Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › The Bachelor Tax
This topic contains 23 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by 
Varun 3 years, 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
The link above shows a previous history of a bachelor tax that existed. Here is a quote from part of the article:
“United States[edit]
By 1821, the state of Missouri applied a $1 tax on all unmarried men.[12]The state of Michigan had made repeated attempts to instantiate a bachelor tax. In 1837, state senator Edward D. Ellis attempted to pass such a bill, but the measure failed. In 1848, a petition made it to a House committee, but did not reach the floor. In 1849, another proposal was made in a House committee that did not reach the floor. Again in 1850, another petition reached the House, but did not find a sponsor. During the civil war it was proposed again, this time as a revenue measure as opposed to a public welfare measure, but again failed to reach the floor. It was then repeatedly brought up in 1897, 1901, 1911, 1919, with the first resulting in counter proposals for a similar tax to be applied to women who reject marriage proposals and the final resulting in arguments that bachelors had a statistically higher rate of delinquency as opposed to other groups. The final proposed bill that also made the floor of the Michigan congress was in 1935 before it too failed due to economic considerations of the time.[5]
On February 12, 1898, Assemblyman Waller of the New Jersey state legislature proposed a bachelor tax as a sumptuary tax; however, the bill was not passed.[6]
In 1921, the state of Montana applied a $3 tax on all bachelors in the state.[13] One of them, William Atzinger, refused to pay on sex discrimination grounds.[14] On January 11, 1922, the state supreme court struck down the “bachelor tax” and another poll tax applicable only to men.[15][16] However, it was done so on the grounds that the Montanan constitution of 1889 did not grant the legislature the power to tax individual persons; and attempts to define it as a policing measure for matters of public health as opposed to a revenue measure were found invalid.[13]
In the state of California in 1934, as a response to the low 1933 birth rate in California, minister of Finance Roland Vandegrift proposed a $5 to $25 bachelor tax, but the measure did not succeed.[17]”
It is all good that America did not have an actual bachelor tax recently, and they are trying to get immigrants to go in it’s country instead, because immigrants like the Arabs tend to pro-create more than the white American majority at least. According to Sandman though, the States does have a bachelor tax though through Obamacare and here is the video of what he has to say on it.
So what do you guys think?
"Question everything" - Albert Einstein
If one passes, pay it. You will come out far ahead.
It’s one hell of a glimmer of hope that it has failed in almost every application.
A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!
If one passes, pay it. You will come out far ahead.
Please explain to me and everyone else here how you can become far ahead.
"Question everything" - Albert Einstein
Anonymous3The bachelor tax already exists. Obamacare but also other government programs in place always favor females and always charge males. Even dating is a bachelor tax as men always pay for that. Even student loans, as again men usually have to pay for themselves while women have theirs paid off either by their fathers or husbands.
At this point I figure an extra bachelor tax, why not? You should already know society hates your guts and the government wants to destroy you. If it takes a bachelor tax for the purple pill brigade to finally get it through their heads, all the better. They probably won’t institute an outright bachelor tax because they’re already overstepping their bounds and MGTOW is growing. Most men aren’t getting married but instead are cohabiting and trying to protect themselves, but if the government pushes even further eventually men will have no choice but to become MGTOW.
Some of us were always going to be MGTOW no matter what, but we were always going to be a tiny minority, not worth anyone being concerned about. But MGTOW has been growing and it hasn’t been from more of us somehow “choosing” to be, it’s genetic on our parts and we don’t choose it, we are born that way. It’s more the government has been so oppressive that more and men are being forced into the same mindset, even though it’s obvious most weren’t born that way and don’t really want to be that way.
I’m MGTOW because I value freedom and have never particularly liked women and their BS. Even without the laws the way they are, it would always have been difficult for me to have been a blue pill man. But most of the guys on here, and I’m not attacking them for it, they’re MGTOW because they hate the laws and hate what they claim women have become, not that they hate the idea of family and marriage or how women were in the past. They’re okay with women’s personalities and behaviors, just not with the government oppression on top of that. Remove the government and they’d naturally marry and form families.
