Why not a bachelorette tax on single women?

[Anonymous 9]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What the hell are you talking about?

Bitches don’t get s~~~. I’m so f~~~ing done with these whores man.

Freedom tax?

Pass that s~~~ over here. You must have some good ass weed in the air.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22595]

Rennie wrote:

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.

As Phoenix pointed out a few posts above. Most men, especially young men are broke. There is nothing left to tax.

So, either men will not pay, while most men will be unable to pay. Still, the government response will be the same. If the child support laws are anything to go by, imprisonment until one can get married to a woman… Yea. I know. How can a man find a woman to married to a woman, while being imprison in a building full of only men.

And that is not taking into account how divorce financially rapes the man. With men being back on the chopping black for this unpayable tax.

In addition, by law, women have all the power in relationships, and the creation of relationship. So, it is a no-win situation.

I do not want to think about how tens of millions of disfranchised men will react in being declared fugitives based on situations beyond their control.

[Anonymous 42]

Anonymous wrote:

What the hell are you talking about?

I was being myself, a facetious bastard, It’s my pleasure to p~~~ people off! Sometimes things just go over everyone’s head and there I am looking like an asshole, but at least I’m laughing, and that’s all that really matters!!!

[Anonymous 3]

Faust For Science wrote:

Rennie wrote:

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.

As Phoenix pointed out a few posts above. Most men, especially young men are broke. There is nothing left to tax.

So, either men will not pay, while most men will be unable to pay. Still, the government response will be the same. If the child support laws are anything to go by, imprisonment until one can get married to a woman… Yea. I know. How can a man find a woman to married to a woman, while being imprison in a building full of only men.

And that is not taking into account how divorce financially rapes the man. With men being back on the chopping black for this unpayable tax.

In addition, by law, women have all the power in relationships, and the creation of relationship. So, it is a no-win situation.

I do not want to think about how tens of millions of disfranchised men will react in being declared fugitives based on situations beyond their control.

Not to mention there’s already a built in tax anyway. The reason it doesn’t bother single women as much is because they get sooooo many government resources and handouts that they don’t care. They get more back than they pay in.

But for a single man, paying the higher tax rate, he is getting crushed.

95% of men are still manginas. It’s not a conscious decision by men to not get married, it is more a result of a lack of financial stability and women refusing marriage. Even in their mid-30s women can still pressure men into marriage if they wanted, and you still see that—to the men that actually have money. Maybe around their late-30s this stops working at all.

Bad policy decisions can be ignored and papered over especially when a country is very wealthy. But they start having an effect, and a greater and greater effect the less wealth there is. And when that starts to happen, it’s harder and harder to fix things even with good policy decisions.

We’ve had bad leadership and bad policy for decades squandering what great men of the past had built. At this point the crappy leaders are just tripling and quadrupling down on their idiocy, and there is nothing to stop them. This won’t end until the whole thing falls apart.

[Anonymous 9]

My bad, I kind of went off with your reply without realizing it.

[narwhalParticipant]

Every tax we have today is based on income, assets owned, or spending. We won’t have a tax based on the fact that you exist, since doing so would be political suicide for any candidate. In other words they won’t tax you if you have no income,, assets or spending. Thus the poor single guy is basically going to be unaffected.

I suppose that the landscape could change to the point that women have that kind of control and are convinced that it’s fair, but we are still a long long way from that.

Ok. Then do it.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

Faust For Science wrote:

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/%5B

Thanks. That’s scary s~~~.

I guess we’re already kind of doing that already with the (at least perceived) tax breaks for getting married.

"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,

[OneforfreedomParticipant 930]

Guys, remember how the income tax came about in the first place.

The U.S. government didn’t always have an income tax.
It came about when the lower and middle classes voted to tax the upper class.

Well, they passed the law, and the upper class was taxed.
But here’s the thing- once the government got a taste of money, it wanted more. So it expanded the taxes to the lower and middle classes.

Meanwhile, the rich/upper classes learned how to play the game and minimize taxes- they formed corporations.

Moral of the story: don’t fight it. Once the government gets a taste of the bachelor tax and realizes that it can double its income by imposing a bachelorette tax, it WILL. Meanwhile, figure out ways to reduce your taxable income- real estate investing, etc.

