TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Men pay £75 billion more tax than women every year

JohnKimble111

March 29, 2017
971 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/jordan-holbrook-men-pay-75-billion-tax-women-every-year/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Men pay £75 billion more tax than women every year
Author

JohnKimble111

Upvotes 971
Comments 95
Date March 29, 2017 6:00 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/624x05/men_pay_75_billion_more_tax_than_women_every_year/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-pay-75-billion-more-tax-than-women-every-year.927534
https://theredarchive.com/post/927534
Top posts by JohnKimble111

Women Should Have to Register for the Draft, Congressional Commission Says

6700 upvotes
March 25, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

BBC admits its viral “women write better code” story was fake news

6298 upvotes
December 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

Gender pay gap in modelling sees men paid 75% less than women

6153 upvotes
February 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

Toxic Masculinity

5904 upvotes
March 10, 2018
/r/MensRights

After feminist cry sexism over BBC pay, official review uncovers more underpaid men than women

5789 upvotes
January 31, 2018
/r/MensRights

Controlling girlfriend, 22, who starved and stabbed her partner, banned him from her bed and took over his Facebook account is jailed for more than seven years

3826 upvotes
April 16, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

'If you tell anyone I've cheated, I'll ruin you': Cambridge don is cleared after his PhD student fiancee accused him of assault 'to get back at him' for calling off their wedding after she had affair in Galapagos Islands

3770 upvotes
September 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

Amber Heard loses bid to get $50 million defamation suit by her ex Johnny Depp thrown out

3737 upvotes
March 28, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]iainmf 171 points172 points173 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

In addition to paying less tax, women get more in government benefits.

[+]keyboardWorrier points 9 years ago [recovered] (14 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any good sources on how much women receive in government benefits on average versus men?

I don't doubt that it's true, I'd just like to be armed with the facts!

[–]fickle_fuck 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Here's a small stat (not sure why it's listed #4 as last?) - The demographic breakdown. Federal assistance is more likely to go to women than men (61% vs. 49%); SOURCE

Also another link with several government "Female Only Programs".

And here's a link that suggests women receive more tax dollars than they give. "By the end of her life, the average woman will have a negative fiscal impact of $150,000"

[–]MaturegambinoAFCB 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

61% vs 49% ???????????? Isn't at 110%

[–]Rezenik 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's likelihood of getting federal assistance, so 61% of women get the assistance they apply for while 49% of men get the assistance they apply for.

[–]JFConz 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Might be 61% of women, 49% of men.

Not sure.

[–]fickle_fuck 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure how they came up with the numbers. Here's the paragraph - The demographic breakdown. Federal assistance is more likely to go to women than men (61% vs. 49%); to blacks than whites or Hispanics (64% vs. 56% vs. 50%); and to rural residents than urban or suburban (62% vs. 54% vs. 53%).

[–]rocdollary 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For those countries which have socialized healthcare, this article which stated that "three times more was spent on services aimed at or predominantly used by women than men" - considering socialized healthcare is generally funded as a contribution from your wage, this could be part of what you are requesting.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

generally (but not limited to) it's not "services" as in handouts. like Government assistance i.e welfare.

Generally it's an access issue. for example they use the healthcare system in Canada disproportionaly.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well. Our reproductive systems frequently require am obnoxious amount of maintenance :/ so women using healthcare more does not surprise me.

[–]iainmf 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course.

The issue for me is consistency. If we believe that unequal outcomes are an indication of unfair treatment, then we should use that standard across the board.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Right but Equality...... /s

E: had to /s that shit

[–]epelle9 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is correct, but if healthcare costs more for women then they should be ok with being charged more. (Im talking about in places like US where you need private insurance, and feminists are constantly saying how sexist it is, while its simple capitalism).

[+]keyboardWorrier points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I definitely remember reading the same thing about the UK. However just because it's an "access" issue rather than a handouts/payments issue doesn't mean it can't be quantified. I'm sure there are some stats on average cost per patient, for example.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ya, that's right.

