One of the great things about the annual taxation statistics is you really can’t hide from the numbers. They reveal the reality of what people pay (or don’t pay) in tax, and how much people earn and, importantly, who is earning it – and it is most likely to be men who are earning the most.
In 2018-19, if you earned more than $59,538 you earned more than half of the more than 11 million people who paid income tax. That median point is quite revealing when we consider the government claims its stage three tax cuts are about curing bracket creep for “middle Australia”.
This median income of $59,5398 is just a bit under the middle point of the $37,001 to $90,000 tax bracket – the same one which is set to be abolished, because the government tells us we need to worry about average full-time earners.
Josh Frydenberg in 2019 told parliament that “from $45,000 to $200,000, you will pay a marginal rate of tax of no more than 30c in the dollar. That is tackling bracket creep. So, if you’re on average full-time earnings, you can get a promotion, you can get a wage increase, but you won’t get a higher marginal rate of tax.”
We will put to one side that what the treasurer of Australia referred to is not bracket creep at all, and just note that while he might hope that people will think he is talking about “middle Australia”, he most certainly is not.
In 2018-19, those earning the average full-time amount of $88,265 earned more than 72% of all tax payers:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
In effect, Frydenberg has made it clear his stage three tax cuts are designed to benefit the wealthiest 30%.
Given previous income rises, the median taxable income is not set to hit $90,000 till around 2033, making bracket creep not the most pressing of issues.
And of course the figures also reveal that average full-time rate is really a male concern.
In 2018-19, a woman earning that amount would be earning more than 81% of all other women; while two-thirds of men earn the average full-time amount.
But this is clear throughout the figures – women, regardless of occupation, earn less.
Women account for more people in the bottom half of income earners but they make up just 27% of the top 10% of income earners:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
And I know what people will say – that this is because they mostly work part-time.
And yes, of course women are more likely to work part-time, but the issue is about much more than hours worked.
Because it really doesn’t matter what occupation you look at, women are almost certainly going to earn less than the men doing that same job.
In 93% of occupations where either men or women have a median total income below $200,000, the male median income is higher:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
And perhaps that is about part-time work, but that doesn’t explain high-income earners.
There’s not a lot of people out there working part-time and earning more than $200,000, and yet the picture in those occupations is even more lopsided.
There is not one high-paying occupation from financial investment manager to diagnostic and interventional radiologist where the median income for women is higher than that of men:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
The only ones where there is almost parity are those that come within the public system: magistrates, MPs and judges.
Perhaps now the argument will be that it is because more men work in those jobs and are more likely to have senior roles.
And yes, that would be true – that is what happens when you have systemic sexism within occupations from low-paying to high-paying roles, and societal pressures for men to work while women are often still expected to give up their full-time job to raise children.
But the reality is across almost all occupations that men earn more than women, even if more women than men do that job.
My favourite example is that of gynaecologists. Women make up 54% of all people in that occupation and yet their median income is 33% lower than that of their male colleagues.
It occurs everywhere. Take my own occupation of journalism.
In 2018-19, 57% of the 16,659 journalists were women, and yet they made up just 43% of those who earned more than $90,000 and a mere 35% of those who earned more than $180,000:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
Across all occupations, while there are some male-dominated ones that are low-paying, on average, the higher the proportion of women working in that job, the lower the median income:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
Consider that in the 392 occupations where men account for at least 80% of workers, a quarter have a median income higher than $90,000. But in the 111 occupations where women make up at least 80% of all workers, just one (directors of nursing) has a median income above $90,000:
Graph not displaying properly? Click here
The problem isn’t just part-time, or experience, or seniority; it is that women’s work is less valued – both within occupations and across the economy.
