Why Men Should Pay Higher Taxes Than Women

With it being Tax Day and all, I figured I should write an article about taxes and gender.  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled, "It's Payback Time for Women", arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.   As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.

That said, I feel that her proposal doesn't go far enough.  The flip side of her argument is that MEN not only haven't been pulling their weight in that regard, but that they also reap the benefits of Women's work as well.  As Ashley Montagu has noted, men are essentially parasites on the bodies of Women.  Now, I know what you are thinking, fellas.  You are probably feeling extremely uncomfortable (if not defensive) right now, as would anyone who is reminded of how relatively privileged they are.  But deal with it, since denying the truth only makes it worse later.

What I am proposing, and I am by no means the first person to do so, is that in addition to a UBI for everyone (regardless of gender), men also should pay significantly higher taxes than Women.  There, I said it, because somebody's gotta say it.  And while Arthur Pigou himself is probably spinning in his grave right now, such an idea is completely justified by Pigouvian economic reasoning.  To wit, men impose "negative externalities" on Women, while simultaneously receiving "positive externalities" from Women as well.  Quite the energy vampires indeed.

Negative externalities that men overwhelmingly impose on Women include crime, pollution, poverty, resource depletion, anxiety, depression, healthcare costs, unwanted pregnancies, disease, war, and especially violence against Women.  Positive externalities that men benefit from include all the unpaid labor (both productive and reproductive) that makes society and the economy even possible in the first place, and is overwhelmingly (even if not entirely) done by Women.  Therefore, from a Pigouvian perspective, men should indeed pay higher taxes than Women, since men in general are basically free-riders overall, at least on average.  And even in a full-blown Matriarchal society, men would likely still free-ride off of Women to one degree or another, even if not as much as they do under patriarchy.  Though they would more likely be leeching off of Women's wallets rather than their bodies, since Women would be the richer gender under Matriarchy.

So does that mean that men are currently undertaxed?  That depends--relative to what?  Relative to Women, they are, at least on average.  Relative to other men, they may or may not be.  Relative to an objective standard, rich men are undertaxed while poorer men are overtaxed.  It's all relative.  And I personally believe that taxation should be progressive for all genders, with the tax rate graduated and rising with increasing income, as fair taxation should be based on the principle of "equal sacrifice" or "equal utility" while also maximizing on balance the utility for all concerned.  Flat or regressive taxes are inherently unfair from a utilitarian perspective, since they undertax the rich while overtaxing the poor.  And the marginal utility of money clearly decreases with increasing income, as there is some evidence for a "happiness ceiling".  Indeed, I believe that the marginal tax rates should be more steeply progressive than it is now, like it was before Ronnie Raygun, but with NO LOOPHOLES this time.  But regardless of what kind of tax code we have, as long as we have any sort of income tax, men should pay a higher rate than Women, ceteris paribus.   Property taxes, if they are to still exist in the future, should be at a lower rate for any property that is titled exclusively in a Woman's name.  Additionally, for the estate tax (i.e. "death tax"), that should be raised and made highly progressive as well, while exempting any inheritances passed on from mother to daughter.  That would be a fair system.

Of course, it will be entirely up to the Women of the future to decide what the tax code of the future should be.  They may very well decide to tax men and Women equally, or even abolish the monetary system entirely. But us fellas should be willing to agree to pay higher taxes than Women.  Honestly, it's the least we can do.

Finally, An Honest Article About the Decline of (Straight) Marriage in America

Recently, I posted an article on this blog about the real reason why heterosexual marriage is in decline in the USA.  (Spoiler alert:  both liberals and conservatives have it wrong--it is really because men are becoming increasingly redundant, and thus the original economic and socio-political purpose of marriage under patriarchy is becoming increasingly obsolete.)  Turns out, there is another article that is even more brutally honest than mine, titled "Marriage Is Declining Because Men Are Pigs", written by a man, no less.   This self-explanatorily titled article by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones is highly scathing but nonetheless true.  To wit:

Basically, an awful lot of men are—and always have been—volatile and unreliable. They drink, they get abusive, and they do stupid stuff. They're bad with money, they don't help with the kids, and they don't help around the house. They demand subservience. They demand sex. And even on the one dimension they're supposedly good for—being breadwinners—they frequently tend to screw up and get fired.  In other words, marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever. But they've been forced into it by cultural mores and economic imperatives, and that's the only reason it's been nearly universal in the past.  Nothing has changed much about that. It's still a bad deal for an awful lot of women, but cultural mores and economic imperatives have changed, and that means more women can afford to do what's right for themselves and stay unmarried these days.