[–]lucyinthelargetee 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Could that be because government benefits are often aimed at mothers? Not saying that's true or that it's great, just trying to find a possible reason. Also, I'm always confused about what benefits people in the US get so I'm not as informed as you probably.

[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are probably correct. I'm not saying the reason for women receiving more is unjustified. I bring up government benefits as a counterpoint to the idea of the pay gap leaves women unfairly disadvantaged.

[–]lucyinthelargetee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh thank you for replying in such a kind way.

I mean, the wage gap is pretty much bullshit anyways but it's interesting to see that as a counter argument.

[–]barndoor101 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

My new favourite article. Basically on average men pay twice as much tax as women.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

END THE TAX GAP!!!!!!!!!

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Could you imagine a world were every woman was compelled to pay an equal amount of taxes to men ~and~ actually pay off her student loan ?

My god, what a world !

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sure women would soon cry foul saying there are mitigating factors like property ownership, etc etc. While completely missing the point about the pay gap.

[–]CountVonVague 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just imagine the campaign ads demanding that women "pay their fair share! For equality! Stop being sexist and woman-up to big duties!" There'd be a righteous FIT

[–]shootermcgavin149 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait, do women not have to pay back their student loans? As far as i am aware its nondefaultable for both genders

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Currently, both genders still have to pay back their loans... but I've heard local feminists posit legislation that would forgive women their student loans, but require men to still pay back theirs.

Let's hope this idea doesn't not gain traction.

Also, Shooter, do you still eat pieces of shit for breakfast ?

[–]minlite 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We have to tax women more! We have to end this inequality! (/s)

[–]Ujio2107 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Probably cause they make more money

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men do EARN more money; but not due to the bullshit wage gap myth.

[–]Ujio2107 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep totally agree. An electrical engineer is gonna make more than a Pre-K teacher. Basic economics

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused. The stats show that men make more (not for the same work as women, like the "wage gap" advocates claim), so why is anyone surprised that men pay more tax?

Is there any evidence that women get tax breaks in the UK for being women?

[–]contractor808 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Tax breaks I'm not sure as I'm in the US, but women-only initiatives and programs, yes.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Okay, but that doesn't reduce how much women pay in taxes.

For example, minimum wage employees pay a certain percentage out, and then receive most (or all) of it back when they do their tax forms at the end of the year (unless it's done differently in the UK than Canada/America).

[–]contractor808 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No, it doesn't reduce the amount paid. I was pointing out women get more from the government for each dollar paid relative to men.

Although generally only custodial parents can claim children on their taxes, which is close to 80% women. Granted that's a result of poor policy rather than a goal of poor policy, I would say.

I would also like to know what forms of alimony, retirement garnishing, disability garnishing, child support, etc are taxed and which aren't as women are also the majority of collectors and this could increase their non-taxable income.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Roughly 1.5 million single mothers in the UK would be able to claim their children, assuming they all had sole custody. Given the UK's population, I would say that such a number is unlikely to create such a large difference in taxes.

[–]contractor808 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know the child deductions in the UK, so I can't speak to that, nor would I expect that to account for the whole difference, nor did I state it did. It was an example of differing tax burdens/returns.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's also the fact to consider that there are more men in the UK working high-level jobs with larger payouts, and thus higher taxes. I would wager that to be the most prominent reason.

In other words, men will probably always pay more taxes as long as the economy is based on a currency.

[–]aksoullanka 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They get to retire early than men too.

[–]nocivo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the point is that woman get way more benefits than man from state when they pay less taxes.

Some people can make a point like that should be more taxes spent to help mans than women because they contribute more. I do not agree with this to me the taxes should be split equally but I understand people points when you see huge investments in woman problems and almost none in mans when they contribute more. Thanks god the state don't use capitalism to apply their money pr the poor people would be even more fucked.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the point is that woman get way more benefits than man from state when they pay less taxes.

Um... it seems that you've extrapolated that point beyond the topic. Again, if you earn more in this society, you pay more taxes.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well dependents like children are tax writeoffs, and the laws are constructed and enforced in a manner that grants legal custody to women more.

