Why not a bachelorette tax on single women?

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Question: Why not impose a Bacheleorette Tax on single women instead of a bachelor tax on single men?

We know that in Japan over 40% of the male population have voluntarily become “Herbivore Men” leading to a decline in GDP. Women of Japan have decided to FORCE men into marriage by considering a Bachelor Tax.

A bachelor tax has been imposed numerous times in the past. Rome imposed a massive bachelor tax. It didn’t work and men took their weapon-making skills to the barbarians.

No man wishes to be a slave. No self-respecting man would enter into a modern marriage contract. But the next time a woman brings up the bachelor tax, I think I will ask her, “Why not a bachelorette tax?”

[Anonymous 42]

I’ll be glad to pay the f~~~ing tax instead of marriage to the system! Call it a FREEDOM TAX!!!

[narwhalParticipant]

What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this tax? Get women try harder and trapping a man in marriage? It might accomplish that, but it would not keep the marriage. They still would opt to divorce as they payout in alimony and child support would eclipse whatever tax you impose. Besides the alimony and child support is not taxable to the recipient. A bachelorette tax would further encourage women to keep doing what they are already getting away with.

Personally, if the government wants to encourage the marriage rate and success of marriages, they need to work on removing the incentives for divorce. They should also work on removing the incentives for bringing a child into the world when you have no means of actually taking care of that child. I don’t see how a tax on singles, male or female would help reach those goals.

Ok. Then do it.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Most taxes I’ve seen proposed were income based. This would include females. Since young females now make more than men in the workplace, they would pay more taxes to support their sisters who want to stay at home and pump out womb turds.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

And with college now graduating 70 females for every 30 males women will rapidly out pace men in terms of income.

Thus any income based tax will tax women more.

It’s the college graduation rates that will permanently disadvantage men that is the real problem, a problem specifically planned, effected and won by women of the educational system of every nation in the Anglosphere.

(I know, a lot of men here say that college doesn’t matter but it does and those with college degrees earn significantly more than those without and there are many jobs that now require a college education, feminists want all men to be plumbers with women in all decision making positions and men are signing on in large numbers).

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Ah, a tax topic. Warms my heart.

So, in the US, if you are single and have a taxable income of $40k you will pay about $5,900 in tax. If a man and a woman are both single, living together, and both make $40k, they will pay about $11,800 in taxes. If they get married and their taxable income is $80k, they pay about $11,800 in taxes. There’s a few dollars difference, but rounding really.

However, if they get married and she decides that she can just leach off of him, them the $5,900 goes down to $5,100.

So, to the extent that there is a bias in the US tax system, it has put an incentive in place for the stay at home mom. Granted, not the $110k she thinks she’s worth, but she is getting paid about $800 per year by the federal government for making mac and cheese and changing the movie in the DVR for her child.

So, she’s got that going for her, which is nice…………(Carl Spangler, Caddyshack)

Order the good wine

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Anonymous wrote:

I’ll be glad to pay the f~~~ing tax instead of marriage to the system! Call it a FREEDOM TAX!!!

No f~~~~~. That isn’t freedom. That is extortion. We fought a revolution over it in America. Tax the women, they are happy little statists.

[narwhalParticipant]

Settle down Big Boss. He isn’t saying that he wants to pay the tax or would support it. He’s just say that if a tax got created, he’d still opt for the tax over getting married.

I’d recommend getting to know who you’re talking to before bringing out the name calling.

Ok. Then do it.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3725]

Big Boss wrote:

MG-ɹǝʍo┴ wrote:

I’ll be glad to pay the f~~~ing tax instead of marriage to the system! Call it a FREEDOM TAX!!!

No f~~~~~. That isn’t freedom. That is extortion. We fought a revolution over it in America. Tax the women, they are happy little statists.

Wrong. It wasn’t about the taxes per se it was about them being imposed without representation.

Funny factoid: Most people don’t realize that the colonists were actually paying FEWER taxes than the average English resident, yet still enjoying the full benefits of citizenship like the British army protecting them from the Natives who attacked fairly regularly.

"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,

[John Woods 13Participant 2855]

Specifically targeting men would be unconstitutional in just about every (civilized) country. So I think it would not pass. And if it did, the women would just be shooting themselves in the foot as men would still not marry them and they would end up with even less money to spend on c~~~ carousel tickets.

The answer is NO. “I could but I won’t”. Memini murum!

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22568]

It seems that men only get the stick and women only get the carrot.

I am trying to figure out how a bachelor tax suppose to work in a feminist dominated society.

The woman has control of who they date, whom she get married too, whom she f~~~s, who gets them pregnant, if she keeps the baby, if she wants to raise them. At no point does a man have a choice, all a man can do is make the offer. The woman makes the choice. Or, that use to be the case. Now, man approaching a woman can get that man arrested.

