Man tax

[Paq]

I'm proposing a separate, higher, rate of income tax for men. My rationale is that men cost the state more (they are responsible for the vast majority of crime for e.g.), they do much less unpaid labour (care, volunteering), and the patriarchy is responsible for the inequality in pay and wealth of women.

And before anyone says "but maternity care" - it took a man to make that baby.

Only half in jest...

I concur

Ooh, interesting thought!

No. My dh is our sole income provider so any additional tax on him, affects me and my children.

Also my dh and make dc are not criminals and shouldn't be lumped on with those who are.

Plenty of women don't volunteer either!

It’s an interesting thought experiment but charging people based on group crime rates would be dicey pretty fast if you if you applied it to race or income level. Or postcode actually.

But the extra tax will be distributed to services that support women and children. Like, for example, free universal childcare. Or free public transport for all.

@Magentax the crime rate was just an example, but could you imagine what policing and social services would look like if it wasn't dealing with male violence?

Oh yes I agree. Crime is almost entirely a male phenomenon.

Also, courts, prisons, probation, extra healthcare costs...

Seems fair. Perhaps we could call it the "blue tax" and it could be equal to the amounts I pay in extra stuff or overpriced things because society tells me I have to do certain things?

eg hair cuts (I definitely think men should be taxed the difference in price between my hair cut cost and theirs), make up, more expensive basics etc.

I do benefit from reduced mobile phone costs as a woman - I refuse to buy the fancy upgraded phones designed for men's hands that I can barely hold in two hands so get smaller, cheaper phones. But not sure it compensates sufficiently.

But the extra tax will be distributed to services that support women and children. Like, for example, free universal childcare. Or free public transport for all.

This is nice but I'd rather have the money directly in my husband's wage, to spend on things that directly benefit me. Dh already pays a shitload of tax which could be used for these things, if the government was so inclined. But it isn't and this tax would end up being subsumed into general government coffers and squandered. Meanwhile my household would be poorer.
Sorry, being a killjoy, I know

I've cost the nhs more money than dh with my childbirth costs, regular HRT, dental treatment.

Is the increased cost of women's haircuts etc offset my the money spent on cycling equipment by MAMIL?

Pregnancy and childbirth is moot @ImAvingOops as it's jointly caused.

Also, men take up more of the public realm, so should pay proportionately more. Public spaces are typically designed for men, not women.

A "man tax" is what a feminist political party in Sweden wanted a few years back. At their peak they got 2.2% votes in the election but after some controversy (they encouraged followers to read the "SCUM manifesto" and called men animals) they fizzled into nothing.

I think it's a great idea.

It's irrelevant your DH and DS aren't criminals pp. I'm not a criminal and my tax still pays towards the police. Childless people still pay towards schools and maternity care.

I think if the extra tax burden due could be calculated that would be incredibly powerful indeed.

Though pesky women do live longer so their pension costs are higher... not sure how many factors would be needed for this.

This could backfire with self ID

I can imagine the headlines. "Huge surge in crimes committed by women"...

We used to have something similar, albeit on a smaller scale: car insurance premiums used to be higher for men than for women, because men in general have vastly more accidents and vastly higher claims than women.

But apparently that was discriminatory, so it was banned.

How about just allowing women their state pension five years earlier. That's how it used to be and it was changed in the name of equality. However the gender pay gap still exits therefore it was not justified.

JellySaurus

The reason behind women paying less for car insurance wasn't due to men having more crashes (they had fewer accidents) but because men are more likely to write off cars, were as women has more accidents but they were under the amount at which insurers had to pay out.

there was also a café that charged a man tax, that has now closed down.

I remembered it was something about women costing insurers less than men. Clearly did not remember the details.

Women cost the state considerably more in pensions

Costing more in pensions (and greater longevity) mean that women should have a higher pensionable age and/or higher NI

Well over 2/3 of men aren't criminals

Maybe it should be a case that fines should be replaced by ongoing higher tax?

So it is those who cause the problem who pay, not everyone who shares a characteristic with them.

Same principle as polluter pays, but transferred to the tax system (as opening post was about tax)

Ah FFS, this is ridiculous, completely sexist and totally disparaging.

If women had equal earnings throughout their working life their reliance on state pension benefits would be less.