For every 100 dollars a man makes, 77 articles are published on bullshit statistics showing how women are oh so underpaid. If you've spent any time around TRP at all, you must have seen a dozen threads about it.
What you probably don't know, because there's a veritable dearth of articles published on it, is that there is actually a gender gap: the tax gap. Men, you'll be shocked to know, pay a massively disproportionate amount of taxes compared to women. But more than that, men pay a massively disproportionate amount of taxes compared to what they get back in government spending.
The data I'll use comes from a New Zealand study [PDF warning]. That's not because I'm a Kiwi but because, very unsurprisingly, gender tax gap studies are very hard to come by, due to how incredibly un-PC their conclusions are. I could find the raw data for the United States and my home country, but no elaboration as thoughrough as the one I'm going to present. I invite you to be as skeptical as you feel like and verify these conclusions for your country if you like.
So, first item:
This graph is pretty self-explanatory: at every point in his life, the average man will pay more tax than the average woman of the same age. In fact, from age 24 until age 65 (i.e. during the average graduate's working lifetime), the average man will pay more tax than the average woman in any age group. Only before beginning to work and after retirement are men surpassed in tax paid, and only by working women.
On to the next:
As you can see, once men hit graduate working age they pay more into the system than they get back, and only revert to taking out more when they hit retirement. Women, on the other hand, take out more than they put in all their lives, except for the 45-65 period (i.e. after they've stopped having and caring for young children and before retirement). Also, the net contributions by men are much larger than those by women: a 30-year-old man will on average give an average annual net contribution higher than a typical woman in any age group.
And for item three:
Those two decades of net positive contributions by women mentioned above do not come close to repaying all the tax money spent on a woman: on average, there's no point in a Kiwi woman's life when she'll be in the black towards her country. The average man, instead, pays his dues by age 40, and stays in the black unless he lives to be 85+, in which case he will be a little in the red. Still, even those men will cost a net cumulative loss of about $10,000; by the same age, a woman will have cost state coffers fifteen times as much.
Conclusions
-
Men, on aggregate, are the ones keeping the lights on. Countries depend on taxing male income.
-
The tax and welfare systems result in a large net transfer of income from men to women.
-
The disproportion is so severe as to constitute a real gender tax gap, as opposed to the overhyped and largely imaginary gender pay gap.
I'll note that this was probably always the case throughout modern history; the difference between now and 50 years ago is that today men are no longer socially and institutionally recognized and rewarded for their larger role in sustaining the community, and are in fact berated and accused of discrimination even though they work more and contribute more than women.
Posts such as this inform, enlighten, and provoke constructive conversations within the community. Thank you for your consistent, quality contributions to this subreddit, /u/G_Petronius.
I am hereby endorsing you.
it always seems like men suffer, and don't even get recognized for it, while women don't suffer and take all the sympathy that they can get.
2nd wave feminism called men 'privileged 'in an era were 300 18 year old boys were dying every single day in Vietnam.
We are not dealing with rationality, feminism is humanity's biggest delusion.
Wow, never really thought of it like that, makes me hate feminists even more.
And it's also a shining example of how women don't see the bottom 80-90%. I'm sure life was good in the 70s for the top 10% male, so to them that means life is good for all men.
No shit, that's the way it's always been. There's a certain ancient culture that is well known to make men suffer in every possible way in the name of the state. These men were militarily drilled from the age of 7, they had to walk barefoot, eat horrible food, wear nothing but a cloak throughout all seasons and risked their lives every single day of their lives.
And their women still took part of the credit for all their suffering whilst doing almost nothing in comparison. Still more than modern women though.
In return though, the spartiates were the only social class with political rights, and controlled the state. They had a place of honor, in fact the premiere place on honor, in Spartan society, precisely as a balance to all that was required of them.
Of course, they were privileged Alpha males. It's just that woman who didn't have to make equal sacrifices still felt compelled to boast about their own abilities. They were living in a society with the most Alpha of Alpha males and they still thought they were equal or better.
In this existence masculine is limited and disposed, feminine is preserved and rewarded.
Not just female and male species, because some species it might be opposite, but I am talking about the duality.
You gotta be more alpha and despise your fellow man as weak. Women fight for women and they now have all the political power.
I dont fight for men because men fight ME for fighting for them. Fuck men, 99% of them can burn.
I only care about myself and the 1% of TRPers, MGTOWs and MRMs, who arent simply reformed betas.
The best way to fight for man is to become a successful selfish asshole. The more successful selfish assholes there is, the more betas will reform or go MGOTW.
That means less beta's who are paying for this circus.
Women fight with each other more.
women dont fight for women. they fight for themselves under the guise of moral superiority
The good news is that you have options.
You can join the pity-party (MRA), you can schlepp it back to blue-town, or you can get some broader shoulders.
I am not pitying, I am simply telling you reality (the most possible thing).