Now if you’re saying the government is going to get even more oppressive, that’s obviously only going to bother these men more and add even more men to that group. The only way to stop MGTOW is to go the opposite direction, that is cut back government, cut back the oppressive laws, let things move back towards a natural balance. But that is precisely what the government refuses to do and in fact a bachelor tax is the very opposite.
So I celebrate this idea. It will gain me more MGTOW brothers.
There is no need for the government (Federal at least) to come up with an outright bachelor tax. We all pay different income taxes based on the lifestyle we lead, so the government effectively taxes bachelor by giving non-bachelors certain taxes. There is the child tax credit, and there is the option to file taxes jointly. The government encourages home ownership by allowing tax free interest payments. Obamacare certainly favors women over men since women have more diverse and costly medical needs on average, but it’s really more of a man tax then bachelor tax.
The question to me is, should the government levy taxes in a manner to encourage lifestyle choices? Overall, I am good with that, but I don’t always agree with the lifestyles the government encourages.
Ok. Then do it.
Normal Tax is bachelor tax, because it’s capital of it is mostly utilized by women and crazy benefits for them, rather than men.
So yeah, look at your taxes, they already are a bachelor tax, just see it as the s~~~ty default, and still better than getting double/triple whammed, by child-support and alimony.
Even dating is a bachelor tax as men always pay for that.
Not true. One of the secrets of dating I’ve discovered is to suggest that you cover dinner if she covers the entertainment. Or if it’s just dinner that we go separate checks.
I just tell them that I have a strict policy on first dates to split everything. If they can’t hang with that in this day and age of equality, it makes them look pretty bad. I just act “as if” this is totally normal, which in my book it is.
What I’ve found happens, is that the fact that you refuse to cater to her ass is actually more likely than not to be a real turn on for her.
If she refuses, in my book that’s the massive red flag of hypocrisy since pretty much all women will cop to believing in equality when asked (even if they don’t really believe in it when it comes to dating), and on a first date equal expense sharing isn’t much.
I always work out what we’re doing for entertainment ahead of time so the cost is roughly equal to the cost of her dinner.
"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,
Anonymous3Even dating is a bachelor tax as men always pay for that.
Not true. One of the secrets of dating I’ve discovered is to suggest that you cover dinner if she covers the entertainment. Or if it’s just dinner that we go separate checks.
I just tell them that I have a strict policy on first dates to split everything. If they can’t hang with that in this day and age of equality, it makes them look pretty bad. I just act “as if” this is totally normal, which in my book it is.
What I’ve found happens, is that the fact that you refuse to cater to her ass is actually more likely than not to be a real turn on for her.
If she refuses, in my book that’s the massive red flag of hypocrisy since pretty much all women will cop to believing in equality when asked (even if they don’t really believe in it when it comes to dating), and on a first date equal expense sharing isn’t much.
I always work out what we’re doing for entertainment ahead of time so the cost is roughly equal to the cost of her dinner.
I’m extremely skeptic of that. I see a lot of things written on this site that just doesn’t happen in my experience.
The only reason a girl wants a date is to be taken out and have it paid for by the male. And if that’s the case, she won’t want to pay for it and will be extremely resentful of the man for it. She might want to pretend she is being feminist, but those types are the most resentful and dangerous. If a girl is okay with splitting the bill she is probably going to either accuse you of rape or there is zero chance of sex in the first place.
If a girl is sexually attracted to a man, in my experience, she doesn’t even want to date at all. She just wants to meet up for sex.
Even the PUAs and TRPer types understand this concept and call it Alpha fux/beta bux.
So either you date and pay for stuff looking for a wife (yep, I agree this is unlikely and has gotten worse over time) or you just find a girl that wants to have sex and don’t date at all.
But to claim something in the middle, well, that’s just not realistic imo. If it works for you, fine, I’m not going to get into that. But these are my experiences, and what most women even tell me themselves. But apparently I am/was a “Chad” so things are a bit different for me, I dunno.
The income tax has been a bachelor tax from inception, they just don’t call it that. Just look at the filing categories: married, head of household, and single. What people fall into each category? What categories pay the lowest income taxes? Single mothers get to be heads of household but bachelors must file single and pay the highest tax rates of all. And it only gets worse. Compare the number of women getting EIC versus men. Compare the number of men who have to pay AMT versus women.
