Assistance for families: An assessment of Australian family policies from an international perspective

Peter Whiteford, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales

1

Scope and objectives of family assistance

All government programmes can impact on family life and family finances. However, main forms of assistance include cash benefits and tax provisions that supplement family incomes, income support payments that support families not in paid employment, payments during periods of caring for children, support and services for childcare, and education and health care programmes for children.

Objectives can include: contribute to the costs of raising children; redistribute over the lifecycle; increase fertility; provide equity in taxation; relieve child poverty; enable parents to care for children independent of the labour market; promote gender equity; boost low earnings; reduce demands for a minimum wage; increase incentives to work and relieve unemployment or low income traps

2

3

Data, methods and measures How to compare family assistance?

Aggregate spending levels Benefit entitlements for model families - averages and at different

income levels Analysis of income distribution data

Different data, methods and measures can give different results. For example, how to assess the generosity of assistance for families?

Levels of spending, distribution of spending, taking account of the role of the tax system?

Difference measures – setting benchmarks. Some countries are much less generous to people without children.

Should assistance be measured as a percentage of disposable income or tax paid?

Is there a typical or average family? Two-earner families can be very diverse.

Implies that we should “triangulate” and cross-verify a wide range of measures.

Spending on families has increased significantly over the past 20 years, but recently started fallingSpending as % of GDP

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4

Trends in spending on families, 1980 to 2005Australian spending as ratio of OECD average

Overall family support in Australia is in the top half of OECD countries and is mainly provided through cash assistance

6

How is Australian spending on families different?Difference between Australia and OECD average, 2003% of GDP

Change in support for children, OECD countries, 2000 to 2007% of average wage

8

Level of support for children, OECD countries, 2007% of average wage

9

Progressivity of family assistance in OECD countriesRatio of family cash benefits received by poorest quintile of working age to benefits to richest quintile

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

11

Family benefits vary significantly by income level – Australia is generous to low-income to average income families but not to the well-offAssistance for children as % of average wage, by gross income as % of average wage, 2007

Level of assistance for families in Australia by income level, 2001 to 2007Assistance as % of average wage

12

Australia reduces child poverty significantly Difference between market and disposable income poverty for families with children% points

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Japa

nS

witz

erla

nd

Italy

Por

tuga

lM

exic

oS

pain

US

AG

reec

eN

ethe

rland

sC

anad

aN

orw

ayIr

elan

dO

EC

DG

erm

any

Den

mar

kB

elgi

umN

ew Z

eala

ndS

wed

enF

inla

ndU

nite

d K

ingd

omC

zech

Rep

ublic

Aus

tralia

Pol

and

Fra

nce

Australia and the United Kingdom provide the most generous in-work payments to familiesNet family assistance for families working at the minimum wage, USD PPPs

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,000

Gre

ece

Spa

inS

lova

kia

Por

tug

alH

unga

ryP

olan

d

Fra

nce

New

Zea

land

Cze

ch R

epub

licB

elgi

um

OE

CD

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Can

ada

Luxe

mbo

urg

Jap

anU

nite

d K

ingd

omA

ustr

alia

Lone parent Couple

Effective tax rates for parents seeking part-time work are lower in Australia than most other countriesAETR from zero to 33% APW, 2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Italy

Gre

ece

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Aus

tralia

Fra

nce

Irel

and

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Nor

way

Por

tuga

lC

anad

aN

ew Z

eala

ndK

orea

Pol

and

Hun

gary

OE

CD

Fin

land

Luxe

mbo

urg

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Japa

nS

wed

enG

erm

any

Bel

gium

Den

mar

kC

zech

Rep

ublic

Spa

inA

ustri

aN

ethe

rland

sS

witz

erla

nd

Effective tax rates can be high for parents seeking full-time work, but are lower in Australia than most other countriesAETR from zero to 67% APW, 2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gre

ece

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Hun

gary

Can

ada

Aus

tralia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Irel

and

Kor

eaO

EC

DN

orw

ayS

wed

enP

olan

dP

ortu

gal

Cze

ch r

epub

licF

inla

ndJa

pan

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Luxe

mbo

urg

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Icel

and

Net

herla

nds

New

Zea

land

Ger

man

yD

enm

ark

Sw

itzer

land

Fra

nce

Child care costs can increase effective tax ratesAETR from zero to 67% APW, plus child care costs, 2004

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Nor

wa

yA

ustr

alia

Por

tug

alS

we

den

Pol

and

Slo

vak

Rep

ubl

icK

orea

Fin

land

Bel

giu

mLu

xem

bou

rgO

EC

DA

ustr

iaN

ethe

rland

sJa

pan

Cze

ch re

pub

licIc

elan

dG

erm

any

New

Zea

land

Den

mar

kF

ranc

eC

anad

aU

nite

d K

ingd

omS

witz

erla

nd

Irel

and

Australian public spending on maternity and parental benefits is amongst the lowest in the OECDSpending on maternity and parental leave per child born in 2001 - % of GDP per person

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

How do tax and benefit systems treat second earners? 19 of 30 OECD countries have the individual as the tax unit, but most countries have

elements of joint taxation such as transferable tax reliefs and income-tested benefits such as social assistance income-tested family payments or housing benefits.

Income-tested benefits cover a higher proportion of low income families in Australia than in many other countries; social insurance can have similar incentive effects for single people or lone parents as social assistance, but generally avoids income-testing second earners.

Incentives for second earners when the spouse is low paid are worst in Denmark, and Australia ranks 4th worst, but are relatively good in France and Luxembourg (with family tax units).

Most countries (except Germany and Czech Republic) are relatively neutral or support second earners at around the average wage.

Child care costs and availability could well be a major influence on incentives. See OECD Family Database www.oecd.org/els/social/family/database PF4

19

Child care costs and availability Australia spends less than 60% of the OECD average on child

care and pre-school. Enrolment rates for children under 3 years are 10th highest in

the OECD, but relatively lower for older children. Fees (before assistance) are roughly 40% higher than OECD

average. Child care assistance reduces costs significantly, particularly

for low-income parents – in 2004, fees for a high income couple were about 14% of net family income (2 % points above average), but for a low income lone parent they were 7% of net income (5% points below average), comparable to France, Austria and Denmark.

20

Summary – conclusions and issues Family assistance encompasses cash payments to parents and children, family

leave payments, services (child care and family support services) and support through the tax system.

Australian spending on family assistance is well above the OECD average and has increased from 65% of the average in 1980 to 160% in 2005.

A considerable part of this difference is due to high spending on lone parents and jobless couples with children, and limited assistance provided through the tax system.

Even after accounting for assistance provided in other countries through the tax system, however, Australia remains among the top six spenders.

Australian assistance for families with no earnings or very low earnings is close to the highest in the OECD, but for high income families is among the lowest in the OECD.

Based on income data, Australian family assistance is among the most targeted in the OECD (and including taxation based assistance in other countries would probably increase Australia’s relative ranking).

Australian spending on maternity and parental leave is well below the OECD average, although recent increases in spending may have increased Australia’s ranking – but not by very much.

Summary – conclusions and issues

Australia reduces child poverty to a greater extent than all but 2 other OECD countries, and it is likely that the poverty gap is lower in Australia than most other countries.

All countries with low child poverty combine low joblessness with effective redistribution policies – Australia has effective redistribution, but high joblessness.

Employment of mothers is below the OECD average, particularly among mothers with young children; part-time employment is high.

Average EMTRs for parents moving into low-paid or part-time work are comparatively low, but for those already in low paid or part-time work they are comparatively high – i.e. Australia appears to have a “low wage trap”, not a “poverty trap”.