I too am telling reality.
Men struggle, women have it easy - what now?
Once a man reaches this point, he must choose how to proceed.
One choice is to remain on that plateau and continue repeating the same observation ad nauseam: "men have it hard and nobody sees it, women have it easy and (still) everyone rushes to their aid!", over and over and over like some street bum passerbys tune out all day and night - the defeatist approach.
Another choice is the if you can't beat 'em, join 'em route. Try to cause as few ripples as possible. Rush to m'lady's side when she needs attention. Accept it as reality, but let it beat you into submission. Also for the defeatist.
Or accept it as reality, but understand that this is but one more line separating the men from the boys. Look at it as a challenge to not be like the two aforementioned above, as an impetus to elevate yourself above the "life is haaaard" or "life isn't fair" crowd.
This is what is meant by the pill going down slowly - you have to keep making choices ('digesting') as you continue to come across new (and often harsh) revelations.
I'm not sulking or crying about it. But it's there if I do so or not.
My perspective on it.
Life is hard. So fucking what. I don't have what Joe has, so fucking what. I have to work for everything, and I'm still berated for it and called privileged, so fucking what.
It's hard because I'm a man. I can handle it because I'm a man. I'm strong, resilient, creative, and I build. I earned what I get. Because I'm a man, that earning and building gives me satisfaction and pride. I fucking did this despite all the bullshit and people taking my hard earned resources from me, too give to those who can't earn it. I can handle it because I'm a man. Sure it sucks, but not everyone is strong or capable, or even smart.
They need our protection, without it they die, even if they don't appreciate it, I can do it for them. I can and do because I evolved to do it.
Whatever you do doesn't change it.
What's your point then? That you'd want to change it?
Why does there have to be a point? I just want the fact to be there, like an obstacle, in which you acknowledge and humbly accept. Only then can you truly go around it.
It is my hope one day that someone powerful enough will be able to break through the obstacle instead of having to walk around it. Doesn't seem like it'll be me but it wont stop me from trying.
Neither will help you. There is nothing you can do. There is no hope.
Revolt, Expat, or Turtle.
Choice is yours. Choose wisely.
They need to tell themselves how amazing they are every day because they aren't. They want to be, but will not sacrifice and work to be amazing. It takes far more for the weak to overcome than it does for the strong. They're inherently weak, girls are slight, not robust. Deal with it if you're a man, whine about it if you're a girl. They want what they can't have, so they tell themselves how great they are hoping it will be so. They have the opportunity, but fail to utilize them effectively.... Because it requires working yourself half to death.
Men can be great, we can be amazing, we will sacrifice and work ourselves to death to become amazing. We don't have to tell ourselves we are great, we know other men have done shit we haven't, but we know we could get there if we put in the work and had some opportunities. We have the potential for the capability, they don't and they know it. Ask any medal of Honor recipient of they are a hero, they'll tell you no, they aren't. A girl who can bench 200lbs is a hero for girls. 200 messly pounds that any one of you could achieve in three months at the gym.
Don't pity girls, they're just weak, they can still be dangerous and fuck you up. Legally no less. They evolved to do things we don't. So while it's hard for us, most of life is simply impossible for girls. Yeah it's hard, so fucking what, it's still possible for you.
Holy shit. I mean I knew this from being a TRP reader but this is the first time I've seen it described and proven so well.
Saved for future wage gap debates.
How about Car insurance - I know when I was in high school guys paid more to be insured - and it was the girls crashing their cars left and right.
The normal argument I've heard with that is that women have a higher number of accidents on average but they're inconsequential light fender benders, whereas guys have fewer accidents but the ones they have tend to be the huge ones where the car ends up sliding through a bus stop upside down and on fire in a 30mph zone.
A bunch more reasons I have always suspected:
Men drive more hazardous miles. Women have the types of jobs where if the weather is bad they can stay home. A man is more likely to have a job where he is "essential" and have to come in amyway. If a man and woman are together when hazardous driving must be done, who do you think drives?
Women know they are bad drivers. That combined with a natural inclination to be risk averse means they are not CAPABLE of certain types of risky driving. Nascar drivers get into more wrecks than my wife, but that doesnt mean my wife is a better driver than them.
Women drive less miles period. One of the reasons women get paid less is because they are less willing to travel further to work. One of the reasons women get paid less is the take jobs that dont involve a ton of driving. We know women tend to drive less.
Women drive cheap sub compact cars. Women dont have the pressure on them to signal their status with fancy cars. Without a man or a make work corporate position, many are not able to afford a nice car even if they wanted one. Cheap car, cheap accidents, cheap premiums.
Women get pussy passes. I had a girlfriend that couldnt drive for shit. She would get pulled over constantly for failing to maintain her lane, not obeying traffic control devices and the like. She had a big rack and could cry on command. She never got a ticket. I also new a woman who hit a pedestrian during a rainstorm. Where I would have got a ride for wreckless driving resulting in serious injury, she got driving to fast for conditions. Women get passes and thus have cleaner records giving them lower premiums.