So indirectly yes.

[+]MealReadytoEat_ points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

You need a percentage in the title, people don't intuitively understand large numbers

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is true, if it's 75 billion out of 1 ~trillion total tax revenue it's not that big a deal (meaning men pay 540B and women 460B). 75 billion out of ~200 billion total (so men paying 135B to women 65B) is a much bigger issue.

[–]ZombieAlpacaLips 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Large numbers aside, they mean nothing if you don't have the context of population size, total taxes receipts, etc.

[–]Mac4491 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well duh, we earn more.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

With the emphasis being on the word "EARN" not the word "PAID".

[–]noturtles 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that putting emphasis on the use of either word oversimplifies the matter. Men typically have more money. Sometimes it's for one reason, sometimes for another.

[–]TechnoSam_Belpois 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not that much more

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

20% more. Enough to push a lot of male earners into the next tax bracket.

[–]Meyright 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The state is one big restributer of wealth in favour of women. And we, as a society, once had an incentive to protect women by redistribution of wealth. But those times are over. Women are free to care for themselfs and pay for it.

Take the issue of free menstrual products for women for example. If something is free, this means everyone is going to pay for it through taxes, not just the people (in this case women) who use it. Feminists literally want men to pay for them.

[–]ShelSilverstain 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What we need to increase is public measures to help women not get pregnant before the age of 22. I have searched high and low for this, but I read a study a few years ago about the children of these women. They use most of the social services, commit most of the crimes, are more likely to be crime victims, more likely to join gangs, more likely to join the military, use drugs, less likely to finish school, and die much younger than the rest of the population. The lifetime cost and consequences of these births can no longer be ignored.

[–]Meyright 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There was a reddit post some days ago, which said the same thing about how older women produce more socialy stable offspring or st like that. There are more health risks involved in getting pregnant later in life though.

But I would suggest its not a matter of age, but more a matter of a stable family. Most 22 yo or younger can't provide that. A big percentage of them are probably single mothers too, which is one of the largest factors in developing the problems you've described.

What I would suggest is that we need to increase public measures to help fathers and mothers to build a strong family unit. Devaluation of the family is one of the most destructive things that could have happened to society.

[–]ShelSilverstain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maturity is probably the single biggest factor in stable relationships, though

[–]loddfavne 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The state is one big restributer of wealth in favour of women.

This is the reason I say that mensrights is more right-wing than left-wing. It's a question of definition, because people value different things. But, for many people the right has more things they agree with than the left. I don't think that it's a coincidence that there is a shift to the right in many contries while mensrights-groups are also growing.

[–]ShelSilverstain 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm a raise all boats kinda person. I'd rather see men benefit more from their taxes than to see women benefit less. Shit, let's get something for our tax dollars besides endless wars. End farm subsidies, and use the money to give every American snap benefits, for example.

[–]loddfavne 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In America, perhaps. Here in Scandinavia we reached the point where we need to think differently. Some would think that government sector can help more than they can help themselves. I seem to see the government being the problem for men in many situations.

[–]ShelSilverstain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As with anything, there's always a struggle to find the correct balance.

[–]Meyright 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The whole mens rights thing is not an issue between left and right but between liberal and authoritarian values. Those SJW, cultural marxist, feminists are authoritarian, they want daddy government to protect their victim classes. (True) liberals are against big state and for more freedom, not less.

The MRM is mostly libertarian left leaning.

[–]loddfavne 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The MRM is mostly libertarian left leaning.

You would make perfect sense if it weren't because the lack of libertarian leftists. Nobody on the left side would say that they were authoritarian. But, once you start to tax people and have a small group of politicians controlling how the taxes are spent it seems to end up that way. Control their money, control the people. Leftism in a nutshell.

[–]CountVonVague 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You would make perfect sense if it weren't because the lack of libertarian leftists.

Raises hand. And don't the Reds also tend to hold control of the purse over people to get them to what they want, only in the direction of Eliminating the ability to give money?

[–]moolah_dollar_cash 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But, they never seem to mention that if women started to earn as much as men, then they would start paying as much tax as men.

