How tax systems treat men and women differently: advancing gender equality through tax reform

How tax systems treat men and women differently: advancing gender equality through tax reform

Today, Nextia.uno has the pleasure to welcome a colleague and friend as co-author. Laura Macías works at BSR*, at the intersection of the private sector and social impact. Prior to that, Laura was a public policy consultant at the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation in Paris, researching innovation trends and the relationship between innovation, artificial intelligence and diversity. She is also a columnist on topics related to gender equality. [* This article represents Laura Macías’ personal opinions, not those of her employer.]

*

Have you ever asked yourself if tax systems treat women and men differently? It seems like an unlikely question to bring to the public debate in the 21st century, especially in a world that claims to be “gender-neutral” in its public policies -at least in most Western countries-.

The good news: most explicit biases have been abolished. But there are still sixteen countries that only allow men (or require the husband’s permission) to claim personal tax exemptions, such as Indonesia and Tunisia. To be fair with statistics and taking a universal perspective, 16 out of about 200 countries in the World doesn’t sound tremendously bad.

However, there are bad news: almost all tax systems around the world have in-built implicit gender biases (which could be even more dangerous than explicit ones because of their invisibility): they do nothing to improve gender equality or, in the worst-case scenario, are actually reinforcing patterns of behavior and stereotypes that maintain a status quo which clearly disadvantages women. These biases are concerning in themselves and alarming when their effects pile up.

Women represent half of the world’s population, yet the gender pay gap is still 14% in OECD countries. 30% of women worldwide work in the unpaid economy, in contrast to 8% of men. 90% of women in Sub-saharan Africa, 89% in Asia and 75% in Latin America work in the informal economy. Only 20% of the World’s land is owned by women and a mere 13.7% of women are corporate owners or have high-level positions.

What does this have to do with taxes? Everything.

Taxes are not only a powerful redistributive tool crucial for leveling the playing field in a society that has historically discriminated women from public life but is also one of the most effective methods for shaping and changing behaviors in the daily life of citizens. The best example is targeting a tobacco consumption reduction by increasing its tax, which is a very popular policy around the world to protect citizens’ health through a change in their consumption habits by way of an economic disincentive (the tax).

During our research, we found that, unfortunately, tax systems currently motivate behaviors that reinforce gender stereotypes, disincentivize women’s participation in the paid economy and make women vulnerable in today’s global economic system –inadvertently, since they were obviously not designed and intended for this-. The truth is that the lack of user-centered policies and gender-disaggregated data has created a fiscal system working against most women both in the Global South and the Global North.

To better understand the biases, we created a very simple and general taxonomy of how  taxes are impacting women differently than men worldwide:

Taxes that benefit men more than women

The World Economic Forum calculated that we will need 202 years to close the income gap between women and men and, as a consequence, men will continue to accumulate disproportionately more wealth. In 2018, according to Forbes, only 256 women ranked among the world’s 2,208 billionaires. In the case of France, Piketty (2014) shows that only 12% of French top 1% of high net worth individuals are women and that France would need more than 100 years to reach a 50%-50% representation in that percentile.

Therefore, low marginal personal income tax rates, low rates in wealth and capital taxes and corporate income tax special regimes tend to benefit men over women: the former generally earn more, have accumulated more wealth and hold a vaster proportion of companies.

Taxes where women end up paying more than men

Joint taxation is at the core of family-based tax systems and allows second earners –predominantly women– to be taxed within the first-earner tax return. Spouses jointly declare their income, jointly perceive tax transfers and apply deductions and benefits. This, in practice, entails that second earners –predominantly women– are taxed more than they would if they filed individual tax returns: the second earner’s income is added to the first earner’s, who is already enjoying the benefits of the lowest taxable schedules. The higher the first earner’s income, the stronger this phenomenon is. Despite this, many countries around the World (e.g. France, the U.S.A., Australia) apply the joint taxation model as a general standard, which ends up hindering women’s visibility within tax systems and capacity to save or invest.

