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...

Interesting, but I would think women probably cost the state more actually because we retire earlier and live much longer than men.

Also there already is a man tax effectively because men tend to earn more so pay more tax.

It would be really divisive, pitting men against women. You'd have certain angry men thinking that if they were going to be treated as criminals, they might as well behave like them, when previously they wouldn't have tipped into that behaviour. It wouldn't help foster a peaceful, cohesive society.

Women could stop having kids they can't afford, in shitty circumstances, but they choose not to.

Women could stop having kids they can't afford, in shitty circumstances, but they choose not to.

How can someone accurately predict their income or financial status in a year's time, let alone over 18+ years? Do you live in some fantasy world where 'what is affordable' remains constant and predictable throughout life?

Please, do tell.

I'd agree that women should stop having kids with men already proven to be shitty fathers to their existing kids. But better than a man tax would be proper enforcement of child support payments, which should be based on the real cost of raising a child and not reduced when he finds some other woman and has more kids.
Also ensuring that women get a fair settlement on divorce if they've been sahp while he grows his career - there should be legal recognition that he owes his wife support.
And stop allowing large corporations (usually run by men) to avoid fair taxation.
I think these things would do more to improve the lives of women than a man tax tbh.

👏🏾

Interesting point about white privilege tax which I'm not really going to go into because this is the feminism board.

Except to say white privilege is not universal, there are countries and societies where it doesn't apply (and where white women are disadvantaged compared to black men).

Excellent idea! Also man tickets for public transport to fund man spreading

What you charge people extra for, they then think they have a right to do. Why shouldn't they dodge CS or not participate in criminal behaviour - they're paying for it anyway, right? This would backfire. And wouldn't actually be necessary if criminals were made to pay meaningful consequences and compensation

This has given me pause for thought, and I expect there will be some men who would think this way. But I don't feel it kills the idea:

(i) No sane man would see such a tax as carte blanche to rape, pillage etc. The men who don't do these things do so mainly, I'd suggest, because they have moral radars, not because they fear getting caught (we all know what the conviction figures for sexual assault and theft look like - approaching zero).

(ii) You could level the same argument at any kind of progressive taxation (eg. 'if we increase tax on higher earners, they'll just behave more like venal shits; may as well not bother'). I am sure some people do think like that, but almost every civilised society recognises the benefits outweigh the downsides.

I think this is looking at it the wrong way around. Assuming the premise is correct, that men cost more (not 100% sure that is true, women living longer means that they consume additional years of an array of really expensive end of life drugs and visits by care workers -- I don't think that is a bad thing but it radically changes total costs - but lets go with the premise).

In terms of crime. the sex of a citizen is but on factor a higher correlation can be found by examining a persons parents income, if their parents stayed together during childhood, the quality of their school, the number of hours their parents invested into them and so on. Your idea should really tax children of single, low income mothers more. Children of wealthy, stable, nurturing households should get a discount.

(Am not serious, but can see very well paid lawyers arguing this in court !)

The comment re child support being mandated etc has made me think. Maybe that's the point - it's not that we need to tax men more just for being men, but more that we absolutely have to make it so that they can't wriggle out of the costs that are arguably already there but that they choose to ignore?

I agree completely re child support - the fight so many women go through to get any kind of financial support from the fathers of their children should just stop being an issue. Those men should be taxed at source or penalised if they don't pay.

Similarly, I completely agree re divorce - a SAHP (man or woman) should not be penalised in the divorce because she/he didn't work during the marriage. Courts need to mandate this and make it an actual thing, rather than the wishy washy approach we have now.

But men currently do pay more than women in tax. They’re more likely to be in work, full time work, higher earners etc.

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

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'm nicking that expression. Love it!

But men already pay far more in tax than do women.

No, you are wrong. Men pay a higher absolute amount and a greater amount as a fraction of their income.

I think it’s interesting that some debates about tax and spending are framed in gendered terms, and others aren’t. For example people or some newspapers are always banging on about the benefits received by single mothers, and wha a drain this is on resources.

Yet you hardly ever hear the same gendered debate about the criminal justice system. The vast majority of crimes are committed by men and they represent the vast majority of prisoners. This costs an absolute fortune but I never hear about the massive cost of these in gendered terms.

I think we’re so used to seeing men as the ‘norm’ and women as the other we sometimes don’t even consciously register these things.

Yet you hardly ever hear the same gendered debate about the criminal justice system. The vast majority of crimes are committed by men and they represent the vast majority of prisoners. This costs an absolute fortune but I never hear about the massive cost of these in gendered terms.

I think we’re so used to seeing men as the ‘norm’ and women as the other we sometimes don’t even consciously register these things.

Absolutely this. This is why I like getting people to think about how different things would be if men offended at the same rate as women! Would there be any downsides? Would men's biological makeup have to change or could societal changes bring this about?

Aren’t feminists supposed to be against discrimination based on sex?

No.

Maybe supposed to be, but in my experience are generally not. More often it seems there’ll be a lot of unhappiness about discrimination that goes against them, but precious little about discrimination that favours them.

I suspect many of the WASPI women, for example, would think of themselves as feminists.

Have you read 'Invisible Women'? I'll assume not.

Feminists want sex to be taken into account when it is important - e.g. when things like physical size, the ability to get pregnant, possibility menstruating, etc have direct consequences. For example, if two men (or two women) are having unprotected sex, contraception advice should be different from when a man and a woman are having unprotected sex.

When physical differences are not relevant it should not be taken into account.

I hope that is not too complex for you!

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

Men can help not being violent.
but they choose not to.

So how could an individual man possibly 'win', then? If he chooses a life of complete peace, kindness, justice and harmony towards all humankind, he's still blamed for the sex chromosomes he was born with and cannot change?

As has already been touched on, if you impute negative behaviour and expectations to somebody based on a single characteristic, it tends to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you effectively hammer home to the very many 'good' men that they are bad, will always be bad and cannot be considered anything but bad, how do you think that's going to play out in reality?

This is exactly the kind of thread that gives MN a bad name (justifiably - not to be confused with the many threads standing up for and fighting for women's rights in the face of huge adversity which upsets the oppressors and leads them to hurl childish butt-hurt insults). The other way around, we'd be (rightly) talking about toxic masculinity, misogyny and the huge problem of incels.

So by that rationale feminists are in favour of female athletes earning less than men?

But the individual man is already 'winning' by virtue of his male privilege. Even if we reduce the conversation to financial terms, an extra 5% tax on his salary will on average be cancelled by the gender pay gap.

Concerning

if you impute negative behaviour and expectations to somebody based on a single characteristic, it tends to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(i) have you any evidence for this?

(ii) even if true, the same accusation could be applied to any form of progressive taxation. For example, even if taxing higher earners more makes some of them more financially cut-throat, all civilised countries recognise that such tax policies are still a net win.