Haha wtf is this? Obviously people don't mention this because it goes without saying. What argument does this paragraph make? It literally makes no sense.

Honestly how is saying women pay less in taxes because they earn less an argument against any point being made by femenists​ on the "pay gap"?

If you want to make a point about how they pay gap is fine because some women don't want to work as many hours then make that point. Don't make up some weird reframing of them earning less to make them sound greedy or something, just to launch into it anyway. It's cheap nasty bullshit. Make some actual arguments.

[–]nocivo -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pay gap do not exist in western culture anymore or if you do the same study only dor young people you see that is turning to the side of man because many young womans are getting paid better than mans and while also doing less hours because pf this paid gap lie. You have many woman earring less money on average because they pick safe and low income work or work less hours for their bosses. If you compare people with the exact same conditions they should be paid equal but lets be real, that is impossible to achieve because there is always someone who work better and harder, girl or boy.

[–]orcscorper 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He lost me at

While there are slightly more men at work than women

17.6M vs. 13.1M? That's about 35% more. Multiply that by the 73.7% of the average male work hours that women work, and 92% (the widest estimate of the adjusted pay gap), and you get 50.4%, almost exactly the amount of taxes paid by women divided into the amount paid by men, according to the article.

This ignores progressive tax rates, different deductions and countless other factors, but it's funny that women in the UK seem to be paying exactly the amount in total taxes you might expect them to pay.

[–]haplogreenleaf 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

r/threadkillers

[–]abattlescar 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this post is irony: men pay more taxes === women get paid less. If you claim a wage gap exists you must also claim this tax gap exists.

[–]omerio911 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Saying that man pay more tax than women is as useless as saying that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man makes. It is even mentioned in the article that man pay more because they earn more. The title is nothing more than a clickbate and I think using such titles only hurts our cause.

[–]loddfavne 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're missing the point. Men finance the welfare-state, women use it. The government forces men to provide for women and getting nothing in return. In the old days, men provided for women that they actually met. Now, they just provide for women that they'll never meet. For the men who don't have any women in their lives, this is a pretty raw deal.

[–]richardnorth 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the real issue. Taxation is a hidden social contract that forces men to subsidize women in exchange for nothing, while simultaneously propping up a false narrative that women are oppressed by a patriarchy.

[–]DaeusPater 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I wish there was a country which gave citizens(not corporations) the right to 'determine' where their tax dollars(or atleast some % of it, like 75%,80%) will go - which is a actually a form of democracy. It removes the middlemen, who are corrupt politicians, out of the way. It would still need legislators for other purposes, but citizens will more direct control over government policies. This makes the state more accountable towards the people. The one disadvantage is the poor will have less of a voice. This can be overcome by mandating the higher economic classes to reserve certain %(like 15% or 20%) of their 'determined' tax amount towards programs that help lower economic classes. This is a fair deal for everyone involved.

If such a country exists I'm moving over there right now.

[–]Macismyname 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I imagine you'd end up with horrible over funding in popular areas and under funding in others. Plus a large portion of those budgets would be spent on advertising to the public for a higher budget rather than on effective spending.

It's a neat idea, but I don't think that system would work.

[–]bytor_2112 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep, no one would support the boring-but-necessary functions and the latticework of bureaucracy supporting it all

[–]DaeusPater 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I realize that this is a flaw in the system, but I'm sure we can make amendments to rectify the shortcomings. Do you have any ideas for it?

[–]DaeusPater 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is why it needs a cap on how much % of your taxes you have a say over. In the above post I stated that as 75% or 80%, maybe we should lower it. I'm sure if we gave this system a serious thought we can come up with safeguards to over-funding in populist policies.

[–]CustomBlendNo1 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

20% of it would go towards a party to celebrate the launch of BoatyMcBoatFace :)

[–]DaeusPater 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not saying you can do whatever you want with your tax money, in which its not really tax but just your money. I wrote this somewhere else:

This proposed system is more like - elected legislators propose policies, citizens vote for it by proxy of their tax dollars, if it meets its required budget, it program is put into action.

