A/HRC/26/28 and characteristics make it more likely they will have to interact with State-funded institutions and services on a regular basis. This is particularly the case for people who experience multiple forms of discrimination and disadvantage; for example, persons with disabilities are more likely to come into regular contact with health and social services, while women are more likely to be directly dependent on social protection and health systems for at least some period of their lives because of their sexual and reproductive health and maternity-related needs. Women also serve as unpaid alternative care providers when public services are not adequately funded, increasing their time burden and limiting their opportunities to engage in paid work, education, training or leisure, while also negatively affecting their enjoyment of rights such as health, education, participation and social security.51 B. Achieving equality and tackling discrimination 45. Transferring and redistributing wealth through taxation has the potential to redress systemic discrimination (based on, inter alia, gender, race, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status) and to spur progress towards substantive equality.52 These are fundamental human rights goals and are conducive to sustainable poverty reduction. Tax structures must, however, be carefully designed if a more equitable distribution of incomes is to be achieved. 46. Progressive tax systems, in particular direct taxes, are one of the most important tools available to Governments in addressing income inequality.53 Personal income tax is one of the most progressive and important kinds of tax in this regard. Indirect taxes, such as those based on consumption (such as value-added or sales taxes) are typically regressive, because they generally constitute a larger proportion of the income of people living in poverty;54 for example, in Latin America, on average for the poorest 20 per cent of the population, sales tax accounts for 13.7 per cent of their income, while only 5.8 per cent of income for the richest 20 per cent.55 Thus, despite exemptions aimed at decreasing the burden on lowerincome groups, the poor bear a tax burden 2.4 times higher than that of the wealthiest people.56 Women, who tend to use larger portions of their income on basic goods because of gender norms that assign them responsibility for the care of dependents, bear the regressive brunt of consumption taxes.57 47. Overall, high tax rates for goods and services and low rates for income, wealth and property bring about inequitable and discriminatory outcomes; indeed, it has been shown that the negative effect of indirect taxes on the income of people living in or on the verge of poverty can be greater than the positive effect of cash transfers. 58 Such regressive tax structures also restrict the redistributive aspect of social programmes, resulting in them 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 12 See A/68/293. Ignacio Saiz, “Resourcing Rights: Combating Tax Injustice from a Human Rights Perspective”, in Aoife Nolan, Rory O’Connell and Colin Harvey (eds.), Human Rights and Public Finance (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2013). See IMF, Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality (see footnote 43), and Tax Justice Network Africa Africa and Christian Aid, Africa Rising? (see footnote 49). See Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Cummins, “A Recovery for All”, UNICEF, 2012, p. 210. Inter-American Development Bank, Recaudar No Basta: Los impuestos como instrumento de desarrollo, 2013, p. 247. Ibid. UNDP, Gender Equality and Poverty Reduction: Taxation, Issues Brief, No. 1, April 2010. Nora Lustig, “Taxes, Transfers and Income Redistribution in Latin America”, World Bank, Inequality in Focus, vol. 1, No. 2, 2012.