Would the proposed Finnish plan be good for MGTOW?

Appleseed12333 · 2015-12-06T19:40:36+00:00

Anything that involves replacing provider nice guys with the government is in support of MGTOW because one reason women want a man in their lives is so women can have someone backing them up while they go through their pregnancy and raising kids.

As for other reasons why women want guys, to move up in social ladder, to be with a bad boy or alpha male who gets her pussy wet, or even because women just want to be with a good guy, will remain, but some portion of a woman's demands for men is due to being supported financially, so this is one factor that will be taken out of the equation, and girls will probably end up delaying marriage because of it.

Ultimately, MGTOW is just a situation where women can have their cake and eat it too. They have their cake, because the federal government is taking the role of the provider. And the women are eating it too, because despite having a provider in their life, they can go around fucking all the alphas. Ultimately, it's a win win for women, and a loss for 99% of guys who aren't the quintessential good looking ones that women flock to.

jigssaw · 2015-12-06T21:52:31+00:00

"Notable would be the concomitant elimination of all other benefit programs. "

fairy tale

User-31f64a4e · 2015-12-06T20:54:18+00:00

[deleted]

cfuse · 2015-12-06T21:13:13+00:00

Sounds similar to communism.. This will most likely work out poorly for everybody. It's almost like leftists have never studied history or economics.

Money just comes from a magical place

carrotforscale · 2015-12-06T20:16:21+00:00

Why should the burden fall on men? If some folks will benefit disproportionately for any reason, this value can be calculated (by folks called actuaries), and members of "privileged" classes can be levied higher rates of tax accordingly.

For example, on the issue of old age pensions, knowing the amount by which women will draw greater benefit due to their superior longevity, women must pay higher pension premiums than men while they are working.

By the same logic, if folks are also occupied in an industry that is known to be dangerous (e.g. driving a truck), they might receive a temporary reduction in their pension premiums to reflect their statistically more risky lifestyle.

TLDR: Where the value of a fair system can be calculated, folks should pay what's fair.

roguestar13 · 2015-12-06T20:29:04+00:00

Well what is the end game? That will vary on who you will ask. Each person has their own idea of what that end game will be.

For me it is simple, the end of the gynocentric thoughts (basically the end reign of the pussy).

In general, women seem to have this fear that they will be replaced, even if by a machine. This is a child like fear. Like any child like fear, one that is driven with emotion and vitriol, to a point where nothing that a man can do is right. This fear, like it or not, is in the driver seat for just about everything that the government, law enforcement and just about every man touches. When taking a closer look at the majority of the issues that men face, you can clearly see that it is a woman that has manage to complication the matters, simply because she finds certain things unsettling. In which, creates a new problem and one with no proper solution.

Now, if you take out women form the matter, we see that the issues wasn't as huge as it was made out be and it is this very notion that certain women find "problematic". Being left out is what they seem to fear the most, so the generally compensate with speak way, way to much about subject matters that does include them (ie. male related problems).

I could rant on about this subject for a while and could either bore you or create strife, yet at this moment I think I will digress. So, simply put once we remove gynocentrisity from the conversation, we as males may actually have a fair shake on equality. Yet until this idea is taken to the way side, all men will have a up hill battle to climb.

2015-12-07T00:47:31+00:00

Is it like this? /r/basicincome

If so, I will sit and watch the mayhem.

Greetings1 · 2015-12-07T04:53:43+00:00

This is great for men. Before husband's were a great source of validation ( "honey you need to tell me how beautiful I am everyday"), security (" i cant wait to move in to your paid off house"), protection ( "you need to be home more often for me and kids") and resources ("joint bank accounts are a sign of love").

Nowadays women are slowly replacing men with societal resources and government support. Pop out a baby at 19? Don't worry the government has your back and courts will stick it to the bastard who stuck his dick in you. Want more income without working more hours? Don't worry the government will increase your wage because vagina. Want constant praises for how you look as opposed to what you accomplish? Don't worry social media is the perfect outlet to flash your ass and tits for attention.

Family values and morals don't really mean much when everything you want is being spoon fed to you by the government. Men who are stuck in marriages or relationships are going to struggle hard to remain relevant in the lives of women. When the struggle is too much they will opt out. Whether or not they will see the light afterwards and choose freedom over depression will be up to them.

TheQuestion78 · 2015-12-07T08:34:09+00:00

This could possibly work if they do it right. A famous economist Milton Friedman had a model were everyone payed a flat tax while at the same time you get a tax refund if you are a part of the lower income brackets. There was also no other non-monetary benefit program with this model. How it would result is that most people would just pay the flax tax and go on with life while others might not pay any taxes if they are poor enough, and the poorest bunch would actually be getting money more back from the government.

machine_language · 2015-12-06T21:24:05+00:00

Wealth redistribution always hurts those that earn the most.

The way I see it, there's two ways to carry out "basic income". Taxation or printing new money.

Through tax, the highest earners get taxed more heavily.

Through printing new money, the highest earners get their savings eroded by a reduction in value of the money they own.

If we believe that men are the higher earners (have more to contribute to society), then this is very clearly a bad thing for men. It effectively mandates by law what we despise the most (women that leech off of men, without contributing anything themselves).

cfuse · 2015-12-07T09:49:13+00:00

This is good from the perspective that universal basic income is currently economically untested. If it isn't economically viable, then any social issues arising from it are secondary to that.

In terms of MGTOW, it depends on how you go your own way as to whether this is good or not. If you want to drop out then this is probably really good for you.

Title	Would the proposed Finnish plan be good for MGTOW?
Author	User-31f64a4e
Upvotes	14
Comments	41
Date	December 6, 2015 7:08 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/3vovbu/would_the_proposed_finnish_plan_be_good_for_mgtow/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/would-the-proposed-finnish-plan-be-good-for-mgtow.639826 https://theredarchive.com/post/639826