On cannot get married, if men cannot approach, let along talk to a woman.

Bachelor taxes of the past worked that if a man declined to marry a woman, with the woman making the offer, then the man lost half his property to the state. But, with divorce, filed by the woman. The man would face looking at least half his property from the divorce. Losing any future earnings due to alimony and child support. And anything left will be taken by the bachelor tax. Men would not even have any money for food and shelter, just to survive.

Right now, men, whom are careful can get by and at least get some joy from this life. That is the whole point of being a MGTOW.

And MGTOW believe in pacifism, except for self-defense. We see the civilization that hurt us is collapsing without us lifting a finger, and we just want to have a clean conscience on the matter.

Though, such a situation at what I pointed above. Government and women will be boxing in tens of millions of honest men, into a no-win situation, with the men having nothing to lose. It is very unwise position to put one individual in, let along a sizable portion of the population.

John Woods 13 wrote:

Specifically targeting men would be unconstitutional in just about every (civilized) country.

Such taxes exists in this nation before, at local and state levels. But, that was before feminism took hold.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3725]

John Woods 13 wrote:

Specifically targeting men would be unconstitutional in just about every (civilized) country. So I think it would not pass. And if it did, the women would just be shooting themselves in the foot as men would still not marry them and they would end up with even less money to spend on c~~~ carousel tickets.

Brilliant observation.

Faust For Science wrote:

Such taxes exists in this nation before, at local and state levels. But, that was before feminism took hold.

Can you provide an example of a tax that was specifically levied against men? I know there’s plenty of taxes etc where men end up paying most of it (divorce tax), but do you have a specific source for a tax that was imposed upon males only and was written that way?

I’d really like to know more about it if it exists.

"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,

[Anonymous 42]

narwhal wrote:

Settle down Big Boss. He isn’t saying that he wants to pay the tax or would support it. He’s just say that if a tax got created, he’d still opt for the tax over getting married.

@narwhal, thanks for that! My satire sometimes really gets em going! LOL! You should see me when I’m trying! I hold the worlds record in steaming clams! NO TIME FLAT!
As for marriage and the perversion this system has made of it; f~~~ the tax, I’d rather face being SHOT!!! Call it a mercy killing and kick me in a hole, I’m OK with that!

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22568]

First reply got flagged as spam. Again.

Wiki has a bachelor tax list, just type the term, “Bachelor tax”, into the search box.

It should be noted that the Soviets had a childless tax, but that tax was imposed on both genders.

Also, this article offers insight into the politics of how a bachelor tax is formed: http://gynocentrism.com/2014/01/07/do-men-pressure-women-into-marriage/

[narwhalParticipant]

np, mg-tower.

Related, I’ve been think about money and relationships, making it ‘fair’ both parties in the marriage, or union, or whatever. The idea I came up with is to have a new type of legal entity established specifically for the union, but separate from the 2 people involved in the union. So for example, I would have my own bank accounts, she would have her own, and then we’d have a joint account. This joint account would be designed to track which party in the union contributed money to the account from inception. Money cannot be withdrawn without consent of all members of the union. The union can be dissolved at any time by any member of the union. Any asset purchased by the union would similarly be tracked financial. In the event that the union would end, assets would be split automatically according to the percentage of contributions provided by the parties of the union.

So for example, if I agree to have such a union with someone today, we’d establish a joint/union account. We could both agree to purchase a house with that account, pay utilities, vacations, etc. Assuming both parties currently pay for their own residence, utilities, etc, the amount each need to contribute should be less then what they currently do. If I or the other party member choses to end the union, no problem. I get the percentage out that I put into it, not half arbitrarily. For both party members, there is financial incentive to stay in the union, as everything should be cheaper, particularly for the member contributing less to the union. Thy also have more incentive to stay since they will obviously have a better lifestyle, and won’t get much by ending the union.

It’s also important to realize that you only have to put into the union what you want to. Personally, I’d shoot for basic shared expenses. No clothing expenses, fancy haircuts, spa days, and whatever else she may want to buy. And none of her kids expenses. I would be free to spend my money on whatever I wanted with money outside of the union.

Of course, this would not work with kids involved, plus other issues, but it seems like a start. The idea is that there is no financial windfall for divorce/or leaving the union. You get what you put in to it. And staying in it and behaving well has it’s advantages.

Ok. Then do it.

[HitmanParticipant]

Big Boss wrote:

No f~~~~~. That isn’t freedom. That is extortion. We fought a revolution over it in America. Tax the women, they are happy little statists.

EASY big boss …hold your fire for the c~~~s who deserve it !..

