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...

An alternative way to think about it is - what would society look like if men assaulted and committed other crimes at the same rate that women do?

The state would save so much money, on NHS clearing up violence, prisons, court cases.

They should, but so should some women take themselves out of the gene pool.

And we have the ultimate authority as to who does / does not become a father, not they. With greater power comes greater responsibility. I know despite having flings with some "interesting" men I certainly didn't allow myself to "fall pregnant" by them, being aware that they were wholly unsuitable as long term partners let alone fathers.

And if I weren't prepared to terminate I would have been even more careful and selective. Extremely so. That's how women can improve the overall quality of fatherhood. Having kids by some obviously feckless tosser and then saying "well, now he's a father he should just do better" is absurd.

It was never up to some man whether or not I bore a child. Let alone 3, 4 or 5 children by some shiftless or abusive loser. The whole notion that only men commit antisocial acts is absurd. How about a "woman tax" to make up for all that ill-advised reproductive decisions are costing our society?

And we have the ultimate authority as to who does / does not become a father, not they. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

I'm not even going to bother to point out that not every mother chose to be a mother. Women are still a world away from true reproductive autonomy.

But I completely disagree that men should be just let off the hook for the birth of children they then don't want to care for and support. Children should not be a women's issue. They are a societal issue.

As an individual I don't have any say as to whether any man (or woman) has a baby or not.

I've always found it odd when people describe benefits as supporting women and children, but really they are supporting the absent parent.

I don't think they should be let off the hook but we could have a lot fewer of these asshole fathers if women simply refused to procreate with them. Have some standards, people!

At this point Zelda I'm just going to assume you're an MRA.

Probably have to get rid of my body my choice too if we want to categories having children as a purely joint decision

I agree and suggest a structural approach

Free Vasectemys at 15. Any male who refuses is subject to the additional tax.
Any man can apply for vasectemy reversal but only for essential population top up purposes.with a reference from a community leader (female)

the scum manifesto is alive and well.

The man's moment of choice is at conception, after that it's up to her.

That's fine morally but we're talking about an amoral taxation system that's offering women a way to reduce their impact on the public purse that's not being offered to men based purely on biology.

My initial proposal was that men pay more because they cost the state more and they contribute less in terms of unpaid labour. This is not intended to be a debate on reproductive rights.

The last set of available data (2019-20 financial year) shows that men currently pay around £82b more in income tax than women.

However, to get a fully accurate view, we would need corporation tax values broken down by the sex of the owner / majority shareholders / all shareholders and that is something I don't have. Same for National Insurance.

We'd also have to factor in council tax and whose wage that comes from and then which wage is paying for VAT eligible items etc.

Sounds like a slippery slope in terms of deciding how much people cost - people on a low income, people with chronic illnesses, people who grew up in care, obese people, etc etc all cost more. Why not raise taxes for them as well?

Yes it is a daft idea really because taxes are for all our benefits and the more you have the paid more you pay in theory.

The labour I do in our home is not unpaid. I could go and be a cleaner and cook or childminder for others for a wage, or I can do it for my family for pure enjoyment, my own benefit, and having all my rent and bills paid.

The former would not be enjoyable, the latter is fulfilling and enjoyable.

The last set of available data (2019-20 financial year) shows that men currently pay around £82b more in income tax than women.

Take into account that married men with children are more likely to have their careers/earnings facilitated by wives who take on a greater caring burden.

Crime costs people and companies £100bn. So men's extra income tax isn't covering it. Police funding is £17bn.

Wow what an unhinged, sexist post.

But likely would cover both of those costs once you factor in the additional taxes I mentioned. This would be particularly true given that, as you say, there are men who can pay more tax because a woman is taking the greater care burden as the majority of the married couple's council tax and the VAT paid on bought goods and services will be funded from the man's wage.

For your idea to translate from the theoretical to reality, there would need to be further research and data crunching done so that a true and accurate picture of "today" could be formed.

However, based on my cursory look alone, I think that a tax like that could only exist if the balance of care for children was more equal with more men choosing to remain at home as the primary caregiver and more women choosing to work as the primary earner. Either that or both men and women working in full time roles regardless of children and all childcare falling to paid organisations.

Otherwise, on the surface, men will always contribute more to the treasury than they, in theory, cost. In fact, if this was to be properly debated, some politicians could claim that, currently, women pay less into the treasury than they benefit from or withdraw in benefits/pensions. This, of course, wouldn't be the same if the balance of childcare and paid work was more equal.

I don't see a difficulty with this; I think it's a great idea.

I'd extend the same kind of approach to white people, who also benefit from unearned privilege, and as a class have done an enormous amount of harm to the planet, and continue to do so every day.

The obvious answer to this is (i) these classes can't help their afflictions, whereas male violence is a definite choice and (ii) this groups don't benefit from unearned privilege - in fact, the opposite.

It’s a weird stance to say that people can’t help being poor but can help being men.

People can't help being men but maybe men could stop with all the murders and assaults.

Men can help not being violent.

but they choose not to.