If we turn to consumption, there is a basis to sustain that purchasing patterns are, to some extent, gendered. Women tend to buy significantly more groceries, children’s clothing and medical and health necessities than men do. If VAT rates do not take into account gendered consumption patterns, it could potentially be taxing women disproportionately: first, because of their consumption patterns and, second, being taxed proportionally more as they tend to earn less than men.

Taxes that strengthen behavioural gender stereotypes

In a reality in which women earn on average less than men, are concentrated in the lower end of the wage scale and on precarious and part-time jobs, we have found that joint taxation favours the perpetuation of gender roles regarding paid and unpaid work. Indeed, a rational economic choice based on earnings will more easily lead women than men to switch to unpaid care work, a decision that might have life-long effects on wages and pensions, as it is already considered to be one of the culprits of the pension gap in Europe.

Joint tax filing is based on the -gender stereotyped- male breadwinner model as it simultaneously encourages the first earner to increase his work participation and the second earner or spouse to limit her paid work participation or not to enter the labour market (what is known as “second earner bias”). This might be especially the case in countries where social security contributions are calculated at the individual level irrespective of the fact that the earner is a second earner, doubly exacerbating her cost of work: with lower wages than her spouse, she’ll face proportionally higher tax rates and social security contributions.

Regarding wealth and inheritance, it has been found that in some global South countries and the United States, low income families tend to transfer their assets to daughters, while high income families tend to do it to sons, which contributes to the accumulation of wealth in men’s hands. Indeed, wealth accumulation is a function of inheritances and transfers within families. Wealth gaps, in turn, contribute to power imbalances between men and women, that can play a role in many aspects of daily life. Here, taxes are not working against the gendered accumulation of wealth despite the fact that a carefully tailored bequest tax could prove crucial in the matter.

Taxes that reward (mainly) male behaviours

Risk-taking attitudes have been found to be gendered: women are less inclined than men to take risks, which has important impacts in macroeconomic aggregates such as entrepreneurship and investment. Current corporate income tax designs are not taking this into account when rewarding risk-taking behaviors or investments via tax cuts or tax reductions, which is especially important since the corporate world is already largely dominated by men.

Imbalances in the playing field

The lesser degree of women’s financial literacy, as compared to men and, most significantly, in the Global South, hinders women’s possibilities to take advantage of existing tax exemptions and deductions. In general, the lesser the knowledge of a tax system, the lesser the ability to make tax savings or take advantage of tax benefits within the boundaries of the law.

That and the flexibilization of tax filing obligations for micro and small companies (mostly female owned) result in an unnecessary Internalization of VAT that is prejudicial to competitivity and business growth.

In conjunction, all this means that in the absence of tested means to have gender-neutral impacts that would go beyond gender-neutral wordings, tax systems might well be negatively impacting women and unknowingly helping reinforce the stereotypes that enable and maintain the status quo.

This general overview should be analysed in a country-by-country basis to see which of the aforementioned biases hold true in each tax system. Indeed, tax systems are full of complexities and work together with other policies, which means that the final outcomes could change broadly from context to context. Despite this, we are convinced that naming and recognizing the possible biases is a huge big first step to start fixing fiscal policies in favor of women or, at least, to design them in a way that is not working against them.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is mujer-trabajadora-informal-Periodico-el-dinero-1024x683.jpg

Change proposals

Moving away from joint taxation: from second earners to individual taxpayers

In a world where women are concentrated in lower paid, part-time or precarious jobs, the widely used principle of joint taxation creates economically rational motives for women to dedicate their time to unpaid caring activities and outside of the labour market. This partially explains gender gaps in earnings, savings, wealth and pensions, the effect of which cumulate over the life cycle and carry over to future generations by inheritance.

Individual taxation is put forward as a necessity in order to be able to finally gather sound data on female fiscal contribution, to design a truly progressive personal income tax and close gender gaps (wage and pension) through the implementation of a system that is less detrimental to female labour supply.

