Alison Steed is a multi-award winning journalist and commentator on financial issues, and she is also the owner of the personal finance website for women and families www.MyMoneyDiva.com. The opinions expressed are her own. Thomson Reuters will host an International Women’s Day follow-the-sun live blog on March 8, 2011

The fact that today sees 100 years of International Women’s Day is testament to just how influential this celebration of women’s empowerment around the world is. To think that within the last century women were being abused by the authorities for the belief in their cause – that women should be given the vote in both the UK and U.S. – when now it would seem abhorrent to not allow this. How far we have come.

But the reality is, there is still some way to go. The Lord Davies report into women in the boardroom could ultimately be the biggest fillip to women being given the same voice in the corporate world as they now have in most places in the wider world.

The idea that even though women make up more than half of the population in the UK, yet around half of FTSE 250 companies do not have a single woman on their boards, and just one sixth of FTSE 100 companies have a woman on the board, is not acceptable.

Lord Davies of Abersoch has told firms to more than double the number of women sitting on boards before 2015, otherwise they face the prospect of quotas which will force the issue.

While this would achieve an aim, I am not sure it is the best way to achieve the result – far better that the companies are promoting women on merit, rather than having to push women through to comply with a new regulation. I am not in favour of someone doing a job for the sake of it, but we all know women in corporate roles who are not only more than capable of taking on a board position, but would actually improve the performance of the company no end. So why are they not getting the chance?

However, as with so many things in the corporate world, one hand gives while the other takes away. I am talking about the ruling by the European Court of Justice that gender should not be used as a means of pricing in financial services products.

This means that insurers will no longer be able to say that young women – who are, in fact, statistically proven to have fewer accidents than young men – can have cheaper car insurance. Women will also have to pay more for their life insurance, as previously they were able to pay a lower premium because they, statistically, live longer. Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) suggests that women drivers under 25 will see a 25 per cent rise in their premiums, and a rise of 20 per cent in their life insurance premiums.

Women are not the only losers though, men who are buying annuities are also affected, because they are not going to be able to get a higher payment than a woman even though, again statistically, women live longer than men. Men will see a fall of around 8 per cent in their annuity payouts, but when it comes to life insurance, their premiums will fall by around 10 per cent, according to the ABI.

So yet again, women are more profoundly affected by a ruling that is, ostensibly, to do with equality. The ruling has been widely regarded as wrong by the industry, and I have to say I tend to agree given the way that the companies will apply it. Of course, if they were to reduce the car insurance premiums of young men to match those of young women, and increase the annuity payments of women to those of men, it would seem to be a good idea. But we live in the real world, and that is not going to happen.

The changes need to be implemented by December 2012, so it will be interesting to see what horse trading happens in the meantime to prevent what would seem to be an injustice.

Photo Credit: A dealer monitors her screens on the trading floor of IG Index in London May 6, 2010. REUTERS/Kevin Coombs

Women have often been given a bad deal when it comes to work, whether we like it or not.

That, to me, is encapsulated in the fact that despite there being an Equal Pay Act in place in the UK since 1970, women still earn on average 17 percent less per hour than men for doing the equivalent role in the workplace, according to figures from The Fawcett Society.

Let’s not get confused here. This is not about women working part-time when men are working full time. This is the average gap for men and women working full time.

If you want to talk part-time, no problem – the figures actually get worse. The average woman is being paid 36 per cent less – more than a third – than a man doing the equivalent part-time role. When you get into London, this rises to 45 per cent – almost half, according to The Fawcett Society.

So what is going on here? A number of things really. Experts estimate that 40 per cent of the pay gap is down to old-fashioned discrimination on the part of employers. Add to that the reality that women are still, in many cases, primarily responsible for the role of caring for the family, and it makes it hard to do the extra hours that some men can take for granted.

I’m sure plenty of people will disagree with what I am saying, many will agree – but let’s get one thing clear. This pay gap is still here because of two things: the government is not enforcing pay equality at present, even though we have had 40 years – and governments of a variety of hues – who could easily have sorted it out.