The only fair tax is a flat tax, and any unfair tax will always be a bachelor tax because single men are always the easiest and most lucrative target.
FOREWARNED wrote:
If one passes, pay it. You will come out far ahead.
Please explain to me and everyone else here how you can become far ahead.
So, you either pay the tax or marry. If the ratio of men to women is 1:1, and men are all pressured by the tax to marry a woman, the more women are likely to be taken for marriage partners. If you can’t find a woman that you like or find compatible during all that competition, then pay the tax and go your own single way. Not everyone is able to support a woman when they are young. There was NO way that I could have and didn’t. If you marry and get trapped in a low paying job, you are miserable for life perhaps with both the job and the wife. Many times when younger on low paying lower level jobs I heard older men tell the younger men to get out of those jobs and get more training or education before they got married and stuck there for life. Paying the tax is better than a life as a slave to a woman you don’t like or that is incompatible, or foregoing your education and personal development if you are in a lower level job.
If you can’t find a woman that you like or find compatible during all that competition, then pay the tax and go your own single way.
Why would you even let the government go off that easily just to put you at a disadvantage like that? Especially when you would basically do nothing in terms of marriage and yet you are the one being taxed over a person who actually did do something in the lines of marriage.
"Question everything" - Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Decline wrote:
Why would you even let the government go off that easily just to put you at a disadvantage like that? Especially when you would basically do nothing in terms of marriage and yet you are the one being taxed over a person who actually did do something in the lines of marriage.
I have no idea what your point is. If the tax was passed, there would not be much I could do about it immediately to repeal it. So, I would have two choices: Marry or pay the tax. Not every person lands on their feet at age 17-18 and is able to support a wife and family. It took me until my mid thirties and beyond to get the education I wanted, paying for it by myself with a few scholarships. I would have paid the tax regardless of the cost if it was enacted back then. One only has to read enough of the stories here to understand marriage is a significant economic burden for a husband.
The tax sounds like another feminist idea to control men. I hands even more power over to women. Next I suppose there would be a law that demands who you must marry and marry her or you must pay another tax. The members here report enough problems with women when there is no coercion or tax, so I can’t imagine what grief men would have with a law like that.
Anonymous3Even if they ever tax me for being a bachelor, I would be a lot more happy paying the tax than getting married. I have been in relationship, not going back. I prefer full nights of sleep, and silence at home.
And, if they want this to increase population, what about those who want but cannot get laid? what about those who cannot have babies due to medical conditions? Will it matter if the “bachelor” is male or female? (as there is “equal rights” or whatever said)
I totally agree that many taxes take greater sums of money from men.
If one passes, pay it. You will come out far ahead.
It’s cheaper to pay a bachelor tax than marrying some slore and getting raped in divorce court. But it would be cheaper still to find some other frugal bachelor and set up a sham “gay marriage” so you both avoid paying the tax.
Problem solved.
The bachelor tax already exists. Obamacare but also other government programs in place always favor females and always charge males. Even dating is a bachelor tax as men always pay for that. Even student loans, as again men usually have to pay for themselves while women have theirs paid off either by their fathers or husbands.
At this point I figure an extra bachelor tax, why not? You should already know society hates your guts and the government wants to destroy you. If it takes a bachelor tax for the purple pill brigade to finally get it through their heads, all the better. They probably won’t institute an outright bachelor tax because they’re already overstepping their bounds and MGTOW is growing. Most men aren’t getting married but instead are cohabiting and trying to protect themselves, but if the government pushes even further eventually men will have no choice but to become MGTOW.
Some of us were always going to be MGTOW no matter what, but we were always going to be a tiny minority, not worth anyone being concerned about. But MGTOW has been growing and it hasn’t been from more of us somehow “choosing” to be, it’s genetic on our parts and we don’t choose it, we are born that way. It’s more the government has been so oppressive that more and men are being forced into the same mindset, even though it’s obvious most weren’t born that way and don’t really want to be that way.