According to our research, the effects of individual taxation on women can include:

  • increasing female labour participation (formal sector)
  • reducing women’s participation in the informal sector
  • redistribution of household work
  • imprint of gender-neutral intra-household roles in children

Over a long enough period of time, the idea that corporate investment on women isn’t efficient due to maternity, child or elderly care might even stop being so much of a self-fulfilling prophecy as it is nowadays.

The principle of intersectionality and informal taxation

We could not be advocating for user-centered policies without recognizing the principle of intersectionality when addressing gender-related topics. Examples are always the best way to illustrate these complex concepts. One of our most striking findings while going through the literature, was the immense damage that informal taxation is causing to women in Global South countries. And we are talking mostly about poor (feminization of poverty), black or dark-skinned, indigenous, rural women…

Informal taxation is a concern for global South countries where the labor market suffers from high levels of informality, especially reflected in self-employment through a micro or small business in local markets and communities.  An “informal tax” is any payment made in exchange for a service at the local level, through informal means, such as cash or in-kind, directly or indirectly collected by public institutions and having the government authority as the final destination.

Since these taxes depend on a bargaining process at the local level, political and community-based organizations play a fundamental role in the negotiation, and guess what? In the countries where there is information about informal taxation, women are underrepresented or not represented at all in these bargaining instances.

On the other hand, for example, in the case of Nigeria, a study of the International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD), showed that women earn less than men when selling their products in the local market, despite the fact that they sell the same type of products. As a consequence, a flat presumptive rate charges them more than men. In the same vein, the hours women dedicate to household chores prevent them from having the same amount of time as men to work in the market. Which means they end up paying proportionally more taxes than men if we follow the same presumptive principle.

Add to this, the cases of sexual harassment and coercion towards women that have been reported, because the tax collectors are mostly men. We can continue on and on with the perversities of informal taxation, but the worst part is that is has been proven to be a very ineffective tool to raise revenues in Global South countries.

The study of informal taxation is hard since they have not been officially recognized as a type of tax. There is no sound data at the macro level, but targeted studies have shown the need to recognize and further study this type of taxation. Its characteristics mirror those expected of a tax, as legally defined: unrequited, compulsory and paid to the general government.

Data, data and more data

Finally, as in almost all policies concerning women, there is a lack of data to assess the matter in a salient way.

In many cases, women are invisible within tax systems, either because they don’t reach the thresholds to pay taxes (even in some cases the transfers that are intended to balance women’s contributions to the unpaid economy are given to men within the household -as first or sole earner-, simply because women don’t exist in the records), because they don’t file individual tax returns or simply because data is not sex-disaggregated.

Overall, the ratio of men to women working in the tax administration is 1.84: 1, and it has been pointed out that this alone might have gendered impacts in countries where women feel unsafe or harassed by the tax administration.

What can be done?

There is a lot to be done in mainstreaming gender in tax systems. We need organizations such as the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank to recognize informal taxes in their respective classifications as a first step to study such a crucial phenomenon. Recommendations should be made to states in order to shift focus from joint filing to individual tax filing, as a way to both gather gender-disaggregated tax data and to identify and palliate gender-stereotype reinforcing effects that current tax provisions might have.

We need more women working as tax administrators, women in the bargaining instances in local associations, we need to generate incentives for women owning land (India is a pioneer on this). We need zero-rate for basic products, and eliminate pink taxes where they continue to exist. We need inheritance to be gendered, we need to incentivize women’s literacy and education on taxes. We need a tax system tailoring behaviors towards real gender equality.

And the most important thing we need is data, data and more data. Innovation in the public sector has resulted in good quality and cost-effective methods of data collection, such as partnering with private mobile companies to make decisions that work for the public good based on big data. Well, it is time that big data is also used for ending discrimination against women.   

Tax systems could be a wonderful tool to strengthen women’s economic empowerment, which is also indispensable in ending physical and structural violence against women.

*

This publication is co-authored by Laura Macías and Matilde Fourey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (partial)

Childcare:

CHANT, Sylvia, 2006. Re‐thinking the “feminization of poverty” in relation to aggregate gender indices. Journal of human development 7, no. 2, pages 201-220.