Big Boss wrote:

No f~~~~~.

Not cool.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

(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).

I agree 100%

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22595]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Thanks. That’s scary s~~~.

I guess we’re already kind of doing that already with the (at least perceived) tax breaks for getting married.

You’re welcome.

[SnakeSpectator 2080]

Oneforfreedom wrote:

Big Boss wrote:

No f~~~~~.

Not cool.

I thought it was pretty cool myself. Still chuckling. What isn’t cool is all this tone policing, like a bunch of f~~~ing women. Honestly, I thought the same thing when I read mg-tower’s “freedom tax”. Freedom tax? They aren’t getting s~~~ from me but a hard time.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

The real marriage tax is the fact that women make 40% of the income and are responsible for 80% of the spending. Our economy depends on women spending men’s income. 40% of our 60% means that $2 of every $3 earned by a man is being spent by a woman. We are already paying a 67% marriage tax. And women are spending $2 for every $1 they earn.

I guess the fact that they would want a bachelor tax shouldn’t be surprising. They will eventually have to take a 50% reduction in their lifestyle without it.

So, why do men go their own way?

Order the good wine

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

If we had special taxes on high heels and handbags – we’d pay back the national debt in no time

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Anonymous 5]

Yea man the war is out der Snake. Tower has your back on this site. Why fellow mgtow’s fighting? No. We shall fight together!!!

[TheQuietManParticipant 13]

Faust For Science wrote:

Rennie wrote:

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.

As Phoenix pointed out a few posts above. Most men, especially young men are broke. There is nothing left to tax.

So, either men will not pay, while most men will be unable to pay. Still, the government response will be the same. If the child support laws are anything to go by, imprisonment until one can get married to a woman… Yea. I know. How can a man find a woman to married to a woman, while being imprison in a building full of only men.

And that is not taking into account how divorce financially rapes the man. With men being back on the chopping black for this unpayable tax.

In addition, by law, women have all the power in relationships, and the creation of relationship. So, it is a no-win situation.

I do not want to think about how tens of millions of disfranchised men will react in being declared fugitives based on situations beyond their control.

Maybe it’s the tipping point we need to start waking people up.

[Anonymous 1]

Here’s a solution, the gay/lesbian lobby will force them to be excluded from the bachellor tax if they are married.

I forsee a lot of sham marriages between MGTOWs… 😉

[John Woods 13Participant 2855]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It’s funny how people failed to see this was sarcasm. But then again a sense of humor is not a trait that everyone receives. I’m just glad to have gotten mine.

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

[Anonymous 29]

Each individual, adult or child owes approximately $900000.00 ( nine hundred thousand ) per head because of US national debt.
It makes you wonder what will introduction of bachelor tax accomplish.
Financialy or economically, . . . . nothing . . . jack s~~~.
So it means its a political ploy.

[OhnoParticipant 668]

narwhal wrote:

We won’t have a tax based on the fact that you exist,

Anonymous wrote:

Each individual, adult or child owes approximately $900000.00 ( nine hundred thousand ) per head because of US national debt.

This came into my mind directly. But i must correct you….its approximately $90.000 ( ninty thousand ) per head.

[Anonymous 42]

100 rows x $10,000,000,000 = $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars)

one hundred rows x 100 pallets per row is 10,000 pallets. Each individual pallet is 42″ wide by 40″ deep. The height of the bills is 38.7″. Add 4″ for a pallet and the total height of one pallet of bills is 42.7″. In the field of pallets above, the pallets are spaced 12″ apart.

The field is 50 pallets x 100 pallets by 2 pallets high, so…

width = (50 x 42″) + (49 x 12″) = 2100″ + 588″ = 2688″ = 224 ft

depth = (100 x 40″) + (99 x 12″) = 4000″ + 1188″ = 5188″ = 432.33ft

height = 2 x 42.7″ = 85.4″ = just a little over 7ft high

So our field of pallets is roughly 224ft x 432ft x 7ft high.

At 96,768 square feet, it’s about 2.2 acres and well over the size of a football field.

Source: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/calculations.html

[Author]

Posts