The forthcoming Equality Bill has a variety of items within it that should help, a primary one being that it “Provides for legislation requiring that employers review gender pay differences within their organisations and publish the results”. Whether this ever comes to pass remains to be seen, after all, they have had 40 years to comply with the existing 1970 Act.

The second problem is that, in many ways, we are our own worst enemies as Brits when it comes to employees’ salaries. Many people will happily discuss their sex lives at work, but suddenly become shy when it comes to talking about salaries. Why? Employers are hiding behind this existing taboo – perhaps the last taboo – and getting away with paying women less.

Perhaps the time has come to take action for ourselves, talk to each other about salaries at work and get things out in the open. Only then will we know whether we are being treated fairly. You might be surprised what you find out.

If you get your male colleagues involved, they might be surprised what they find out too.

-

The battle lines are already being drawn in this election year. Although none of us knows for sure when the election will be, there are signs that “May” is going to be a significant month.

Winning the hearts and minds of the nation is key winning an election, and as it stands, there is plenty of work to be done there for all parts of the community. A televised debate for the first time in the UK will change the way the election is fought, although it seems slightly pathetic that our politicians want the debates “themed” so they can swot up on the answers beforehand.

No doubt we will hear the same platitudes trotted out about the need to return to “family values” and that “educashun” is paramount, that “schoolsanhospitals” need more cash than they are already getting. With the country’s national debt rising by around 4,835 pounds a second cuts are needed, and are being talked about, but are unlikely to win votes.

Families have been a focus of the incumbent government to try and win the hearts and minds of the nation throughout its 12-year tenure. Yet as with so many things in politics, what is said to be a stated aim is so often contradicted by the action that succeeds it.

Tax credits are a prime example. With a system so complicated that the only person I know who understands it properly is an accountant who decided to learn Mandarin “for fun”, is it any wonder that so many problems have occurred?

Constant overpayments, the pressure of families to repay tax credits that have been wrongly calculated – and yes, they are supposed to work out for themselves how much they are due – not to mention the fact that what is due is worked out on the basis of earnings a year behind the current year, because of the way the system is set up.

Add to that the ignominy of a marginal tax rate of 70 percent – almost twice as much as that for millionaires – for some of the poorest people in our society, and it is hard to see how the government can claim this money-go-round is a success.

In 2007/2008, the aggregate amount overpaid on tax credits was 1 billion pounds, with around 1.3 million accounts being overpaid – making an average of just under 750 pounds each, according to HM Revenue & Customs figures. Given that some people will have been underpaid, there is a real issue here. That money is not written off either – nor should it be, in fairness, as it is money paid in good faith to government coffers by taxpayers.

Yet what position does it put the families in who are required to pay that money back? The revenue has changed the system to automatically recoup tax credits from the start of this year, and will reduce the tax credits of those who have been overpaid because they have not told it about a change in circumstances quickly enough.

But since 44 million phone calls were not answered by revenue staff last year, almost half of the total number of calls made, is it any wonder that some honest people have fallen foul of the rules?

Once the amount overpaid has been recouped, then the tax credits will increase to where they should be.
In some cases, this could lead to a loss of the entire tax credit, but at the very least 10 per cent would go.

It may not sound like a lot, but when you are dealing with the poorest families in the UK, the smallest amount is going to have an impact. Since the recoup is automatic, it also begs the question “what happens if the Revenue makes a mistake?”.

The offer of free school meals to 500,000 primary school children in the pre-Budget report will help low income families stretch their budgets that bit further, especially now that Vat has gone back up to 17.5 percent. But then why delay this move until September, when Labour may not even be in power at all to make it happen? This is a measure that families need a lot sooner to help them make ends meet.

The dichotomy does not make sense.

Since the televised debate is going to bring British elections into the 21st Century, perhaps the politicians should drag themselves into the same century, and get a grip on what matters to people most.

When you have ladies anecdotally agreeing to vote for the British National Party because they have promised to sort out their wheelie bins, politicians need to think less about claiming expenses to clearing moats and buying duck houses, and more about what really matters to families in the UK.