DURBIN, Elizabeth, 1999. Towards a gendered human poverty measure. Feminist Economics 5, no. 2, pages 105-108.

FOLBRE, Nancy, 2006. Measuring care: Gender, empowerment, and the care economy. Journal of human development 7, no. 2, pages 183-199.

LAHEY, Kathleen, 2017. Australian tax-transfer policies and taxing for gender equality: Comparative perspectives and reform options in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

PRESSMAN, Steven, 1989. Comment on Peterson’s “The Feminization of Poverty”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 231-238 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4226106

Economic literacy:

HOERNIG, Steffen and MAUGERI, Novella, 2017. Achieving greater financial inclusion in Mozambique, Challenges and the way forward. Policy Brief 36410, International Growth Centre.

MAUGERI, Novella, 2017. Women’s Financial Inclusion: 5 Reasons Why it Matters for Mozambique, Blog post, International Growth Centre.

Equality:

De GOUGES, Olympe, 1791. Déclaration des droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne, availableat: http://www.philo5.com/Mes%20lectures/GougesOlympeDe-DeclarationDroitsFemme.htm

Explicit gender bias:

World Bank Group, 2015. Women, Business and the Law, Getting to Equal.

Feminization of poverty:

BRADY, David, KALL, Denise, 2007. Nearly universal, but somewhat distinct: The feminization of poverty in affluent Western democracies, 1969–2000, Department of Sociology, Duke University, Box 90088, Durham, NC 27708, USA.

CEPAL-UNIFEM, 2004. Entender la pobreza desde la perspectiva de género Unidad Mujer y Desarrollo, CEPAL-UNIFEM, República de Italia, Santiago de Chile, January.

CHANT, Sylvia, 2006. Re‐thinking the “Feminization of Poverty” in Relation to Aggregate Gender Indices, Journal of Human Development, 7:2, pages 201-220, DOI: 10.1080/14649880600768538

DURBIN, Elizabeth, 1999. Towards a gendered human poverty measure. Feminist Economics, 5, no. 2, pages 105-108.

PRESSMAN, Steven, 1989. Comment on Peterson’s “The Feminization of Poverty”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 231-238 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4226106

Gender bias:

STOTSKY, Janet Gale, 1996. Gender bias in tax systems. International Monetary Fund.

Gender and tax:

    General:

APPS, Patricia, 2017. Gender equity in the tax-transfer system for fiscal sustainability, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

GUNNARSSON Asa, SCHRATZENSTALLER Margit and SPANGENBERG Ulrike, 2017. Gender equality and taxation in the European Union, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Women’s Rights and Gender Equality.

HODGSON, Helen and SADIQ, Kerrie, 2017. Gender equality and a rights-based approach to tax reform, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

KOLOVICH, Lisa, 2017. Fiscal Policies and Gender Equality, IMF.

LAHEY, Kathleen, 2017. Australian tax-transfer policies and taxing for gender equality: Comparative perspectives and reform options in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

STEWART, Miranda, 2017. Rethinking equality and efficiency, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

STOTSKY, Janet G., 1997. How Tax Systems Treat Men and Women Differently, Finance & Development, March.

STOTSKY, Janet G., 2006. Tax systems from a gender perspective. Levy Economics Institute for Bards College.

OECD. Why care about Taxation and Gender Equality? Governance and Democracy Division. Published by Deutsche GesellschaftfürTechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.

OOI, Jorene, 2018. Bleeding Women Dry: Tampon Taxes and Menstrual Inequity. Nw. UL Rev., 113, 109.

UN Women, 2018. Gender, Taxation and Equality in Developing Countries. Issues and Policy Recommendations. Discussion paper. http://gender-financing.unwomen.org/en/resources/g/e/n/gender-and-taxation-discussion-paper

    Global South:

Action Aid UK, 2017. Making tax work for women’s rights. Action AID.

Action Aid, 2018. Short-Changed: How the IMF’s tax policies are failing women.

