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...

Its interesting how posters are able to justify their sexism.

How about addressing the points they are making, instead of just insulting them?

Should disabled men be charged this fantasy tax on their benefits?

If he's working, yes. Because that disabled man still has privilege over a woman with the same disability.

He’s not working. He’s disabled and on benefits

I'm pointing out that posters are justifying their sexism. No more needs to be said.

I simply cannot see how you took @LaughingPriest example and translated that to think female athletes should earn less? Female athletes, when competing against other female athletes, demonstrate the same skill, dexterity etc as male athletes so why should they be paid less?

There are sports like tennis where they play for shorter amounts of time - eg 3 set vs 5 sets - but women tennis players have long said they'd be very happy to play 5 sets. And as a tennis watcher, I'd love to see it - 5 set games can be very exciting, I'd love to see that level of excitement in a woman's match at a big tournament.

Well, no, then, because he would have no taxable income (assuming no CGT, no taxable pension income etc.)

Sounds absolutely batshit. It's a no from me. And I'm female before anyone asks.

The argument was that differential outcomes were acceptable where physical differences matter. Female athletes in pretty much every sport perform at a lower level,than male athletes, so by the rationale given this would be an argument for paying them less.

I am finding it entertaining how seriously some people are taking this thread, and the level of offence they are taking as a result.

I'm also finding the discussion interesting as a way to explore a particular issue from a different angle.

There are lots of ways that men benefit financially because they are men. The pay gap, obviously. But also lots of things that they either pay less for or don't have to pay for at all because our society has developed that way - I spend WAAAAAAY more on taxis than any man I know because when I've had a few drinks and it's dark I don't feel comfortable walking home. I spend more on personal grooming because there's a certain expectation and because I've got used to it - from hair cuts to manicures to skincare. I have a wider selection of clothing so while my clothing is not any more expensive than DH's, I have to have more of it to meet the various requirements.

I don't HAVE to do these things but there's an expectation and I've grown up with it and it's what makes me comfortable. Because I'm a woman. Even at our local high schools - the boys all wear generic non-branded trousers but the girls have to wear branded (and therefore more expensive) skirts.

Obviously I pay for personal hygiene products that DH does not need to.

There are probably more examples, I just can't think of them currently. Is there a similar list for men? I can't think of any.

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.

I was responding to the implication that all men actively choose violence by virtue of being born male - even those who very actively do not.

But now you mention the gender pay gap, plenty of men earn less than plenty of women do on an individual level. This is why personal taxation is levied based on individual circumstances - meaning that those who earn more (disproportionately men) thus pay more tax (also disproportionately men) - clever, eh?

Are you seriously asking for studied evidence that bringing a child up in a clear backdrop of negativity, shame, worthlessness, lack of encouragement and low expectations is much more likely to lead to them not ending up as a well-adjusted, happy, confident adult with a healthy outlook and self-esteem? Just look around you. You could always look into the demographics of the prison population correlated with levels of deprivation, abusive/neglectful parenting and low social status if you need the proof of that that most people understand as obvious.

Again, I don't quite get why you appear to see violence and taxation as pretty much the same thing. However much high earners don't want to be made to pay more taxes or see it as unfair, it's clearly arisen as a direct result of their intelligence, drive, success, hard work and/or dedication - all very positive traits.

It is not generally considered shameful to be a lower earner and thus a lower/none tax-payer; whereas it IS generally considered shameful to be violent. The one is choosing to climb the ladder to rise above the norm; whereas the other is choosing to sink below the baseline social expectations.

No. Female athletes may perform at a lower level if they are playing against men because of strength. But from a skill perspective, female athletes, performing against other female athletes, perform as well as men.

Arguably in fact, they perform better as female bodies have the option of being more flexible etc so arguably they can do more and also be more impressive. eg sports such as gymnastics where strength is just one criteria.

Actually women cost the state far more. Men are net tax payers and women are not.

My mother, controversially, stopped watching men's tennis for years and would only watch women's tennis. Her argument was that at the time (Agassi, Sampras etc) men's tennis was basically two men hitting the ball as hard as they could at each other while women's tennis was a game of skill and dexterity.

It may be slightly different today but I take the point and would certainly agree that in certain situations women athletes should be paid more if we base the decision on who is more entertaining to watch.

@thedancingbear

Annnnd watch men vote in the most ultra right government who will quickly reverse this tax along with a lot of other things and continue to go further and further in their sexism. After all, if women will do it to them then why not?

But men cost the state an absolutely fortune in terms of the criminal justice system, as they - as a group - commit the vast majority of crimes.

Also, men may pay more overall in tax, but this is propped up by women doing a massive amount of unpaid work, such as caring for children.

Its much more complicated than numbers on a balance sheet that show men as a whole pay more tax than women as a whole.

@TiredButDancing

Who is more entertaining to watch is whoever more people watch though. Which is why mens sports earn far more on average by your own logic.

@Scooopsahoy

Men don’t just pay more tax, they literally pay the tax into the system which allows certain programs and help for women. Women are paying less tax than what they take from the state in terms of services.

It’s actually not even close, men are next tax payers, women are net receivers of benifet of that tax from the middle man of the state.

This site allows such sexism. If this was in reverse those here would be crying hate speech.

😂

Like always, white women pretend they don’t have any privilege because they’re also a minority while simultaneously claiming all men have privilege no matter what. Gotta make sure white women are the Biggest Victim and that life is Totally Not Fair.

He’s not working. He’s disabled and on benefits

Well, no, then, because he would have no taxable income (assuming no CGT, no taxable pension income etc.)

Which is just bringing us back to the obvious fact that seems to be overlooked by many that, if the gender pay gap allows an individual man to earn more than an individual woman in the same/similar circumstances could, he will pay more tax than she will. Therefore, on an overall - broadly fair - basis, you could quite reasonably say that there already IS a 'man tax'.

Incidentally, what would we say about a man and a woman who both have the same genetic condition that's carried on the X-chromosome - meaning that he will almost certainly be far more adversely affected by it than she will? Should there be a broad-brush adjustment based on A: men are more privileged, so he pays more; B: she's much luckier than he is with the condition, so she pays more; or C: (as common sense and fairness would suggest), their own individual life circumstances and linked/unlinked financial situations?

What a batshit take on things where the issue is about levels of pay.

In general, female athletes perform at a lower level than male ones, high is one of the main reasons why so many of us are fighting to keep males out of female sports.

There's a whole discussion to be had about why women's sport isn't watched more because I tend to agree - sport that brings in more money probably means those players should be paid more. But there are many reasons why woman's sport isn't as well watched/profitable which are part of a societal issue. Maybe changing a little eg with the lionesses .

The point was the same as another poster - that women shouldn't be paid less because they're less athletic than men - they're not. if you think they should be paid proportionally to their audience/ profitability, that's a different conversation but understandable.

@CloudybutMild did you miss the part where I specifically said female against female athletes?

This all started because a poster pointed out that feminism doesn't mean that men and women have to be treated exactly the same and that in certain circumastances, a woman's body directly impacts what she can and can't do as per Invisible Women. So, PPE that doesn't fit women IS a feminist issue and yes, specific PPE needs to be created for them. That's not the same argument as men and women's bodies are different so female athletes should be paid less.