N"Women are better drivers."- I've heard this rhetoric since the day I got my driver's license 15 years ago, this has remained largely true that, yes, they are 'safer' for the reasons you have presented. However all of this is changing.
Everywhere I drive I see inattentive women driving whilst texting and persistently checking their phones as often as they need a dopamine hit of validation from social media. Sure you see a lot of guys doing this too, but it is predominately women. They may as well be junkies. Will we see a change to the statistics and rhetoric we hear, or even insurance 'equality' in the coming years as accidents that would not have happened were mobile phones not connected to the Internet increase? I think not.
Edit: a word.
True. Difference if is the actuarial models start to yield that women should pay more in insurance, there will be a media furor, non-withstanding the fact that men have been doing it for decades.
When you remove preferential treatment, equality feels like oppression.
I agree, but
I'm not sure about this. Many Worker, Supporter or managing jobs can rather be done from home if circumstances require you to. This is not true for teachers, secretaries, nurses and the likes.
(You could argue that the definition of "bad weather" is subjective to genders, but this doesn't really make your sentence sound better).
By bad weather I mean weather that shuts down most businesses. Snow storms are the most frequent example. On those days secretaries, waitresses, government make work positions and teachers would not be expected to show up for work. Nurses would be expected to show up. However, in my area hospitals send out drivers to pick up the nurses in the event of a snowstorm. Cops, firefighters, air traffic controllers, etc are expected to be at work during a blizzard.
can confirm, totaled car, ripped door off, caused power to go out for niehgborhood
Not much difference between a teenage boy and a teenage girl in terms of driving. 25 is a decent age where it evens out, but I would definitely (normally) trust my life with a male driver over 30 over a female counterpart.
Men are better drivers in terms of skill. Multiple studies have confirmed that men are better at parallel parking. Men have evolved better hand eye coordination and have better spatial processing capabilities; men have larger areas of their brain devoted to this. Likely this is due to men having to fight and hunt. Much of these characteristics are mediated by higher testosterone levels.
But because men are more skilled and naturally more aggressive and risk taking, they are far more likely to have serious accidents. For example, how many women are into drag racing? How many are going to be carving up windy roads in their sports coupes? Observe how most women will merge onto a busy road; almost all of them will wait until there is a big window.
This is why men's car insurance premiums are higher. Interestingly, women are much more likely to consume more healthcare resources than men. They go to the doctor more frequently, they get pregnant, they live longer and have more medical problems in general. But under ObamaCare, insurers can't charge women higher premiums. In other words, men must subsidize women.
In the EU gender discrimination laws exist to prevent this... the loophole being that (of course there is one) insurers can adjust policies based on a persons job.
John drives 10,000 miles in a year and Jane drives 1,000. John gets in 3 accidents averaging 1 accident every 3.3k miles, where as Jane gets in 2 accidents, averaging one every 500 miles. John got in more accidents causing the insurance company more money but Jane is statistically a far worse driver.
women cherry pick. If you compare ALL the facts, everyone would see stastically women are the worst driver.
Instead they focus on the facts that make things look good. "3 > 2, therefor John is the worst".
I wouldn't question much about the insurance. That's determined by actuaries and they don't give a fuck about gender, just the bottom line for their companies. If the current cost of insurance between genders weren't as cost-effective as possible for a company, why on earth would they continue that practice?
Yeah, insurance companies don't have some gender bias. It's pure numbers. Forget car insurance look at the difference between insuring a fraternity vs a sorority. For girls, they never throw parties (apparently) so nothing bad every happens. They cost like $20 per girl to insure. That's because the risk is transferred to fraternities. Insurance for a fraternity member is roughly $180 per guy....
Fun fact: hardest things to insure in the United States are nuclear power plants and fraternities.
Actuary here. No agenda in insurance pricing. Just raw data analysis. We are charged directly in proportion to our expected loss costs.
Like someone mentioned the main driver for higher male costs is higher accident SEVERITY not frequency.
Thanks for clearing that up - clearly I was off on my assumption
lol, you have a preconceived notion and vision that females some how incur higher claims than males but are given a "break" on insurance premiums. The premiums are based on piles of data and statistics, not some joe blow's opinion in bum fuck nowhere USA.
Another factor to remember is women get about 30% more health care spending over their lives compared to men. So whatever money they do not earn is in part made up for with extra health care they did not have to pay for.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/
In 2000 dollars, men get $268,700 in health care over a lifetime, women get $361,000.
Keep in mind Healthcare is at least twice as expensive now, so women probably get $200k in more health care.
And because they pay less in taxes or insurance premiums (due to men paying more in premiums), it costs them less.
It isn't nearly as one dimensional an issue as advocates of equal pay would like you to believe. Women earn less money, but they get more services.