INCHAUSTE, Gabriela and LUSTIG, Nora, 2017. The Distributional Impact of Taxes and Transfers. Evidence from Eight Low- and Middle-Income Countries. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

JOSHI, Anuradha, 2017. Tax and Gender in Developing Countries: What are the Issues? ICTD Summary Brief 6, International Centre for Tax and Development.

UN Women, 2018. Gender, Taxation and Equality in Developing Countries. Issues and Policy Recommendations. Discussion paper. http://gender-financing.unwomen.org/en/resources/g/e/n/gender-and-taxation-discussion-paper

    European Union:

MATIAS, Marisa and URTASUN, Ernest, 2018. Report on gender equality and taxation policies in the EU (2018/2095(INI)), European Parliament, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0416_EN.html

    Spain:

SÁNCHEZ HUETE, Miguel Ángel. 2013. La tributación y su impacto de género en España. Revista de Derecho, Universidad Católica del Norte, Sección: Estudios, Año 20 – Nº 2, pp. 201-231.

Inequalities:

PIKETTY, Thomas and GOLDHAMMER Arthur, 2014. Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Informal economy

ILO, 2003. International Conference of Labour Statisticians working documents.

ILO, 2018. Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture, Third Edition.

IMF, 2017. Gender Equality and Labour, Turning a blind eye to women in the informal economy, October.

STOTSKY, Janet G., 2006. Tax systems from a gender perspective. Levy Economics Institute for Bards College.

UNDP, 2010. Gender Equality and Poverty Reduction, Issues Brief, Taxation.

VILLA, Monique, 2017, World Economic Forum. Women own less than 20% of the world’s land. It’s time to give them equal property rights.

WEIGEL, J, 2017, World Bank. No participation without taxation? Evidence from randomized tax collection in the D.R. Congo: Guest post by Jonathan Weigelhttps://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/no-participation-without-taxation-evidence-randomized-tax-collection-dr-congo-guest-post-jonathan

Informal taxes:

AKPAN, Imaobong and SEMPERE, Kas, 2019. Hidden Inequalities: Tax Challenges of Market Women in Enugu and Kaduna States, Nigeria. Working Paper 97, ICTD.

BOICHEV, Georgi, 2018. Does global titling sustain informal taxation? Evidence from Ecuadorian urban slums, Environment and Development Economics 23(06):1-16.

DUBE, Godwin and CASALE, Daniela, 2016. The implementation of informal sector taxation: Evidence from selected African countries, eJournal of Tax Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 601-623 601.

LIGOMEKA, Waziona, 2019. Expensive to be a Female Trader: The Reality of Taxation of Flea Market Traders in Zimbabwe, Summary of ICTD Working Paper 93, ICTD.

LIN, Justin Y. and LIU Mingxing, 2007. Rural Informal Taxation in China: Historical Evolution and an Analytic Framework, China &World Economy / 1 – 18, Vol. 15, No. 3.

OLKEN, Benjamin A. and SINGHAL, Monica, 2009. Informal Taxation, Working Paper 15221, National Bureau of Economic Research.

VAN DEN BOOGARD, Vanessa, 2018. Gender and the Formal and Informal Systems of Local Public Finance in Sierra Leone, Summary of Working Paper 87, ICTD.

VAN DEN BOOGARD, Vanessa, PRICHARD, Wilson and JIBAO, Samuel, 2018. Informal taxation in Sierra Leone: Magnitudes, Perceptions and Implications. Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society.

Joint taxation:

    General:

ANDRIENKO, Yuri, APPS, Patricia and REES, Ray, 2015. Gender Bias in Tax Systems based on Household Income, Annals of Economics and Statistics, No. 117/118, June.

APPS, Patricia, 2017. Gender equity in the tax-transfer system for fiscal sustainability, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

BICK Alexander and Nicola FUCHS-SCHUNDELN, 2017. Quantifying the disincentive effects of joint taxation on married women’s labor supply. American Economic Review 107 (5): 100-4.