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22568]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Can you provide an example of a tax that was specifically levied against men? I know there’s plenty of taxes etc where men end up paying most of it (divorce tax), but do you have a specific source for a tax that was imposed upon males only and was written that way?

I’d really like to know more about it if it exists.

Here is a basic list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax

This article gets into the political details of how bachelor taxes are formed: http://gynocentrism.com/2014/01/07/do-men-pressure-women-into-marriage/

[Anonymous 42]

narwhal wrote:

np, mg-tower.

Related, I’ve been think about money and relationships, making it ‘fair’ both parties in the marriage, or union, or whatever. The idea I came up with is to have a new type of legal entity established specifically for the union, but separate from the 2 people involved in the union. So for example, I would have my own bank accounts, she would have her own, and then we’d have a joint account. This joint account would be designed to track which party in the union contributed money to the account from inception. Money cannot be withdrawn without consent of all members of the union. The union can be dissolved at any time by any member of the union. Any asset purchased by the union would similarly be tracked financial. In the event that the union would end, assets would be split automatically according to the percentage of contributions provided by the parties of the union.

So for example, if I agree to have such a union with someone today, we’d establish a joint/union account. We could both agree to purchase a house with that account, pay utilities, vacations, etc. Assuming both parties currently pay for their own residence, utilities, etc, the amount each need to contribute should be less then what they currently do. If I or the other party member choses to end the union, no problem. I get the percentage out that I put into it, not half arbitrarily. For both party members, there is financial incentive to stay in the union, as everything should be cheaper, particularly for the member contributing less to the union. Thy also have more incentive to stay since they will obviously have a better lifestyle, and won’t get much by ending the union.

It’s also important to realize that you only have to put into the union what you want to. Personally, I’d shoot for basic shared expenses. No clothing expenses, fancy haircuts, spa days, and whatever else she may want to buy. And none of

her kids expenses. I would be free to spend my money on whatever I wanted with money outside of the union.

Of course, this would not work with kids involved, plus other issues, but it seems like a start. The idea is that there is no financial windfall for divorce/or leaving the union. You get what you put in to it. And staying in it and behaving well has it’s advantages.

@narwhalI, sounds good on face value, but the narcissism and deep rooted brain rot in today’s females will toss a monkey wrench into any kind of negotiated plan. I like the idea of keeping them in a camper on a separate piece of property that’s not abutting, like in a different state! I just couldn’t live with a female running around my house with all their quirks f~~~ing my s~~~ up! I don’t even like them from the unmarried position, any union at all is like a free ticket to the insane asylum! I can’t do it to myself! It’s like cutting yourself with a knife!

[Anonymous 3]

Considering the government’s track record, if they do anything with a stated goal they will cause the exact opposite to happen.

So if they impose a bachelor tax on men in order to increase marriage rates, they will in fact further collapse said rates.

The smart thing to do would be to back off. Get out of marriage, divorce, blow up family court and don’t have police handle domestic violence. Cut taxes across the board, get rid of affirmative action and quotas for hiring women.

College doesn’t matter and the reason why college graduation rates are down is because men see they won’t get hired anyway. All companies preferentially hire women and pay them more. So why pile debt on? This is true even in STEM, which men still get the majority of degrees for, but the women that do go STEM get preferentially hired. There was a recent article on that, if there is interest I’ll try and find it again.

But the government always wants to be bigger and get more control, and women always want more and get more. Hypergamy dictates women want men with more money than them. That’s tough when men are so broke they’re stuck living with their parents. 42% of young men now live with their parents, and I believe it was 32% of women (my guess is because women can move in with men or their parents just pay their rent for them). Bachelor tax on young men would further keep them from getting their own place and getting stability, not that it seems like they can do it now.

There is no way I could afford getting out on my own if I was a young man starting today. Everything was cheaper for me decades ago and it still wasn’t easy. Nowadays I look around at the current economic climate and I just shake me head. It’s probably best the West just falls so that a superior government and culture can be rebuilt, but I’m not even sure how that can work now.

Probably there will be a bachelor tax to further ruin this one great nation.

[Cipher HighwindParticipant 1144]

A bachelorette tax will never come to pass because females are a majority of the electorate and they have in-group preference:
1 – females outlive men by about five years
2 – males are disproportionally disenfranchised from having committed felonies
3 – voter turnout among females in general is higher by 8%, likely because men work for a living instead of vote for a living

[RennieParticipant]

Put a bachelortte tax and then they will have an excuse to make a bachelor tax. If they impose a bachelor tax, I guess most of us will become fugitives because we won’t pay.

No f~~~~~. That isn’t freedom. That is extortion. We fought a revolution over it in America. Tax the women, they are happy little statists.

Now, now. Save that wrath for the t~~~s.

[Author]

Posts