Here is a question I have to ask for the transparency and validity of outrage - Does male and female healthcare cost comparably? I imagine that if let's say vagina cancer treatment was 3x more expensive than testicle cancer treatment, then the numbers would make natural sense.
No idea, the only mention is this.
This article may have more info.
http://www.mdedge.com/jfponline/article/60747/gender-differences-utilization-health-care-services
No, it's because men die earlier and don't use healthcare nearly as much -- which we don't mind (we don't even have a men's department of health while we have numerous federal programs for women) because, heck, dead men who weren't being productive don't cost anything and are a net benefit if they're dead.
Source: I'm a physician, and yea, I can show you the stats on male healthcare costing nearly as much, and yes, you could easily find this data on your own.
This is not only figuratively true, it's literally true.
Women have no idea how fucked they would be if men stopped doing what we do. If women didn't show up to work, we'd take some short term hits in nursing, teaching and daycare, but that's about it.
If men stopped showing up to work? Everyone would be well and truly fucked.
Q: "How many women does it take to change a light bulb?"
A: "Two, but they don't actually change the bulb, they just sit in the dark and bitch."
Nuclear power plants would stop running within three days
Super markets would run out of food the next day
Sewerage would back up in one day
The World is literally several hot dinners away from collapse
Well, ask any woman how a light-bulb works and enjoy the look in their faces.
Well, that doesn't really matter. Most men are bluepill. So they will keep the lights on regardless because to not do so would require 1)systemic cohesion and 2)a reason (this isn't good reason for men). I know you don't mean it literally, but men have no chance at ever achieving parity with women during even our childrens' lives.
It would be a very interesting socioeconomic experiment if every man in the country agreed to strike for 72 hours. I'd like to see the outcome.
Just because I say I am a duck, doesn't mean I think I am a duck. Women instinctively know this, that is why they attack Jap herbivore and MTGOW.
Both groups are men dropping out. For the majority of men, buddy living in his mom's basement won't affect him. You could say it helps other men since it creates a surplus of pussy.
It hurt women, since buddy in basement doesnt pay much tax and women count on these taxes. Hence the feminist hate against MGTOW.
Boom, goes the dynamite...
I'd like to see this adjusted for the US statistics...
The IRS hates all people equally, if there was a discrepancy its probably because less women work and earn as much on average compared to men from what little I know about it.
In this case, the IRS is only half of the equation. But, nevertheless, in the case of the IRS, the Earned Income Credit is basically, a pussy credit designed for mommies on welfare. Must have underage dependents, must have some piddly income, whoa, boom ...$4,000 just because you're pretty.
Ive never seen someone attractive on welfare, not that I can recall at least. Usually your average stupid and or lazy person and the occasional person who hit a bad run of luck for a while but gets off of it quickly or never even applies while eligible.
How does this difference come to exist?
I don't doubt the truth of it, but on paper there is a tax figure based on earnings regardless of gender. Is it due to men earning higher wages for most of their lives, for example?
Yes. The more you earn the more you are taxed obviously, and men are paid more on average.
That's the famous gender wage gap "on average women earn .7 of what men earn" which is a factual observation except that feminists distort it in "for the same job and same experience, a woman earns .70 of what a man earns" which is patently bullshit but serves the "patriarchy/discrimination" narrative. The real, factual causes are that women on average choose less-risky less-stressful less-paid jobs, are not as good at negotiations and choose to interrupt their career or slow down their career advancement (eg part time) by choice to focus on family.
OP's analysis on the factual tax gap is the obvious consequence of the factual wage gap, except that it also includes the factual government-aid gap.
In the end, like the real causes of the wage gap, nobody will ever talk about it because it goes against the victimisation narrative.
After reflexion, that sounds like a great way to troll wage-gapers when they bring on the topic, for ex "you know I did look up some info on the wage gap and it sickened me: women do make 77c on the dollar on average! So much so that men end up being taxed twice the amount of women! We need to do something about that wage gap ASAP and until it disappears completely we should actively campaign to pay women more and give men a 50% tax break".
We are paid more because we DO more. Women take more time out
to be supported by a manto raise children.Yep, OP has made a some what BS point IMHO. This is nothing more than a direct effect of progressive taxation of income, which is very much a good thing, and we should have more. You can make very good arguments for other things such as not enough being done for male deaths and lack of social services. Taxation is a sub-optimal hill to make a stand on.
Since you're calling it "somewhat bullshit", do point out where I've made a mistake reading the data or drawing conclusions. Saying "this is progressive taxation in action" doesn't counter anything I said.
the reason why your post is "somewhat bullshit" is because you claim that it's a valid counter to the gender wage gap argument, when, in fact, it actually supports the gender wage gap. The reason why women receive more tax benefits than men, is because women raise children. A single woman with children is much more likely to live in poverty than a single man without children.