[–]ShelSilverstain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NPR had an interview recently with the mayor of Oklahoma City. He said his citizens didn't mind paying taxes for stuff like sports stadiums, but the federal government should fund policing because he saw that as part of "national security." I wish I were making this up

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is something like that: it's called the private market.

[–]DaeusPater 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you talking about the private equity market in financial markets? How is it similar to a government taxation system? Just asking to clarify.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No I mean when you buy something from a private market actor, you saying exactly what you want your money spent on and how much is spent on that thing.

It's not similar to government taxation. It's just getting to decide the manner and scope of how your money is spent. It's really the only way to do it as well.

[–]TooMuchToProcess 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I hate to be a pessimist because I'd love to live there too. But with the media in the hands of the powers that be, popular opinion can be manipulated into voting against their best interest.

[–]DaeusPater 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That happens in our system too, corporate mainstream media was all pro-Hillary. Though Trump was a bad candidate for President, he eventually won, showing that the media is not all that influential. This proposed system is more like - elected legislators propose policies, citizens vote for it by proxy of their tax dollars, if it meets its required budget, it program is put into action.

[–]TooMuchToProcess 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like the idea of being able to decide that none of my tax dollars will be used to fund wars. But if the media is constantly telling me that I need to be scared and that the only way I can be safe is to get involved in these wars... I might not make the best choices.

Don't get me wrong. I hope that someplace is able to try what you're describing.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The media was incredibly influential. The media failed.

The media made it seem from 2008 that 2016 would be Hillary's turn, so there was little competition ans ignored Bernie early on.

The media played up Trump for ratings, showing how loud he was in debate formats that put his yelling angry truthiness (in the colbert sense) on display for people to laugh at or get riled up, not paying attention to serious candidates and letting Trump take early pluralities in winner-take-all states, only panicking when it was too late to stop the train.

The media is influential. The media just failed to do its job of reporting the important things, calling out lies, and presenting reality objectively.

[–]ShelSilverstain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think there should be 10 or so categories on our tax forms that we get to choose and prioritize where our taxes get spent

[–]RunawayGrain 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm all for a flat national sales tax on everything excluding essentials. Everyone pays the same rate. So it eliminates the 'Illegals not paying taxes and getting services' argument, and addresses the 'rich not paying their fair share' complaint as well.

Read about it here and make up your own mind: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

[–]SwordfshII 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Equality!!!! Women need to pay more taxes!!!

[–]loddfavne 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men need to get more in return from the money they put into government, or they'll shrink the government budget. There are some serious economic problems when the government does not reinvest the money they earn from men in future generations. If men don't get improved healthcare and education, government will end up with a lot less money.

[–]merton1111 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same kind of bullshit stats that feminists like to throw around to support their opinion.

It's not a men vs women. It's equality between men and women.

[–]Nergaal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He also pointed that 17.6 million men paid £121.0 billion, an average of £6,875 per person per annum, and 13.1 million women paid £45.5 billion, an average of £3,473 which is just over half (50.5 per cent) that paid by male taxpayers.

[–]Lucius_Martius 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, that's because, you see, women aren't allowed to earn more, and are forced to work fewer hours by stereotypes and stuff. We all suffer from the patriarchy, you see. Women just a bit more of course.

[–]G4RRETT 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this is stupid cause in aggregate men earn far more money than women, which is what feminists complain about, and that's why men pay more taxes...

[–]cuntycuntcunts 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I DEMAND EQUALITY!

[–]abattlescar 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fun fact: this is the statistic that women use to claim $0.77 for every $1.00 a man makes. Income is observed based on taxes, and it's generally reliable except when you need to compare 1/2 to 1/2.

[–]dewse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Women make less than men". It's the same type of observation. Presenting an average of gender doesn't mean much for the individual fairness. Interesting observation, but meaningless to men's right.

[–]lucyinthelargetee -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that's because men earn more than women, duh! Also what about hashtag pinktax on my tampons? /s

[–]FountainLettus -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We should spam post this in r/feminism

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter