Alesina's sexist "man tax" getting publicity with no ethical objections

From the article:

'Married men would also benefit from the change, Alesina contends, since they would share in the extra income and lower tax rate on the earnings of their wives.

"Single men may not be too happy about it," Alesina conceded. "But you can't make everybody happy."

The economists argue that their ideas are aimed at current social goals, in the United States and throughout the developed world.'

I knew this day would come. It happened in old Rome, when Augustus instituted an explicit bachelor tax, as well as barring single men from holding public office or inheriting from their parents. But back then it was applied pretty much to male members of the aristocracy, who as it turns out, were not skittish about marriage. The ladies of their class were the ones who didn't want to do it, because they would under Roman law then see ownership of any property they had from such sources as inheritences go to their new husbands, who assumed ownership of all their property. So one could see why ladies of the upper classes thus hesitated to marry. But what is important to note here is that it was the men getting penalized for decisions being made by women (albeit more easily-understood ones). The same thing is happening here-- women (as a class) have decided not to be trustworthy in the context of marriage, thereby making it too risky for the average man to marry them. In addition, they have as a class decided that marriage isn't always the best option. But instead of viewing this as a natural product of feminism, the culpability has been shifted to "patriarchy" and those targetted to pay a 'fine' for it are of course, men. Not just any men, but men who refuse to go along with the madness.

Guys, this must be fought vigorously.

To the editors:

There is so much wrong with the idea of a tax system graduated based on indellible characteristics such a s aperson's sex that it is hard to know where to begin ("Taxing women less: Gender pay equity?", 4/28/07, Mike Myers). Even more disturbing is the lack of outcry against this idea from the average person or members of the media.

The system of taxation in the US is based on income, and not anything else such as property ownership, class, family affiliation, place of birth, sex, ethnicity, etc. The reason for that is simple: income is measuarable objectively while little else regarding a person's financial status is not. To change it so that indellible or other charatceristics are taken into account is setting a very dangerous precedent as well as being openly discriminatory against the people who are left to pay more. Should well-to-do women like Condi Rice or Anne Mulcahy (CEO of Xerox Corp.) pay less as a percentage in taxes, simply by virtue of their sex, than the man who picks up her garbage in front of her home?

Sex-based discrimination is unreasonable and bad public policy in all but a very few, limited areas (bathroom access being one notable exception, for example). The idea of codifying it in US tax policy is utterly abhorrent.

Even in Canada this would be unconstitutional. Canada's constitution allows for biased/discriminatory practices and laws to "correct" past wrongs (i.e. to favor traditionally disadvantaged groups - whoever the hell they might be), but it doesn't allow for unequal treatment under the law in this manner. The US constitution wasn't written by socialists so it forbids this kind of thing quite explicitly. It's like "shout at your spouse, lose your house" - they tried to write it into law up here and it never got done even though it technically passed a vote in a provincial legislature.

I agree we need to fight this nonsense in the press. It's only in the press because like most of what's in the MSM it panders to women. That's how "70% of Indian women are abused" and "1 in 4 women are raped" and "women make 77% of what men do" got started - we need to piss all over this nonsense and fast. What's next - a Jewish tax (they do make slightly more than average members of other religious groups I understand) and a break for gentiles, a white tax or a Christian tax? Where does the comparable worth/equality of outcomes/Marxism madness end? Will men get a tax break when women occupy more of the professional positions in our economy because men are so badly treated in the educational system? Will men be allowed to receive government pensions and retire earlier because of our shorter life expectancy? I'm sorry, but slavery was abolished over a century ago and I'm not about to volunteer for it now.

I figured we'd see attempts to coerce men into marriage (discriminate against men and set it up so the only way a man gets a fair shake is if he's married) now that we're wising up and avoiding feminist-influenced women like the plague - societies always fight those who seek to make changes (first they laugh at you, then they fight you, that kinda thing) - but this is a bit ridiculous.

If this is some stealthy attempt to force men into marriage, do not allow it to make you break; break society. If extra taxing on men should occur and I end up too financially shorted to live alone, I'd roommate with another guy.

Should this discriminatory agenda be put into action, men may have to stage a strike so devastating until it destroys society as we know it.

The idea of taxing men more than women had better be stopped before something horrendous becomes of it.

(From the piece) -- "multiple studies have shown that part of the explanation is that women are often more sensitive to changes in tax rates than men."

This is a hilarious article!("Multiple" in fem-speak means ONE plus a fem editorial...)

Most women cannot even fill out a tax form, let alone demonstrate their "appreciation" for their husband's financial expertise.

This is simply trash feminist pop journalism based in misandry.

I'd be willing to give women a tax break when there are 100% female combat brigades in the U.S. military, and when women have to register at 18 for the draft ... just like their oppressor-gender-we-earn-more
-than-you who represent 99% of all war dead.

Men are dying at a nearly 100% greater rate than females, and the femidiots are hysterically petitioning for a TAX BREAK?!

That pretty much defines how much women value men in FemAmerica.

While the article does state it, it doesn't sound like a bachelors tax to me:

> Married men would also benefit from the change,
> Alesina contends, since they would share in the
> extra income and lower tax rate on the earnings
> of their wives

So he gets an extra 5% knocked off, and is supposed to be happy because becuase he shares in the extra 5% his wife makes? Sounds like a break-even point to me.

Hmmm... After saying that, it is a bachelors tax. Does not affect married couples (where both are working), does affect the single income bachelor.

It's all about putting more money into the consumer's (women's) pockets at the end of the day. Everyone benefits - sales tax receipts go up, more money flows into the consumer/retail industries... The more money you give to women the more you will get back, in the merry-go-round that is the Consumer Economy.

I've little doubt that, in the space of the next 50 years, such a system of different tax rates for men and women will come into being. Both Patriarchal Socialist Government and Big Business will be pushing for it. Unsubstantiated Blanket Claims (i.e. "The Wage Gap") will be used to dupe the public. As they have been over the past ~40 years - including in the UK where male Civil Servants are taking massive, gender-targeted pay cuts in the name of "equality".

As far as the money interests are concerned, men are less important. The amount of profit we will generate for them is far less and we don't buy their high-profit consumer goods at the level they'd like. For every $1 consumer a man spends, a woman spends $4.

It's all about ensuring men don't end up with the bulk of the money. The empowered woman, after all, is the Capitalist's wet-dream.