the subsidy) could be used to pay for child care if she thought it was that important.

How can raising children be be more evenly shared when public policy encourages it or is neutral about it, but wider society works from a seemingly unshakeable base of ''it''s all a woman's responsibility"? I've spoken to people about this and they see my point, but it's met with a shrug of the shoulders, as if it didn't really apply to their own thinking or they just don't think it's important.

It takes a while for people to catch up to policy, sometimes.

Reality is that in many households, the overwhelming bulk of childcare falls on women, regardless of income level/educational level.

It not clear to me how this, even if accepted as gospel truth, makes two different people in the same household filing jointly have different marginal tax rates.

But then Australia may have different ways of doing taxes than we do.

I understand the water in their toilets spins the wrong way too.

 

[laughing dog]

You answered your own question - because that is the way Australians as a society think. My guess is that in two earner household, the tertiary worker is the one who reduces hours and in a heterosexual household, the tertiary worker is the woman.

I suppose you could start a movement to refer to the "tertiary" or "secondary" household earner. Or, perhaps, you could be less sensitive about this sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy policies and sloppy evaluation of those policies.

Is there a sloppy evaluation of these policies that can be traced to this particular sloppiness?

 

[Tigers!]

This very first sentence compares the "effective'' marginal tax rate of women with children in childcare (a calculation that includes the loss of government childcare subsidies as income rises or reaches a threshold) to that of 'men'. Do men not have children?

Re. the underlined potion.
A few years ago I was forced by a precarious work situation to apply for the dole via Centrelink. My wife and I had a young child at that time (and still do have a child).
I noticed that the application form had no provision for me to note any dependents. I queried that omission and was informed in no uncertain terms that men do not have children as dependents unless they meet one of the following criterium
1. The mother was dead and I was looking after the child or
2. The mother had signed custody over to me for whatever reason.

So in answer to your question - In Australia as a general rule govt policy is that men do not have children.