TAXING THE WOMEN

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 74, 29 March 1932, Page 6

TAXING THE WOMEN

An increase in the emergency unemployment charge on wages, i salaries, and other income from 3d to Is in the pound is certain to call forth many protests and many inquiries as to what is being done with the money. It is desirable that there should be such public interest in the expenditure. Many of our troubles now are due to the fact that taxation has 'been easily collected and has been, disbursed without widespread public; attention to the methods of disbursement. As the shilling in the pound will bear heavily on all classes there is unlikely to be complacent acceptance of extravagant or wasteful spending— as there might be if thejlevy fell only (as some are suggesting), on the wealthier people. It seems that this public inquiry is being particularly'directed to the taxation of women and the provision, or absence of provision, for female lineinployejd; j Statements are being made-that nothing has been done for 'thp /women and that nothing is proposed. This is not correct. A special committee to "investigate the needs of women workless was appointed six months ago, and unemployment committees "were afterwards set up in the chief centres of population. These committees, working mainly through established and experienced women's organisations, haveiad considerable help from' the Unemployment Fund, and have probably made better use of the funds than could have been made by the board itself if it had set out to i deal directly with unemployment among women. At the same time it must be admitted that the women had no special mention in Mr. Coates's recent statement. This omission is likely to lead to criticism. When the Bill comes before Parliament again it would be well if the Minister were to state what has been done under this heading, and what is proposed. It is riot a simple problem, and critics who have nothing to offer but blame are not helping to solve it. When the unemployment scheme was first proposed we suggested that it would be wise to omit women from it, as. taxation would lead inevitably to a demand for special provision, and this would be extremely difficult. As the outset women were omitted, and they still pay less, than men, as' they are not liable for the flat rate tax of £1 a year. Now, however, they are brought into the scheme by the tax on wages, salaries, and other mcome, though here again there are exemptions—all wages of domestic workers and £20 a year of income other than salaries and wages. With the charge of 3d in the pound most of those who paid did so without complaint, making their contribution cheerfully for the relief of those less fortunate. If the charge is to be Is there will be a demand for something special. How is it to be met? Women cannot be includedJn general land settlement and relief work schemes, though it must not be forgotten that they do share the benefit. Inasmuch as the married men are helped, the wives and mothers of children obtain relief. But what of the single women? The only plans so far made public are for subsidised domestic help for needy families and cooking and sewing centres for the unemployed. It may be objected that these leave out of acdount those women who are not domestic workers. But the men's relief schemes are open to the same objection, that they offer nothing but farm work and manual labour. Difficult as the problem is, however, we do not think the Government, if the women are to be taxed, should fold its hands and say no more can be done. It should, for a start, place the task and the funds for the work in the hands of the women themselves by an extension of the provision already made for the cooperation of women's organisations.