I dont' see anything in your post where the study controls for raising children.
There is no such thing as a wage gap. It's called an earnings gap and it is not caused by gender.
Now that's some next level stupid. So a mom raise the children so what does the father do? Kill children? It's a partnership and it's equal. Man bring the resources, woman allocate the resources.
The answer is obvious. Men should pay for the poor decisions of women. So should men at least have a say in the decision making of women? Don't be stupid! That's sexist. Well then what about men that made bad decisions? Well, they're men, they have like balls and a penis or something, they don't really need our help.
Can you quote where I'm supposed to claim my data is a "counter" to the gender pay gap? I use that as an introduction and comparison, but whether that gap exists or not depends on its own data and I don't see where I make claims to the opposite.
In the first paragraph you claim that the traditional gender wage gap is based on bullshit statistics. I agree with you.
But, in the second paragraph you say there is "an actual gender wage gap: the tax gap". I disagree with you.
You don't actually state that the latter is a counter to the former, but that's the unstated conclusion of your post based on the way you've structured your argument. You're clearly using the second statistic as a rejoinder to the first statistic.
Oh, BTW, there is a gender wage gap. Men do earn more than females on average, but there are justifications for that which have been discussed ad nauseum at TRP. Both stats that you cite, the wage gap and the tax gap are bullshit stats because they're more nuanced than just saying "look at how unfair this is!!!111"
The "earnings gap" is stated that Men earn more then Women, but what that essentially boils down to is "Senior people earn more then Junior people"
It sounds ridiculous when you put it like that.
Because it is ridiculous.
Research the productivity gap. Men are about 25 to 30 percent more productive on the hour as to women.
This is where the gender pay gap never breaches data. They refuse to accept that there is an underlying fact, men produce more per hour
Exactly. Men are paid more because they produce more.
If men and women were equally productive, then it would never make sense to hire a man, because he gets more money.
It's a simple but inevitable tautology: if the wage gap did not represent a value gap, then no one would hire men, ever.
I also listened to a podcast that talked about maternity leave as well. Typically, once women have children, the amount of time spent working decreases significantly. When the "expert" accounted for maternity leave, the "gap" was almost entirely gone.
Indeed. If anyone argues, I will send my wife over to their house, so they can personally measure her productivity. She claims she would like to do painting jobs (no, we don't need the extra money). I've seen my wife work. She is slow as molasses and unfocused on the important parts of the job. You tell her to do one thing, the does the exact opposite, no joke, it makes me pull out my hair.
The difference has always existed. Men are more productive than women. That's what marriage was up until the 1950's: men trading excess productivity to women in exchange for sexual access and children.
I always go into a bullshit TRP post and upvote the person who cuts through it.
This time, it happens to be you. Congrats.
Also another thing to think about is maternity leave and how much time women can get off for it. I'm not saying pregnancy is a cakewalk, but it is a choice women make.
Exactly. If we're giving woman the right to choice over having children (pro choice) through abortion and contraception, then they are no longer entitled to receive paid leave.
Fathers should be entitled to equal amounts of (paid) leave to raise their children as women.
Definitely with you there, over the concept of no parental leave.
There is a lot of studies showing the benefits of children staying with their parent in the first one or two years of life, so I support the concept of the government incentivising this for the common good. It just needs to cut both ways, and not just for women.
Don't forget also that the system depends heavily on male labor itself to keep the lights on, not just the taxable income.
I've seen women in many poles, but a street light pole wasn't one of them.
So every working man is an indirect Beta provider who is invest a fucking ton of money all his life in shitty women and gets absolutely nothing positive in return. Damn, it's so good to be a woman nowadays.
That chart on page 22 is all you need to prove that feminism can only exist in an already overly affluent society.
This is not a "tax gap" any more than it is when a rich person pays more in tax than a poor person. You're still better off being the rich guy.
OP you need to come up with one catchy figure to sum it up: "the tax gap: on average, for every 100 dollars spent by women in taxes, men spend 1XX dollars"
I like the concept of your study, but as said elsewhere in the comments, this is just a function of average wages, in which there is an uncontrolled 23% gender gap.
So you should consider doing the same as the gender wage gap studies and control for level of income or hours worked.
If those results have a pronounced gender gap, you have a story. Otherwise you will quickly lose the argument due to the uncontrolled gender wage gap.
Taking a step back, this looks like an almost direct result of:
1) The gender wage disparity (which exists if you only aggregate by age)
2) The obvious result that higher wages mean more taxes paid
3) The tendency of the state to spend a reasonably fixed proportion of it's tax receipts on social security
4) Social security typically being paid to demographics on a lower income
When reading this, keep in mind that this is the expected result of any system with proportional tax + social security when sliced by any demographic.
You could, for example, take this - and notice a similar trend where atheists and agnostics fund other religious people.
