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 meant the state pension, not benefits paid to low income households (including those for pensioner households)

But it's the longer years of paying out that make the difference, not just the amount

Women only live on average c.4 years longer than men, so it's not a huge difference in the pension bill.

Yes, but multiply that over the whole population, and that's a significant cost - total annual pensions bill is over £1.8bil.

So with a unified pension age of 67 (which it will be in idc) that's 12 years or so for a man, and 16 years for a woman. That means women cost 1/3 more than men in retirement. That's a big difference to the total bill

Just no what a ridiculous and dangerous outlook you have

You can't reasonably charge more tax to men because they share one characteristic with the majority of criminals. It's the thin end of the wedge in the destruction of people's rights. I heard somewhere that shoplifting is most likely to be carried out by middle aged women - do we get increased prices at the til for being over 45?

Women also take on a higher burden of unpaid care though, so they are "working" more in retirement.

Women also spend their income differently, in a way that benefits the economy more (evidenced when the universal child benefit was paid directly to mothers), creating more value.

I think we should dig a little deeper. In the USA, for example, African American men should pay something like 3 times more taxes than Caucasian men and Asian American men at least 2 times less than Caucasians.

What say you?

I made the point about race already.

Problem you have fundamentally is criminality tracks against poverty fairly precisely. So if you take a group where criminality is disproportionately high - like young black men in the US - and then try to recover the costs via tax you’ll end up with the high earning outliers (who are very likely not criminals) shouldering it. The criminals won’t be paying much, if any, tax anyway.

Great idea, OP.

As well as taxing men and black people more we should also tax fat people because of the increased cost to the NHS.

Translation services cost the country a lot of money so the Welsh and south Asians need to made to pay.

I think the pension debate is a bit of a red herring: the main thing is to massively increase tax on the old, say in increments from age 55.

I think this is such a good idea, we should go a bit further. Since men, blacks and people with MH problems tend towards criminality we really shouldn't be letting them vote either.

Historical factors, structural inequalities and racism are to blame here. So no, I don't think it's comparable. Of course, men are also victims of patriarchy. Just not in the same way as women.

But that moves the goalposts from making a higher cost group pay for those costs to it being more about punishing a group where it’s their fault. In which case collective punishment makes much less sense.

Men already pay more tax don't they, because of the gender pay gap.

Fat people are taxed more because of the high vat and taxes on unhealthy/fattening food.

I think men paying higher tax should be to compensate for the amount of unpaid labour women do. We know that the actual cost of this unpaid labour - from childcare to elderly care to cooking/cleaning etc is massive. Men hugely benefit, as does society as a whole. But the women who do it... not so much.

But who produced and raised those criminals?

But who produced and raised those criminals?

Men and women jointly produced them. Men and women raised them. Where men abandoned their children they are no less culpable for any negative outcomes.

Research shows in fact that lack of male role models has a very negative impact on children, boys in particular. So men who abandon their partners and children are really more to blame for future problems.

They pay more in absolute terms but a lower marginal rate as women make up a disproportionate amount of low earners.

They pay more in absolute terms

Which is what is important right? Because that means there is more money paid by men to pay for the costs of crime, etc.
i.e., according to your line of thinking - men are responsible for most of the crime so they should pay more to cover that. Which they do. Problem solved.

I haven't done the maths (I don't think anyone has) but I doubt the margin between taxes paid by men and by women makes up for the cost of male violence and criminality.

Oh Grow Up!

It was simple mathematics represented as a positive for women. Men drive more miles and therefore have more accidents. Any woman stating they drive 40000 miles a year would face a hefty premium.

Again, though, who selected those men to be fathers of offspring? Many women choose to bear multiple children in situations where they know the sperm donor is going to be absent, abusive or just plain shit. There are umpteen examples of that on threads here this very day.

That's as anti-social and detrimental to society as what most of these "criminal" men are doing, in my book.

@ZeldaWillTellYourFortune don't these men know they are shit fathers so should take themselves out of the gene pool?

What are men doing to improve the overall quality of fatherhood?