EDWARDS, Meredith and STEWART, Miranda, 2017. Pathways and processes towards a gender equality policy in in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

ILO’s working paper 1/2015, The motherhood pay gap: A review of the issues, theory and international evidence, 2015.

OECD 2016, Taxing Wages 2016, Special feature: Measuring the tax wedge on second earners, OECD Publishing, Paris

    And intra-household bargaining:

BASTANI, Spencer. 2013. Gender-based and couple-based taxation. International Tax and Public Finance; New York Vol. 20, N° 4: 653-686.

EDWARDS, Meredith and STEWART, Miranda, 2017. Pathways and processes towards a gender equality policy in in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

MEIER, Volker, and RAINER, Helmut. 2015. Pigou meets ramsey: Gender-based taxation with non-cooperative couples. European Economic Review77 : 28-46.

Personal Income Tax (PIT):

OECD, 2004. Recent Tax Policy Trends and Reforms in OECD Countries, Tax Policy Studies no. 9.

OECD 2018 B. Pierce O’REILLY, « Taxpolicies for inclusive growth in a changing world », Documents de travail de l’OCDE sur la fiscalité, n° 40, Éditions OCDE, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1fdafe21-en

Global North:

APPS, Patricia, 2017. Gender equity in the tax-transfer system for fiscal sustainability, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

APPS, Patricia, 2015. The central role of a well designed income tax in “the modern economy”, 30th Australian Tax Forum, ANU Press.

HODGSON, Helen and SADIQ, Kerrie, 2017. Gender equality and a rights-based approach to tax reform, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

LAHEY, Kathleen, 2017. Australian tax-transfer policies and taxing for gender equality: Comparative perspectives and reform options in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

    Global South:

BIRD, Richard M. and ZOLT, Eric M., 2011. Dual Income Taxation: A Promising Path to Tax Reform for Developing Countries, World Development Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1691–1703.

BIRD, Richard M. and ZOLT, Eric M., 2005. Redistribution via Taxation: The Limited Role of the Personal Income Tax in Developing Countries, 52 UCLA Law Review, 1627.

FAIRFIELD, Tasha, 2013. Going Where the Money Is: Strategies for Taxing Economic Elites in Unequal Democracies, World Development Vol. 47, pp. 42–57.

OECD, 2015. Taxing wages 2013-2014, Special Feature: Modelling the tax burden on labour income in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Oxfam, 2017. Is IMF tax practice progressive? In Oxfam Discussion Papers https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/is-imf-tax-policy-progressive-620350

UN Women, 2018. Gender, Taxation and Equality in Developing Countries. Issues and Policy Recommendations. Discussion paper. http://gender-financing.unwomen.org/en/resources/g/e/n/gender-and-taxation-discussion-paper

Property tax:

AGARWAL, Bina (1995). Gender and Legal Rights in Agricultural Land in India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, no.12, pages A39–56.

BARNETT, Kathleen and GROWN Caren, 2004. Gender Impacts of Government Revenue Collection: The Case of Taxation. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

BELLSTROM, K, 2016. Homeownership Pays Off—Unless You’re a Single Woman

DEERE, Diana C., and LEON, Magdalena, 2001. Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press

FAO, 2018, The gender gap in land rights

GRABKA, Markus M., MARKUS, Jan and SIERMINSKA, Eva, 2013. Wealth Distribution within Couples. Discussion Paper Series Bonn: IZA ForschungsinstitutzurZukunft der Arbeit.

GROWN, Caren and IMRAAN, Valodia, 2010. Taxation and Gender Equity: A Comparative Analysis of Direct and Indirect Taxes in Developing and Developed Countries. Dakar [etc]; London; New York; Ottawa; Cairo: International Development Research Centre.

GROWN, Caren, 2010. Taxation and Gender Equality: A Conceptual Framework, Taxation and Gender Equity: A Comparative. Analysis of Direct and Indirect Taxes in Developing and Developed Countries. Abingdon: Routledge. 1-22.

