Feminism tax con

[WhimsicalMoth]

I recently read a post stating "Feminism was a government generated scam, aiming to break up the traditional family unit by sending women to work, to therefore generate more revenue in tax for the government"
This statement was spotted on an account on a popular social media app which also had many other government conspiracy-type videos.

I can wholeheartedly say this thought has never crossed my mind.
I wanted to hear some thoughts, whether you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Governments aren't known for their ability to organise things well eg the poll tax, miners strikes, HS2, PPE etc in the middle of a pandemic. I think organising feminism is probably a bit beyond them.

Ummmm.

If women earn their own money (which they should) then they should be taxed on it.

I am not seeing the con here.

It also presupposes taxation is a "con", rather than a contribution we all pay to live in a civilised society.

It's easier to control women when they are home bound, not when they are educated and working. Not a very effective means of control that was. And ofc that brings more money to the government.

That doesn't make any sense.

You still need more or less the same amount of tax revenue to pay for public services, and the economy will still need more or less the same number of workers, regardless of whether each nuclear family has two working adults or one.

It's not as if the public purse is awash with extra cash being collected from these taxpaying women. If it were, governments would be able to buy people's votes more easily by lowering taxes or investing more in public services.

Where I do think there is some truth to be found is that house prices have risen higher than they would have done if it had remained the norm for women to stay at home after marriage. More double income families means higher household incomes on average, and property sellers charge what people are able and willing to pay.

I’ve never thought this. But I’ve always thought that the bastards get you in the end. Once upon a time a single wage could sustain a household, women went to work and households got more money, which drove the cost of everything up. So now households need two adults in work. Are families better off for this? No, the wages just don’t go as far.

Feminism has allowed women to be financially independent.

Prior to this they were effectively dependents of their husband. This was not to women’s benefit.

It’s very easy to forget what life looked like for our grandmothers, great-grandmothers etc.

Also, tax is only "government money" in the sense that they decide where it's spent on behalf of everyone else. It doesn't literally go to the members of the government (in theory anyway).

And feminism/more women in the workplace has happened throughout the world. Which government in particular is in charge of this conspiracy? Or are they all in it together - even more unlikely.

It's just utter nonsense even for a conspiracy theory, it doesn't bear 30 seconds of critical thought before it falls apart.

There are some challenges to ‘the new way’ ie women commonly working full time while having families.

I think that one ‘failure’ has been that women still seem to be predominantly responsible for domestic life, while also working full time. This is very difficult.

Another is that ‘working life’ still looks like it did in the 1950s. Everything still assumed one parent working and one not (working hours, expectations on commutes, school times). Technology should have freed up time… but we are working longer hours than ever.

Well, it hasn't worked because there are fewer tax contributors than ever at the moment.

Women are generally much more efficient workers than men, in most tasks. And iverall mkre reliable. But they're usually limited to the lower ranks due to being held back by spending time out of the workforce to have children, or caring for others including children and elderly/ unwell relatives. They are paid less on average even for the same work, so the economy benefits from having a better workforce (which includes efficient female workers) and vetting away with
r paying them less. A better level of equality than many other countries has come about through the campaigning and hard won rights for women in the UK, particularly in the 20th century. I wouldn't expect the government has intentionally devised this, as let's be honest they're not the brightest bunch, but businesses have certainly benefitted from having good put cheap workers, and the lack of family units foes make people more depressed and therefore more likely to spend on tat rather than save to ake themselves feel slightly better for a short time. This money is largely funnelled into the pockets of the very few though, so no one sees any benefit and we all lose, yay 😊

I’m always intrigued by theories that suggest a Machiavellian level of planning, insight and strategy by a government that clearly couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.

My grandparents born pre WW1 didn't get that memo, both of them and all they knew had both people in the couple working. Poor people always had to work regardless.
But everywhere you look is possible to live on a single income and many do. Maybe not to the standard we'd like... What is different now that for even middle class we have more outgoings, mostly of our choosing. If I had to live in one income I'd not be buying clothes, shoes, I'd not have a few streaming subscriptions. It's not that prices went up or whatever, we buy more and use more and we're less used to fixing and repairing and reusing.

What @PenguinLord says. Poorer people have always been dependent on 2 incomes even though women were paid less. A non-working wife was always aspirational.

Yep my granny always worked.