I know what a lot of guys reading this will say as a stock response:  "Not ALL men!"  And technically, that is true, as there are still plenty of men getting married in 2016.  In fact, among college-educated men and Women, the marriage rates have barely budged since the 1950s.  But for those without a college degree, marriage rates have indeed dropped (and divorce rates rose) dramatically since then.  So what gives?  Here is what Kevin Drum has to say:

But there's one exception to this: the college educated. Well-educated men are fairly reliable; they have good earning power; they generally aren't abusive; and they've been willing—slowly but steadily—to change their habits and help out with kids and housework. For college-educated women, then, marriage is a relatively good deal. For everyone else, not so much.  And that's why marriage is declining among all groups except the college educated. For an awful lot of women, it's just a lousy deal. They're tired of putting up with all the crap they get from men, and so they're opting out. They'll opt back in when men start to pull their own weight. There's no telling when that's going to start happening.

And indeed, truer words have never been spoken.  Of course, this trend isn't entirely the fault of the bottom 80-90% of men who get chewed up and spit out by the oligarchy/plutocracy/kleptocracy/kyriarchy.  Much credit/blame also goes to the men at the top that hollowed out our economy, torpedoed our labor unions, and enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else who got thrown under the bus.  They are, after all, the ones who made college a virtual necessity to be able to earn a living wage (let alone what used to be called a "family wage") in this country these days, while simultaneously outsourcing, offshoring, and automating so many jobs that used to pay such decent wages.  But let's face it--that's karma, fellas.  We tyrannized and  "lorded it over" the better half of humanity (Women) for thousands of years and now we are finally getting our comeuppance.  We basically rigged the system in our favor and artificially propped ourselves up for millennia, and now the props are falling.  So it is no small wonder why so many Women are now choosing to "go it alone" in that regard these days.  Especially since Women are now becoming more educated than men on average, earning more college degrees overall.

And while it's true that increasing female empowerment has also undoubtedly contributed to the relative redundancy of males, as men are no longer being artificially propped up quite the way they once were, that is actually a GOOD thing that we should be celebrating.  Patriarchy is a fundamentally evil and thoroughly corrupt system, and the sooner it ends, the better.  And it is currently self-destructing as we speak, and has been for about half a century now.  As Stephanie Coontz (author of The Way We Never Were and Marriage: A History) has noted, the patriarchal nuclear family model of the 1950s and earlier inherently required a ludicrous amount of violence and coercion to prop it up and keep the "troops" (i.e. women and children) in line.  And when that violence and coercion is reduced or removed, the whole proverbial house of cards inevitably collapses sooner or later.  So good riddance, let's never go back!

Marriage is, after all, a fundamentally patriarchal institution.  At least the monogamous, heterosexual variety that the conservatives just luuurrrrve to idealize, that is.  That's not to say that marriage can't be redefined and repurposed for a Matriarchal society--indeed it has been redefined and repurposed many, many times throughout history--but the outdated idea that everybody must get married and/or have children (or that doing so is the sine qua non of "real adulthood") needs to end yesterday.  Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-marriage.  But we as a society nonetheless need to become more tolerant of a wide variety of lifestyles and family types, and reject the obsolete ideas of compulsory heterosexuality and/or marriage.

And soon Women will be taking over, as they have already crossed the Rubicon in that regard.  Since the 1970s, Women have been going "two steps forward, and one step back", while men have been going "one step forward, and two steps back".  The song "Not Meant to Be" by Theory of a Deadman comes to mind.  Honestly, the inevitable death of patriarchy is really quite painless.  It's fighting to keep it alive that is causing so much pain for both Women and men.  And when Women finally do take over, they will remember exactly how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday.   Don't say you weren't warned.

In the meantime, fellas, don't be a fool, stay in school.  And if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.  Not like that actually guarantees success anymore, but it sure can't hurt. Though for a lot of young guys today, perhaps as much as 80% of them, vocational/technical or trade school might actually be a better choice overall than college or university for those who are less academically inclined, with less debt too.  Failing that, I suppose you can always go join the circus, lol.