Nobody should be surprised here. Being a part of a society with safety nets for bad luck and disaster also means you will be supporting people with poor life choices and deliberate underachievement. The state makes cucks out of anyone productive, it's an unfortunate and deliberate effect of the system.
This is misleading.
Men pay more in taxes because they work longer hours, earning more. High income brackets have higher tax rates. So it's not untrue, but a man earning 50k and a woman earning 50k pay the same tax rate.
With that said women claim far more government benefits than men do.
I'm actually going to source some things, unlike OP.
Can't believe this was deemed "endorsable" despite the only sources being some graphs, that are completely out of context and not sourced or backed up by anything.
Here's the actual IRS stats, for anyone interested in facts and not just a witch hunt.
My source is linked in the post, what exactly do you think is unsourced?
As for the "misleading" part, could you point out how exactly it's misleading? I stated my conclusions explicitly and it doesn't to me that any one of them runs contrary to what you point out, in fact they seem to describe the same things from two different viewpoints.
Came here to say this. The feminist response will be something like, "Of course men pay more in taxes - they earn more because of the wage gap." The emphasis needs to be on the benefits-received disparity.
Not to rain on the parade here, but tax gaps are a reflection of income gaps. Poor people contribute less to tax and cost thr state over their lifetimes. Society is indeed propped up by the higher income brackets (as well as the other 2/3 of tax take).
This isnt actually about gender at all, its simply reflective of different income levels.
taxes are to men what rape is to women
Good point.
For those new to the sub; taxes take away from a mans commitment (time -> money, lost to taxation [unless your a registered corporation in Ireland] ) just as rape devalues sex with a woman.
By rape I mean those genuine cases that cause women to break down and become withdrawn from society (broken and beyond redemption for a long term relationship with most men), not those that abuse the law with false rape accusations for personal gain (after sex reputation/anti slut defense, attention seeking behavior or just the scorched earth policy of a scorned woman).
this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this sub, and I've seen some shit.
Ok - no. This is a stupid analogy. Go work with a rape survivors group and then go down to the local IRS office. You'll see two different things. No comparison.
What a quality post. Not often you see a post on here with hard numbers. What's the deal with the variation in the first graph? The zigzag at the top of the curve is surprising for any significant sample size.
Somehow this still surprises me. They expect their narrative to be taken as fact, and stifle research that says otherwise. That's absolutely tyrannical behavior. As with anything else in life, if you want to know who's 'right' just see who allows the opposition to speak freely, and who doesn't.
So what's the plan for the vast swaths of the male population doing MGTOW who work dead end jobs, and sit at home playing games and eating doritoes? Can't see them contributing as much as typical men of past ages.
Women are going to become the big earners, and therefor the big tax group, it will shift from men to women, as the policies continue to favor women in all job sectors, it will only get worse. The plan is to get women having all the money, because they already do almost all of the spending, as for men, the plan for them is to be left destitute and dependent, with no jobs.
The wealthy old men in charge have more or less decided that they do not want to support younger rival males, at least not locally; for obvious reasons they prefer every first-world employee to be an attractive, young, compliant female. Lately they even seem to prefer unattractive females over most males - the main exception being top male producers in highly competitive fields who cannot be easily outsourced or replaced. But even they're under some pressure, e.g. Google's "Get Teen Girls To Code" initiative.
"Get Teen Girls To Code" is a good example of what I meant when I said it will only get worse. More and more of these kinds of tax payer funded bullshit programs and charities will get started year after year until every good job is held by women, they will let us keep garbage jobs (literally), being septic tank cleaners, coal miners, and any life shortening, smelly, shitty job really.
Let them code and engineer at will.
1 - they do not like it.
2 - its EXPENSIVE to repair shit that was badly done, and needs REAL experts. So more work for us.
The males in easily-replaceable jobs are fucked, though. In case of doubt, head towards higher complexity tech. They can't follow there.
The "old boys club" is now exclusively Jewish and if youre not a Jew than you dont get to join the club. Jews only make up a small percentage of the country yet possess up to 90% of its wealth. They own the media, the huge corporations, politicians , and high profile jobs like Lawyers and Doctors, etc. The wealth distribuation will never go back now that they have a complete monopolization.
Jew here, I don't own shit.
Sorry, I should have specified its mostly Zionist Jews
lmao my parents sent me to a Jewish camp in New York when i was 14, it was filled with zionists, the majority of Jews are zionist after all. Obviously a lot had rich parents but they were just normal people, biased of course but not malicious. Zionism is a vague and varied ideology, from most Jews (who feel generally positive about the existence of Israel) to lobbyists trying to get the USA to send more money over. The average Jewish person is more "powerful" than the average person simply because the average Jewish person is richer than the average person. That's it. We don't control 90% of the country's wealth (where on earth did you get that number?) and we aren't an organized group, we merely share ancestry.
How do I convert to Judaism then?