I’m MGTOW because I value freedom and have never particularly liked women and their BS. Even without the laws the way they are, it would always have been difficult for me to have been a blue pill man. But most of the guys on here, and I’m not attacking them for it, they’re MGTOW because they hate the laws and hate what they claim women have become, not that they hate the idea of family and marriage or how women were in the past. They’re okay with women’s personalities and behaviors, just not with the government oppression on top of that. Remove the government and they’d naturally marry and form families.
Now if you’re saying the government is going to get even more oppressive, that’s obviously only going to bother these men more and add even more men to that group. The only way to stop MGTOW is to go the opposite direction, that is cut back government, cut back the oppressive laws, let things move back towards a natural balance. But that is precisely what the government refuses to do and in fact a bachelor tax is the very opposite.
So I celebrate this idea. It will gain me more MGTOW brothers.
I don’t agree that trying to give universal healthcare is against men: it seems to me just a right-wing political idea infiltrating men’s issues, and blending with such issues.
I’m well aware about how such mechanism works and why it can be very dangerous, because I’ve been on an Italian “men’s rights” forum that was infected by tradcons/catholics: now in Italy it’s passing a law that allows same-sex civil unions, subtly allows surrogacy and enforce alimonies for cohabitation.
It’s very clear that the issue for men is alimonies for cohabitation: I don’t need the right of having a civil union with another man but it doesn’t hurt me, it cannot. Surrogacy would be even very good for men’s reproductive rights, paving the way for single men using the artificial womb. Italian “men’s rights” groups infected by tradcons/catholics are mainly attacking surrogacy, then same-sex civil unions, and the issue they’re attacking less is alimonies for cohabitation. Seriously. Those are the consequences of being infiltrated by an ideology that isn’t necessarly related with problems that are, specifically, men’s problems.Universal healthcare would mean that a single MGHOW would have to work less, not worrying about expenses for healthcare. It also means that no one would ever refuse to give you healthcare due your lifestyle.
So said: I’m a natural born-blue piller, of a quite rare kind – I guess I’m naturally inclined towards polygamy and I see the same path even in my son, who is just only 12 yo. I cannot hate women: when I talk with an unknown woman 90% or even more times she immediatly smile to me.
It’s all about laws, in my case.
Still, since here we’re going to have alimonies for cohabitation, I realize we have passed the point of no return. And it’s not just that: due actual socio-economical situation, with people forced to change jobs every 2-3 years, a family would be unlikely to survive or being meaningful, even if laws were different, because both spouses need to have a job, and then both spouses frequently change their jobs, and sometimes/often even the city.
Add to that the anti-sex laws, like yes-means-yes.
The future is transhumanism, reproduction without sex: sex as we know will never disappear but it’ll become quite rare, an occasional thing (see: Japan) and the closer thing to sex as we know, but widespread, it’ll be cybersex – pure human-machine sex will be widespread just like cybersex. I’m having a “relationship” with a 23 yo Australian chick, through the net – cybersex. I’m having sex with a real partner, 7-8 days each month. I’m having sex with porn+sex toys other days.
I feel very good but limited with the first.
I feel frustrated with the second: not because the sex itself, but because I’m, deeply, a blue-pill and at the same time I realize that the game is stacked against me and it would be crazy taking further steps – I already experimented how much women can change when they are legally allowed to my stuff.
I feel totally free with the latter.SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.
Universal healthcare would mean that a single MGHOW would have to work less, not worrying about expenses for healthcare.
That’s not the way it works in the US because ObiongoCare is neither universal nor single payer healthcare.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
When it’s time to pay just say you “identify as a woman” and the bureaucrat s~~~heads have to accept that.
If you are MGTOW when you are young you have no heart.
If you're not MGTOW when you are 20 you have no brain.When it’s time to pay just say you “identify as a woman” and the bureaucrat s~~~heads have to accept that.
Dress up as one, if you need to.
I don’t agree that trying to give universal healthcare is against men
Obamacare has nothing to do with health care. It’s a health insurance law, not a health care law. And the law forces men to pay for insurance they don’t need to provide women insurance they don’t deserve.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
