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...

How on earth is something as common-sense and essential as demanding that products and services be also designed with female users' needs and proportions in mind anything like slapping a tax on to somebody because of their sex?

The former is a positive, proactive change - granted one that should never have been necessary to campaign for in the first place - whereas the other is just regressive, bitter and (whether intentional or not) powerlessly supporting the status quo.

Because I think the ‘prize’ for the SAHP is that they didn’t have to work for however long they didn’t. We can’t pretend this isn’t a benefit - nobody lies on their deathbed wishing they had spent less time with their kids and more time making money. In return the working parent never gets to spend that amount of quality time with their children and has to do their job.

I'm not sure that sah is completely a benefit. Yes, it's nice to spend that time with your children, but It comes with sacrifices too - loss of earnings/career progression/pension contributions. Loss of confidence and employability.
Let's not pretend that there are no benefits for the wohp too - it's nice to be able to focus on work (especially if you have a fulfilling career) and not stress about school holiday childcare, what happens when the kids are sick, having to rush out dead on the dot to get to nursery before the late fees kick in! And the peace of mind of knowing your kids are with their other parent and not worrying if they are happy in their childcare setting.

The League women are very skilful. The Union women are very physical. So, just like the men, basically 😆

I read this like 10 times. Are you suggesting that women should be designing their own PPE rather than complaining that it doesn't fit? Really?

<mind blown>

I'm not sure that sah is completely a benefit. Yes, it's nice to spend that time with your children, but It comes with sacrifices too - loss of earnings/career progression/pension contributions.

That's been debated many times on MN, and individual women see it in different ways.
Don't forget that SAHPs get national insurance paid while not working. Since most SAHPs are women, it's a benefit that directly benefits primarily women. Should working women pay a woman tax to cover that?

@deydododatdodontdeydo , I guess for me it's less about the rights and wrongs or values attached to sah v woh, but about 2 people making a joint decision that has benefits and drawbacks for both, but results in one (usually the man)becoming materially advantaged. Part of that advantage comes not just from remaining in work, but in having all the extra support you get from having a partner who isn't balancing their own career! I think joint agreements should leave both parties in an equal state.
And, of course, when divorced men don't pay spousal support, this falls on the taxpayers and that is money which could be better spent on services

Nothing in life is completely a benefit. But MN just seems to measure whether something is a benefit in financial terms - whereas you can slog away for 50 years to get your pension and financial security only to end up wishing you’d spent more time with your kids and with the hindsight of knowing you wouldn’t have got divorced anyway. And of course the NI is paid - many women who have been drawing pensions for years never worked FT after their kids were born.

@ImAvingOops that's what I mean about it's down to the individual.
Yes men become materially advantaged often, and it's fine for those who love their jobs, but many are stuck in jobs they hate for years or with a ton of stress.
And women benefit from not having that stressful working life or having to do those dull, drudgery jobs.
Many of the mum friends I made when my kids were babies loved that they could quit their jobs and most of them haven't returned to full time work after 18 years. Not working would drive some women crazy, but not the ones I know!

A man might regret being at work all those years, but equally a woman might regret not earning her own income. Especially as we live in a society which does only value that which directly generates money. There's plenty of dull drudgery involved in sah. For people on high incomes, both work and sah is probably more pleasurable than if you are not. For those women you know who haven't returned to work, that might be because they've lost skills and confidence as much as a desire to sah, whatever they say publicly.
Every individual case is different but in a wider societal sense sah disproportionately disadvantages women and so I think legal protection should be in place to mitigate this when couple's divorce.

a woman might regret not earning her own income
For those women you know who haven't returned to work, that might be because they've lost skills and confidence

Well yes. What seems like a good idea and a firm, definite decision can be regretted later.
I haven't returned to full time work either. I have definitely lost confidence - the thought of having to get up and get to an office and spend 8 hours there fills me with total dread. And I know I don't have high earning potential.
But I also know that it was my decision alone to do this, I can't blame anyone else for it.

It's not about blame though - presumably you and your partner agreed this course of action and it will have been beneficial to them too, so it's about making sure you aren't disadvantaged because of it if your relationship ended. It's usually women who end up with more childcare responsibilities post divorce and less freedom to just live and work where they want and this should be recognised and compensated for.

It's hard to have a family and a career and there's a great deal of peace of mind in not having to worry about childcare at all. But because this isn't measurable in monetary terms, it isn't valued. I think I'm saying this was solely your decision, like many women you are taking on the whole mental burden of something that you both felt at the time was good for your whole family. If it all went pear shaped, I just think it should be recognised that the advantages and disadvantages of both you and your ex's contributions should be equally shared since they result from a partnership.

But I also know that it was my decision alone to do this, I can't blame anyone else for it.

In a lot of cases the decision is sort of out of the hands of the lower earner if they don't earn enough to come near to covering childcare. There's a lot to weigh up - it's not just 'spending time with your children', it's taking the responsibility to always be providing childcare of sorts - when they're ill, in school holiday etc.

It's one of those things where the pros and cons really vary and are hard to measure objectively.

There's the small matter of the rugby union World Cup final on the tv right now. Unbelievable levels of skill and athleticism. I got up especially to watch two peak teams go head to head.

Both union and league have been fantastic.
It has been good to see stadiums full of fans (of both sexes).

But then they'd have to work full time for their whole work life like most men do.

But they usually do this in place of full time work.

If you truly believe that, then you are living under a rock.

Not entirely, yes in terms of direct tax. But those on lower incomes will pay a higher proportion of thier income in indirect taxes on the same item.

I've already seen this, Sparklfairy, a few years ago when the rise in crime by 'women' was first noticed by the media! Police and courts had already started letting self-ID in through the back door.

One example, from a piece by Debbie Hayton in the Spectator after Tonia Antoniazzi MP spoke up in parliament last year:
where particular offences are very rarely committed by women, the addition of just one or two people can have a significant impact on data. Antoniazzi alluded to the case of transgender fell-runner Lauren Jeska who was jailed in 2017 for the attempted murder of Ralph Knibbs, UK Athletics’ head of human resources and welfare. That one case, Antoniazzi pointed out, falsely elevated the number of women convicted of attempted murder that year in England and Wales by around 20 per cent.
www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-offenders-are-skewing-crime-statistics/

If only!

@TruckerBarbie look up "the second shift". Working women still do far more domestic and caring labour than working men.

I'd just rather women wasn't the same as men tbh

Wasn't = earns

@ImAvingOops Every individual case is different but in a wider societal sense sah disproportionately disadvantages women and so I think legal protection should be in place to mitigate this when couple's divorce.

This is indeed what the law endevours to achieve in E&Welsh divorce settlements - 50/50 split. Its very rare of the working spouse's success in making money to be considered 'Stellar' enough to justify a move away from an equal division.