The 1ACs fiscal politics are a means of ERASING gendered violence on the margins while perpetuating economic disparities and impeding progress towards gender equality in the social sphere.
Marco Cedro et al 23 [Marco Cedro is researcher of Tax Law at LUMSA, authored Sect. 11.4, Sect. 11.2 is written by Eleonor Kristoffersson. Teresa Pontón Aricha wrote Sect. 11.1, Lidija Živković Sect. 11.3 and the conclusion is authored by Teresa Pontón Aricha and Lidija Živković, “Gender Equitable Taxation”, p. 393-394 of “Gender-Competent Legal Education”, Springer, Accessed: 7/17/23] HZaidi
Economic policies (both macroeconomic and microeconomic policies) are often thought of as gender neutral. Budgeting is generally considered a gender-neutral policy instrument. But that is a mistake: the budget is not gender neutral, but rather gender blind. Some examples of gender biases in taxation, both explicit and implicit, have been analysed in the previous section. Moreover, budgeting policies can hide gender biases too. Public accounting policies are not gender sensitive and have a negative impact on women compared to men. It must be understood that by maintaining gender inequality, these policies also have a negative impact from an economic point of view, making it difficult for all categories to access work or business. It is clear that governmental budgets reflect political priorities. If we neglect this distinct impact on people, we perpetuate economic disparities and disable the improvement of social roles various groups individuals hold. National or local budgets do not affect individuals directly, but the choices contained in the national or local budget, impacting the market demand or public services, influence employment, family life, healthcare, price level and so on. Individuals in general have different economic roles and, consequently, different economic and social power. In most cases, women and minorities are at a disadvantage. The apparent neutrality of the public budget hides the fact that, often, women and third-gender persons do not have the same variety of choices (political, social, economic) in relation to others. If we consider gender inequality as inefficient, both from the point of view of access to work and business, and as a lack of participation in political life, it becomes clear that the government (and parliament) can use the money raised through taxes to reduce inequality. By orienting public finances, it is possible to redistribute wealth and fight against women’s poverty and gender inequality. Public spending encompasses gender bias and produces gender-disparate effects on distribution of public services and wealth. Usually, government budget is considered as a monetary quantification of political objectives,86 but we must understand that the public budget is the result of political negotiations and it is influenced by political and social contests and values. Public budget is the reflection of the government’s interpretation of these values through the use of public expenditures. Very often public policies do not consider the unpaid work of women enough, especially during economic crises.87 Women become the last resort of families, compensating for insufficient public healthcare or social services. Public budgets do not recognise the role of women (nor individuals of third-gender and non-binary individuals) in the economy and society. To achieve equity and redistribution of wealth, considering the limited public resources, it is necessary to set the objectives of public finance taking into account these needs.88 Recently, UN statements (Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals, especially action n. 5) reiterated the need to adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality. Fiscal policies determine the composition of expenditure, and expenditures can consent investments and benefits to influence private behaviours in a gender responsive way. A high level of taxation and a similar level of public expenditures can contribute to an inclusive growth,89sustaining investments that reduce gender gap. Moreover, austerity measures after the financial crisis were executed without regard to gender bias. By cutting public expenditures or reducing taxation, governments cannot drive budget priorities towards improving the opportunities for minorities, boosting welcoming culture towards gender equality and avoiding the lack of integration into social life.