Some time ago I got some criticism that men's and women's taxpaying and welfare disparity is definitely a discussion to be held, but not to be used as a derailing tactic. So, let's have this discussion.

We're all probably aware at this point that at least for three states, in no way economically unique, estimates exist that show that while men and women receive comparable amounts of benefits from the state, men's taxes vastly outnumber women's taxes. Solid numbers exist at least for the US, Norway and New Zealand. Added: Denmark. These numbers indicate only state handouts and don't include alimony, child support, division of assets in divorce, gender redistribution of wealth through inheritance, gender redistribution of wealth in intimate relationship/marriage, and non-governmental charities.

I'll address away some common criticisms so we don't get stuck in them.

1. You're against healthcare! You want sick children to suffer and die!! - The vast majority of "social money" gets redistributed from male workforce to female elderly. The reason children with preventable diseases suffer, die, and don't get enough healthcare that they require - is because the state pays retirement benefits to people who didn't earn them; the vast majority of them are women. The solution would be to raise women's retirement age, in accordance with their longer lifespan, lower rates of work-related disabilities, and lower participation in workforce in younger years - not a single nation has ever implemented this solution. American pension budget is bigger than American military budget, the biggest govermental purpose-specific budget in the world.

1a. Well women just NATURALLY consume more healthcare money because of their biology/anatomy - Healthcare expenses are lower than retirement expenses by a good order of magnitude. Your government provides you with bad healthcare because it pays retirement to your elderly female relatives from your dad's, brother's, and boyfriend's pockets, because you don't work and don't earn as much.

2. You're against universal education!! - New Zealand and Norway numbers indicate that an average woman never returns money spent on her school education. I don't propose any solutions; it's just incredibly funny to once in a while see women whine here on Reddit that men never contributed anything positive to their lives; whining on a text forum using letters to read and write - the skills that they were taught in school.

3. Well isn't raising children a valuable societal function? Women don't participate in workforce as much because they get stuck at home with children! - I am all for recognizing "raising children" as legitimate work and implementing quality standards for it; but a lot of women will end up in prison for utter professional incompetence, and a lot of childless women who will be left without unearned benefits - will whine that implementing those standards was a discriminatory measure.

4. But women do a lot of socially valuable work that is just not as well-paid! - Okay, let's keep the benefits for nurses and teachers. What is the justification for all other women to enjoy the same level of social protection while not contributing as much to society? And what's the next most female-dominated job in the West? - Tax collector. People need nurses and teachers mostly at the very beginning and the very end of their lives. And what do they need constantly? - Clean water. Solid housing. Reliable logistics. Electric power supply. Providing those is also "socially valuable work"; men don't get governmental assistance on the basis of their gender because those who do this work are mostly male.

5. Women give birth to children! - I'm all for recognizing giving birth as legitimate work and implementing quality standards for it; we'll finally have a legal reason to lock up women who gave birth to children with abstinence syndrome in prison for the rest of their lives, or simply outright shoot them in the back of their heads. Also, does it mean that we get to deprive a woman of unearned benefits if she got less than 2 children in her lifetime?

6. Men have unfair advantage in the workforce! Most CEOs are men! - The "unfair advantages", even if they existed, can be mitigated through corporate taxes, not through taxes on the poor. While income tax is progressive in many nations, social/payroll tax is regressive, i.e. the burden of supporting female elderly is put mostly on working-class men, not on CEOs.

7. The system is fair, it is designed to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich - No, the system is designed to benefit women at the expense of men. It was put in place for that reason - after abolition of coverture, Britain faced the problem that women, especially older ones, no longer "shackled" by their "oppressive" marriages with those filthy males, and being "privileged" to finally pay their own taxes, started downspiraling into deepest poverty.

8. Well, maybe men should have allowed women to get jobs instead of holding them out of workforce - You seem to believe the common myth that men have sacrificed half of the population's productive potential for the sake of stereotypes. But more importantly, you seem to treat workforce participation as some kind of civil freedom. You know who else believed that "arbeit macht frei"?

9. Well the system may be unfair, but who cares? It was instituted by men! - Instituted by men voted into positions of power by female majority of voters. Gynocentric welfare state emerged after women's suffrage. You don't get to deny responsibility here.

10. Men are to blame for creating hostile environments for women in workplaces - Create your own environments. Women aren't banned from starting enterpreneurships.

11. Well aren't you proud that some tiny part of your income gets spent on something good? - This "tiny part", when you combine all types of direct and indirect taxation, can easily skyrocket to 50 percent. No, sorry, I need my own money to spend how I desire.

12. Well I'm a woman and I pay a lot of taxes! - It makes you exceptional, but you have all my fedora-tips. You are not part of the problem. But the problem exists.

Now, to the point. I don't have a solution, I'm just pointing out that:

  1. Judging for example by New Zealand numbers, if the right to vote was granted only to net taxpayers, men would have it since their 23-ish birthday and up until 69 years of age; women would have it in a short window between 45 and 59 years. If this right was granted only to cumulative net taxpayers, an average man would gain the right to vote around his 40th birthday, while average woman would never gain the right to vote.

  2. Implementation of Welfare State coincided with West-wide epidemic of male violence. "95% of prisoners are male" was exceptionally rare for any Western country merely 100 years ago. And not because women were thrown in prisons left and right for silly reasons, but because very few men committed crimes (although still slightly more often than women, but for a lot of crimes, women didn't get punished at all). So much for "gynocentrism hurts women too", huh? I mean in relation to this whole "male violence against women" thing.

  3. Despite this gendered asymmetry of state assistance, several countries, including the US, report that women still constitute majority of the poor. Either this estimate is acquired by flawed methods, or social security doesn't work as a "poverty mitigator".

Discuss.

Edited: typos.