Didn't you get that there are also poor Jews, and they die? If you were not rich before, you still won't be rich after converting to Judaism. Unless you marry into a rich family. But usually, rich marries rich.
One redpill at a time thanks :D
Fifty years from now on all the old women in charge decide not to support their younger rival females - they prefer everyone on around below their level to be a real beefcake.
Our time shall come!
I'm fairly MGTOW. But I'm grinding for more income and financial independence. Maybe more men are doing that? Or maybe very few are.
That's not happening in New Zealand. The men are out there with the sheep.
Makes sense. Most men are sheep.
I would expect the Suicide gap to close within a generation as Women kill themselves in large masses after having to shoulder the burden for decades.
Using their own argument against them, if men DO indeed get paid more, they would logically pay more taxes. And since men HAVE been paid more in the past, most of the money in the treasury is there due to male productivity. Since the majority of public services are intended to help women and children they would never be able to "get back out" what they "put in". Especially when you take into account men's shorter life spans.
Actually on page 29 it does show the US, and it's scary as fuck. Unfortunately the paper referenced is in JSTOR and I don't have access anymore, but I'll try to pull some favors if nobody else nabs it.
You can get any academic paper you want with sci-hub. Their URL changes all the time so check their twitter but this works atm: https://moscow.sci-hub.ac/
Finally, learning to read in Russian pays off.
Do you all see why the blue pill indoctrination is so important to our society? It keeps men in line and more than willing to carry the load for the rest of society. Break the conditioning and you break the slave drivers control over you.
Stephen Molyneux's, "The truth about white male privledge" on youtube is a 2 hour presentation loaded with statistics similiar to this. Really helps put the "equality" into perspective.
If you're under 40, you will never get back what you're going to spend in taxes. SS/Medicare/Medicaid is not going to survive the next two, three decades tops.
Breaking News: Higher income earners pay more tax.
While I do agree that the gender pay gap disappears once you control for productivity, hours worked, experience etc. All you are doing in this post is confirming two things. Firstly that men have higher incomes on average, and second, that most countries have a progressive tax system.
This is an important point.
Men pay the bulk of the taxes and we're partially enslaved, if you want to use that word, so roads get built and so that the welfare state can pay single mothers and their alpha brood.
What do we get for our sacrifice? We get to be marginalized and abused.
A lot of women treat us like we're crap while taking money from our pockets. No joke!
We should press our disproportonate contribution to society and the abuse we receive for it a lot more.
Gentlemen, our policy statement should be simple.
As men, we do not want any of our money, particularly the tax-dollars the government forcefully takes from us, to go to supporting any women we are not currently fucking.
the reason why women receive a disproportionate amount of tax dollars is because they are the ones who typically raise children. The most expensive tax subsidies (like food stamps, school tax credits, EITC, and government subsidized healthcare) generally go towards raising children. Also, men tend to earn more money than women, especially if the woman left the workforce for a period of time to raise children.
Thus, a single 35 year old man is going to pay more money into the system and receive fewer benefits than a 35 year old woman who had two children under the age of 18.
So, essentially, this post says that modern, industrialized countries have progressive taxation, and they spend their tax dollars on keeping children healthy and out of poverty. I don't have a problem with any of that.
consider this. Suppose you have two adults, a 35 Yr old male and a 35 yr old female. The male is single and has no dependents. The female is single with two dependents. Suppose they both make $25K a year. The male is probably not entitled to very many tax benefits because he is above the poverty level. The female, with her two dependents is probably under the poverty level, so she'll get more tax benefits. The tax benefits go to her, on behalf of her children. Do any of you have a problem with this? Do you think it's unfair? If you're not man enough to pay for your own children, everybody else has to pay for them.
I've got one word for you: Bureaugamy.
Look it up and understand it. Without Bureaugamy, TRP would likely not even exist.... it wouldn't need to.
And also don't die. Medicare and Social Security don't go to children, last I checked. We're reallly ok with men dying. We're not ok with women dying.
It is unfair because the man that fucked that baby into her womb should be the one paying for it, not me. If women actually had to suffer for their poor mating choices, perhaps they would be more careful.
Oh.. BTW: Child support is after tax with no deductions. Mom takes her tax free money (tax you already paid) and does what she wants with it.
I agree with you, but I'm not ready to let babies starve in the streets because of the sins of their parents.
So if you can't pay for the kid, CPS takes it and the man is forced to do public works manual labor while the woman works in a government-run brothel to cover the costs. GG.
I can't read the whole study cause i currently study for my exams tomorrow but i want to ask someone who read it or seen it somewhere.Is anywhere a classification for income,ages and taxes,i mean that the first picture alone can become boomerang.''We earn less than you,we pay less than you'' they could say again the wage gap is real and all the crap...,the pictures that can be shown without doubt are the ones with the fiscal impact.So maybe if inside the study there's a picture with incomes,ages and taxes that shows that a female with about the same income and age as a male pays less,that would be gold!!
