At this moment in time, I think the system works - if men only were compensated it would be unfair. However, I think those who abuse the sytem should be penalized.

I read a while ago that men pay approximately 70% of taxes yet only use 20% of the social services.

Income tax usually does not feature as the predominant tax income. There is corporate tax and a host of others including GST (VAT), excise, stamp duties and the like.

I would like to see a reference for this idea that men pay 70%. I generally take it as an urban myth. But I can be swayed by evidence.

Men do pay more taxes, but receive much less support or funding in return compared to women.

Most men by far, proud, don't wish for victim status. They are too generous for that, but they should receive some respect and appreciation for all of the sacrifices they make. Men do not deserve to have feminists conspire with the enormous influence and control they have in government to use tax revenues, that were provided in the majority by men, to gain advantages for themselves and some women but to justify those advantages through intensive tax-revenue-funded vilification and slandering of men.

Link.

Men Pay 115% of Federal Taxes

Five Indefensible Features of the Tax System

As the U.S. economy heads into the next century, federal taxation will continue to be a dominant policy issue. It is not hard to understand why: the federal government will collect an enormous $1.9 trillion in taxes in 2000. Measured as a share of GDP, federal taxes now stand at a peacetime high of 21 percent, up from just 3 percent 100 years ago.

The extraction of $1.9 trillion each year from workers, retirees, business owners, consumers, savers, and investors imposes substantial costs on taxpayers over and above the revenue transferred to the government. In the long run, comprehensive tax reform could greatly reduce the harmful side effects caused by the federal tax system, benefitting taxpayers and encouraging economic growth.

Reforms can be made to both the tax base and tax rates. The tax base is the items and transactions that are taxed; the tax rate is the percentage of the tax base that the taxpayer has to pay the government. Much of the trouble with the tax code results from the overly complicated definitions of the tax base. The federal income tax code contains confusing rules regarding the "income" to be included on the numerous tax forms, while certain types of income face multiple layers of taxation. For example, corporate profits distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends are taxed at both the business level and the individual level, biasing taxpayers against investment and encouraging businesses to take on debt. http://www.senate.gov/~jec/jer99.htm#7

• Each year, as much as $97 billion which WOULD have been in Personal Savings is instead paid by men directly to the IRS who sends it directly to women to subsidize single-motherhood.
• Almost half a trillion dollars has been transferred from working men to encourage and sustain single-mother households.
• US Personal Savings became NEGATIVE for the first time since the Great Depression as a direct result--down $37 billion in February alone. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/pitbl.htm
• The net assets of American taxpayers are a NEGATIVE $5,985 billion.
• The "graduated income tax" puts most men in high tax brackets and most women in tax brackets with little to no tax liability.
• Up to 28 million women who pay little to no taxes qualify for as much as $3,756 each per year in "Earned Income Credit" and "Child Credit".
• Most tax liability of women is offset by the $4,800 per year in "Child Care Credit".
• Because parents with children 18-24 y.o. qualify for the EIC the number of children in this age group living with their parents increased from 15 million in 1970 to 22 million in 1998.
• As many as 68.5 million children would qualify for EIC in an amount of $2,271 each if they lived with divorced or single mothers in the qualifying income category--a total tax "credit" of $155 billion per year.
• Working wives reduce the taxes paid by families by $35.8 billion.
• The EIC was voted in by women who constitute 11.6% more of the vote than men.

From the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/eitc.html "The EITC lifted 4.3 million Americans out of poverty in 1997 -- more than double the number in 1993" [read: the growth of the Earned Income Credit is out of control because the number of families being targeted for destruction is growing rapidly]

The World Almanac, 1997, page 339, "Characteristics of Voting Age Population", US Bureau of the Census,

Single motherhood is subsidized by tax payer money (mostly from men). This is directed (redistributed by the gynocratic government) to fund these leeches who are very dependent on men in a indirect manner. They could never survive without this indirect support from men, because many of those leeching single mother's children would live a very poor lifestyle or die from hunger.

This is what caused the drastic increase of this unhealthy societal situation. If a parent (most cases mother) has a child and cannot afford to take care of it she should put the child up for adoption for healthy, thriving families that can support these children adequately.

We need to stop this subsidization of unproductive single mothers who drain other tax payer's money so they don't have to work and such. That money could be used for much better things like education and health care.

This will drastically reduce the amount of broken families and dysfunctional bastard children for sure and improve civilization at large.

it seems to follow so as in ancient Rome the slaves (men) done the donkey work

the Patricians (womyn) just urged them on and had them flogged (Family Court) whatever for slacking

of course men pay the lions share of taxes - the feminit womyn would not have it any other way ( discrimination harassment etc)

Thanks for that Tyreal.

Tax codes do need significant change and the point is taken about single mothers and the State's abrogation of funds for children.

I might point out that in Oz Dividends are not double taxed. They come as 'Franked' - tax paid at source, or Unfranked -taxable in the hand of the recipient.

A quote from the article



In the developed nations, women live about six to fourteen years longer than men in the developed nations do — depending on location and if we consider The Russian Federation as being developed, which we do. Therefore, although on average women work fewer years than men do, women spend on average far more years being retired. Men, working much harder and much longer than women do, accordingly wear out much faster. They spend far fewer of their golden years in retirement. Therefore we must ensure that women enjoy far more years of life of leisure at the appropriate level of comfort that is due to women.





Whose needs could be greater than the needs of those who live longest?

Collectively, men make about 70 percent of payments to our social safety nets (through payroll deductions) and receive about 30 percent of social security benefits paid out.

Collectively, women make about 30 percent of payments to our social safety nets (also through payroll deductions) and receive about 70 percent of social security benefits paid out.

That disparity is similar in the area of private insurance and corporate pension plans.



Men are beasts of burden that are the victims in 19 out of every 20 serious or fatal job accidents and live on average considerably fewer years than women do. That is quite acceptable to our society, because men can never be "victims", they are deemed to be unworthy of the status of victimhood. When the early communists coined the euphemism "status of women" it defined women as victims.

Although women now live far more comfortable lives than they did then, and although the quality of those lives is far better than that accorded to men, now that women's lives last much longer to boot, "status of women" as a euphemism for women's victim status is far more firmly established than it ever was. Men, the beasts of burden, the truly oppressed and exploited, are farther removed from acquiring victim status than they ever were.

Most men by far, proud, don't wish for victim status. They are too generous for that, but they should receive some respect and appreciation for all of the sacrifices they make. Men do not deserve to have feminists conspire with the enormous influence and control they have in government to use tax revenues, that were provided in the majority by men, to gain advantages for themselves and some women but to justify those advantages through intensive tax-revenue-funded vilification and slandering of men.





Women are leeches according to this. Men who have wives who work and make more money are smart men. No extra lesiure for those women and no alimony for those men.


Time for men to stop being beasts of burdens. It starts at home where men are conditioned to do all the dangerous housework and let the women dust shelves and make the bed.

Yes that is a very good article. We should archive it. There's a lot of good information at Fathers For Life.org

So how is this going to change? Its not like money is being poured into men's health nor are more and more women working more hours.

http://www.angryharry.com/esDidWomen...oOutToWork.htm

The question of taxes is an interesting one and its all about the role of the state..

It is silly to turn it into a gender issue..

Although I have noted that some MRA's have suggested a dual system of taxation and government..

One for MENS interests.. (Building roads, national defence, etc..)

Another for womens interests.. (fucking up society, free tampons etc..)

Each gender pays tax according to its own income..

Women would have to pay approx 200% income tax!!

daft though eh?

Eventually men will live as long as women. What happens then? Will more women have to work?