NCFM Opposes Harvard Economist's Sexist Man Tax

Harvard is fast becoming a catch word for radical, gender feminist propaganda institution. A man tax is not only ludicrous, it's just plain stupid. If that idea is what passes for scholarship amongst Harvard economists, it's time American's boycotted that place in droves.

Mensactivism readers probably know I'm a stickler for reading primary sources.

Hence, here is the link to the entire as-yet-unpublished paper -

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/papers/genderbasedtaxation-0307.pdf

Interesting that the Harvard criteria for "published" means "on paper." Very modern and progressive, eh?

The 29-page paper uses some obscure postmodernist political-economic jargon. (The professor dude is Italian and from Milan -- one would expect no less!) Also, the translation from what was no doubt initially scribed in Italian needs some editing...

The key concept seems to be "elasticities," which as near as I can tell has something to do with taxing men "differently" (read with malicious intent) in order to minimize the negative social consequences of said elasticities. (Elasticities may simply be gender-based choices, or variabilities between men and women... I can't really tell from the obfuscating language used by the authors.)

There's a not too subtle anti-nuclear family bias and an undiscussed misandry implied in this reasoning. (And the feminist bias is so pervasive that it is like background muzac ... totally unexamined.)

If anybody has a background in economic theory and can provide an interpretation for the unannointed, I'd be grateful!

(An excerpt from the Conclusion ) -

"Taxing labor income of women less than that of men satisfies criteria of optimal
taxation, given the different elasticity of the labor supply of women and men and the gender differences in the hazards of the earnings distributions. In other words, one could obtain more tax revenue with the same average tax rates by reducing the rates on women of a certain amount and increasing that of men by less. Even considering cross elasticities between husbands and wives the differences between the tax rates of males and females could be quite large if, as it appears from the available empirical evidence, the elasticities of male and female labor supply are very different.

Using estimates for the USA the female tax rate should be no greater than about 80% of that of males and possibly much less."

...paying most of the taxes and being forced at gunpoint to subsidize women directly through alimony, child support and paying for stay-at-home mothers, indirectly through various government payouts and female-only tax credits, so this doesn't surprise me in the least. That being said, if it happens, I stop earning taxable income.

Men pay the majority of the taxes in this society, and they earn a majority of the wages. Women receive the majority of social benefits and health care spending by governments thanks to their longer lifespans and voluntarily reduced participation in the workforce.

I'll bet real money that if you worked out a percentage of men's income being paid as taxes and compared it to the percentage of women's income being paid as taxes, you'd find women are ALREADY paying only 70-80% of the amount men are,

i.e. ((total taxes paid by women-total government payouts received by women))/total income of all women)/((total taxes paid by men-total government payouts to men) divided by (total income of all men) is less than 80% already. Anyone got numbers to fill in the values in that equation? It would make a FANTASTIC rebuttal.

The difference arises due to things like higher marginal tax rates on higher incomes (mostly paid by men), preferred tax breaks for mothers/women, higher funding for social programs directed at women, higher funding for health care aimed at women. Due to their longer life expectancies and voluntarily decreased participation in the workforce, women are already paying far less tax than men AND receiving far more from the government.

In short, we're ALREADY paying "man tax". We should be reducing the taxes paid by men and increasing the taxes paid by women.

Unless we're so far gone that it's already "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", in which case our democracies have been subverted, and we are officially living in a communist state. I'm not interested in living in a communist state.

This is about politics and economics alright - communist politics and economics. Get the proof (in the form of those numbers) in front of average North Americans, and this whole discussion will disappear from the political radar in an instant.

Harvard once let out the greatest comedian EVER.
Tom Lehrer. Listen to his stuff.
Anyway, yeah. The Man Tax is wrong,so I'm proud that I'm a professional Protester, and can rally my friends who live a car ride away from Harvard to go and protest.