There is no study. OP just "did the maths" and the pictures. Here's to hope he could actually write it up and publish it in an economics journal
''The data I'll use comes from a New Zealand study [PDF warning]. ''
Does this sort of study was taken in any other country as well?
This is one of those bullshity needlessly academic papers isn't it?
WTF is a "Fiscal incidence"?
I sure hope they explain what that is in the rest of the paper.
The only thing that sentence was missing was the word "Synergy"
What a shitty abstract.
It's nice to see actual hard evidence of truths.
In times gone by Men were respected for this, looking back I don't know whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.
On the positive side, Men were respected for doing the hard lifting and running society.
On the negative side, Men did all of this and all they got in return was a non physical "respect" I've never been able to pay a bill with the respect of my peers before.
This is why I (legally) tax evade my taxes to zero. Quite easy to do in the U.S if you have a business.
Great opening line. Better than many TED talks
I'm not surprised, to be honest. This just confirmed my gut feeling.
Is this study purely from kiwi land? Cuz then it's irrelevant. There are cities in Canada that have a larger population than new Zealand.
This has probably more to do with the fact that men choose occupations that make more money and thus pay more taxes. Still enlightening. As a man you have to accept the way society treats you because in the end society will beg for you to come back to keep the lights on if you choose to leave.
why whore step sister popped out a baby at 18 to some druggy. The government gave her $3k+ in tax returns. Meanwhile I'm starting a business, paying back school loans, paying taxes and I get no help.
She spent it on bullshit btw. And probably drugs. The kid got nothing new from her.
This is an excellent post as usual and something I've been reflecting on for some time.
When I have political discussions, I often think about how their view would possibly change if they actually calculated how much they've paid into the social system (white knights). It's absolutely insane, and I'm not that old.
Let alone - It's impossible to have a coherent conversation on this topic with anyone that takes more than they give (hint - they want more).
Women are literally using the State to cuck men into paying them.
Taxes are the state taking from men and giving to women.
It's why post sexual revolution women reject religion and marriage then constantly demand more government.
The state is their new husband.
But the only resources the state has it took from men. So basically men are still paying for women to live, just now without the benefit of monogamous sex.
But if men earn more, isn't it logical that they contribute more to taxes?
Here's another wage gap: Public sector compared to the private sector. Interesting how politicians distract us with gender pay gaps, hrmmmm...
There is a 37% difference between government employees compared to private in Canada and isn't it interesting that Justin Truedeu has mandated 50/50 male female policies.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/private-sector-workers-earn-less-work-more-report-1.2292650
This likely is due to most public sector being unionized whereas private sector is not.
Of course, but private companies do not uniunize because of the competitive nature of the market. The same rules should apply to them.
Men earn, on average, more than women.
Thus, it is only logical that they pay more taxes, since rich people are more taxed and pay more money than poor people.
An obvious corollary to the above is that they need less government aid, since they are, on average, richer.
Or, to reword your post : poor people benefit more from government handouts than rich people, despite those rich people paying for those handouts.
This, not one comment throughout the top voted ones made a mention of this. This is nothing but a victimhood circlejerk, no better than what they are so ready to denounce in women, fucking gross.
Based on the fact that women control the majority wealth in this country?
Weird definition of "poor", eh?
This article says that woman make up to ~50% of the millionaire, and project that they may go up to 66% in 2030, so not exactly right now. Also keep in mind that it's 50% of a really small population, not really relevant when we look at how many people pay more than they receive on a State level.
To add on those woman being statistical aberration: You don't need to be a millionaire to lose most of the state handout, the cutoff is much much lower. What really matters is how many men are in the "middle class +" or above vs how many women, and we win at that game, which is usually nice except when it comes to taxes.
The article specifically cites an HBR study that says that women control 51.3 percent of wealth in America.
lol this is fucking stupid, blame the system not the players, this could have been a reasonable ancap shill but no, you gotta make this about le evil womynz xD
men make more money so they pay more taxes, it's fucking simple, and you are pathetic for using this as a pivot towards your self victimization.
I detail this study and a few more in more detail in my book, "smart and sexy." This book is mostly about sex differences in intelligence, but I cover a few related subjects as well, this being one of them. You can read a review of the book here.. Just earlier today I posted an excerpt from the book on what causes autism in r tardtales if you would like to get an idea about the tone and writing style. (I can't link directly, but you will see it if you go there, or if you go through my submission history). In the near future righton.net should be making the excerpt about this subject specifically available on their website (its my publisher's website). If anyone is interested, can link to that here when it comes out.
I have a few more graphs related to this subject, and also try to make a comparison to what little data is available from the US. You are right it is no where near as detailed, probably because of political correctness. And there are ways our system is set up so certain taxes aren't categorized as such. Health insurance is a tax, basically, but since it doesn't exactly go through government it isn't counted as such.