Bachelor Tax

[Anonymous 29]

I’m not sure if this topic is pertinent to this part of the forums but I’ll have to take the risk of having it  thrown into Litter box if I’m wrong.

I live Canberra, (capital of Australia) a predominantly a public service city. Lately there have been rumors, on the radio stations suggesting that a new tax reform could be legislated, applicable to young men/bachelors. Considering it has not been talked about on TV or written in print/news papers, it is lookt upon as a rumor as radio/media  does not carry much weight in political discussions. However, the subject of taxing unmarried men just for not being married stinks  of government trying to recover/get money to continue to finance all the womens  project they have promised them.

Is anything like this happening in USA ?

[RoyDalParticipant]

In the USA, a disproportionate share of my generic taxes go to “women’s issues” and singles do not get any tax deductions available to marrieds with children; so the answer is yes. They snuck it in before anyone noticed over several generations.

My observation of USA politics is when I start seeing stories like the one you cite in the news, it means the administration is floating trial balloons. If there is an outcry, then they can quietly back off. If it’s well received, or ignored, then they will press ahead.

There are many historical precedents for bachelor taxes, and government backed programs aimed at increasing the birth rate. If ancient Rome and Nazi Germany did it and got away with it, then there is no reason our governments won’t try it either.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Anonymous 3]

Bachelor taxes on men don’t work because one of the major reasons for a plummeting marriage rate is women’s hypergamy. If you give men even LESS money to work with, you make them even LESS attractive to women.

This is of course combined with all the other issues of feminism and the misandrist legal system in place.

What they’re going to do however, if there is ever truly a real fear about population (there really isn’t, we probably about 10x more people than we actually need) is kick women out of the workforce, drive down the age of consent/marriage, get rid of divorce, and then order women to marry young by 16 or so. They do this every time things collapse, then ramp up age, education and female wealth/power during excess.

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

Government will always find new excuses for taxing people harder. Population is really a joke; we are already vastly overpopulated, and if it is a national problem then it can be solved using more liberal immigration laws.

Besides; that tax should be ridiculously high before it even comes close to the cost of marriage and children.

[MonkeyMindParticipant 5340]

What Phoenix Said.

The more that single men get penalised, the less money they have to spend on women/ dating. They can try it but it will just exacerbate things in the long run. That said, feminists aren’t renowned for their common sence and would happily grab and campaign for the short-term gains with little or no perspective on where it will all lead.

Modern feminism is like watching somebody saw the branch off a tree that their ladder is leaning against.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

Is anything like this happening in USA ?

Yes. It’s called ObamaCare™.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

sidecar wrote:

DRS_au wrote:

Is anything like this happening in USA ?

Yes. It’s called ObamaCare™.

How is ObamaCare a bachelor’s tax?  There is a tax on individuals who refuse to have health coverage.  That was like a plan C proposal out of Obama, after first having a federal insurance program people could buy into, and the non-profit chartered insurance programs were both shot down. So, the Mass. model of health insurance got adopted, which required people to have health insurance.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

How is ObamaCare a bachelor’s tax?

So you might actually use that maternity coverage you are forced to pay for under ObamaCare™?

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

sidecar wrote:

richardhutnik wrote:

How is ObamaCare a bachelor’s tax?

So you might actually use that maternity coverage you are forced to pay for under ObamaCare™?

And here is a court case for MRAs to pick up.  They could sue to enable men to be able to get adoptions covered under ObamaCare, or other aspects of medical coverage.  I am required to pay for a certain level of insurance.  Whether or not my insurance covers things like Maternity coverage, I would have to look into.  The last time I looked into the Exchange in the state I am in, I didn’t see anything about Maternity coverage.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[DurdenParticipant 1051]

I know a lot of guys are mentioning men becoming less attractive to women and I think because of this tax women will become less attractive to men. It will make them compare costs and realize its cheaper not to get married. Its really just evidence that less guys are tying the knot. Society is scared we are not mindless zombies anymore.

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

Whether or not my insurance covers things like Maternity coverage, I would have to look into.

By law it has to, or it doesn’t meet the minimum federal standards established by ObamaCare™, along with a f~~~load of other things men simply cannot use.

The point is women use health care services a LOT more than men. Massively so. ObamaCare™ forces men to pay for those services for women by requiring men to pay for insurance coverage on services they not only do not want, but cannot possibly use. That’s why the media was concentrating so much on the religious freedom aspect of ObamaCare™ permitted plans requiring birth control pill coverage. Never mind a few religious conservative companies; they were just a distraction. The last thing they wanted to draw attention to was the fact that millions upon millions of men are being forced to pay for birth control pill coverage they cannot possibly use. And if they don’t want to pay for that coverage, they have to pay a fine tax.

ObamaCare™ IS a man tax. Make no mistake about it.

[Anonymous 29]

RoyDal wrote:

My observation of USA politics is when I start seeing stories like the one you cite in the news, it means the administration is floating trial balloons. If there is an outcry, then they can quietly back off. If it’s well received, or ignored, then they will press ahead.

Well Canberra is actually known as ( Canberra Australian Capital Territory ) a mini state in it’s own right. Statehood was imposed on the population  even though it was rejected  twice through local referendums. But what is even worse is that Canberra is like  an experimental  lab where social constructs and regulations/legislations are tested on locals and then enacted in the Federal  Parliament  and imposed on the rest of the 24 million people who never had a chance of discussion  or any say in the matter. So if they do go ahead with bachelor tax it will not be under any guise, just blatant new regulation weather unmarried  men like it or not. F~~~ing feminist natsizm  in its purest form.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Here’s something interesting on this:

In a printed piece c.1897 (118 years ago) called “The New Woman”….. there is talk about this exact topic. Clipping attached below. It’s about imposing a bachelor tax on men who have no interest in marrying. More interesting is the use of the nearly exact term/concept of “men going their own way”.

Seems the concept of MGTOW – and talk about “the bachelor tax” – has been around since your great, great, great grandfather wasn’t even a twinkle in his father’s eye.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[uchibenkeiParticipant 7965]

It didn’t work for the Romans.  It won’t work for any other society.  Unless the tax is 50% of all your assets and equal to alimony + the possibility of child support, no tax would be high enough.

Giving women even more leverage over men in the sexual market place would be disastrous.

I bathe in the tears of single moms.

[3.14Participant 54]

as some of you know i am from Romania

during the 60s and 70s former president Ceusescu introduced a tax for males over 25 w/o a wife and kids. it was 30% of the income

in the end it failed. and believe me Ceuasescu had the secret services and the army at his disposal. even so…it was a total disaster

[3.14Participant 54]

it was named by the people as – penis tax 🙂

[Author]

Posts