KRUPA, Olha, 2017. Government Consolidation in Property Tax Administration, State and Local Government Review 49 (1): 27-36.

NARAYANAN, Selvaraj, 2016. Historical Background of Gender Equality and Succession Right of Hindu Women’s Right of Property in Tamil Nadu

PINAKI, Chakraborty, CHAKRABORTY, Lekha, KARMAKAR, Krishnu and KAPILA, Shashi M., 2010. Gender equality and taxation in India. An unequal burden? Grown, Caren&ImraanValodia (editors), Taxation and Gender Equity. Abingdon: Routledge, 94-118.

Tax systems: typologies, characteristics and goals:

OECD 2018 A. Revenue Statistics 1965-2017, Interpretative Guide.

OECD 2018 B. Pierce O’REILLY, « Taxpolicies for inclusive growth in a changing world », Documents de travail de l’OCDE sur la fiscalité, n° 40, Éditions OCDE, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1fdafe21-en

OECD 2018 C. Robert HAGERMANN, “Tax Policies for Inclusive Growth: Prescription versus Practice”, OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/09ba747a-en

Tax transfers:

APPS, Patricia, 2017. Gender equity in the tax-transfer system for fiscal sustainability, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

LAHEY, Kathleen, 2017. Australian tax-transfer policies and taxing for gender equality: Comparative perspectives and reform options in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

LAHEY, Kathleen, 2015. Uncovering Women in Taxation: The Gender Impact of Detaxation, Tax Expenditures, and Joint Tax/Benefit Units in 52 Osgoode Hall Law Journal no. 427.

Value added tax (VAT) and consumption taxes:

    General:

BUENAVENTURA Mae and MIRANDA Claire, 2017. The IMF and gender equality. Bretton Woods project

HODGSON, Helen and SADIQ, Kerrie, 2017. Gender equality and a rights-based approach to tax reform, in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

LAHEY, Kathleen, 2017. Australian tax-transfer policies and taxing for gender equality: Comparative perspectives and reform options in Tax, Social Policy and Gender, ANU Press.

OECD, 2018. Revenue Statistics 2018, Tax Revenue Trends in the OECD. OECD Publishing, Paris.

STOTSKY, Janet G., 2006. Gender and Its Relevance to Macroeconomic Policy: A Survey, International Monetary Fund’s Working Paper, WP/06/233.

Developing countries:

ASHRAF, Nava, DELFINO, Alexia and GLAESER, Ed, 2018. Women, entrepreneurship and institutions, Policy Brief 41409, International Growth Centre.

CASALE, Daniela Maria, 2012. Indirect taxation and gender equity: Evidence from south africa. Feminist Economics 18 (3): 25-54. DOI: 10.1080/13545701.2012.716907.

Oxfam, 2017. Is IMF tax practice progressive? In Oxfam Discussion Papers https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/is-imf-tax-policy-progressive-620350

STIGLITZ, Joseph E. and SHAHE, Emran M., 2005. On selective indirect tax reform in developing countries. Journal of PublicEconomics 89 (4): 599-623.

UN Women, 2018. Gender, Taxation and Equality in Developing Countries. Issues and Policy Recommendations. Discussion paper. http://gender-financing.unwomen.org/en/resources/g/e/n/gender-and-taxation-discussion-paper

   and Redistribution:

CORREIA, Isabel, 2010. Consumption taxes and redistribution. The American Economic Review 100 (4): 1673-94.

Women in tax administration

AFTA, 2018. African Tax Outlook 2018

BMF, 2017. The Austrian Tax and Customs Administration Annual Report 2016

MWONDHA, Michael, BARUGAHARA, Tina Kaidu, MUBIRU, MwajumahNakku, KANAABI, Sarah Wasagali and NALUKWAGO, MillyIsingoma, 2018. Why African Tax Authorities Should Employ More Women: Evidence from the Uganda Revenue Authority, ICTD Working Paper 85, ICTD.


First picture: Nextia.uno.
Second picture: newspaper el dinero.

¡Comparte!/Partagez!/Share!
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *