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.

What Do Ted Turner, Buckminster Fuller, William Bond, William Golding, William Moulton Marston, Michael Winner, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Nikola Tesla Have In Common?

Along with many other men, all of the aforementioned are famous men who have supported the idea of Women taking over the world.  (Though in Tesla's case, he did so somewhat grudgingly.)  It may seem hard to believe, but some of the biggest supporters of Matriarchy have actually been men!  Here are some quotes:

"I've said for years and I'm really serious about it, I think men should be barred from holding public office for a hundred years.  They have been running the world for the last thousands of years and they've mucked it up something awful.  I built my business surrounding myself with women. I find women more superior to men in business-"

 -- Ted Turner

“The world would be a peaceful place if it were ruled by women”.
“Women were by nature more inclined towards compassion, whereas men tend to feel they have to be “macho”.
“You are basically life-giving, life-affirming. That is what you are naturally when you are unspoilt… Women can actually make society civil”
“Actually it is very straightforward: let women take over.”

-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been."

-- William Golding

"World ruled by women would be a better place." "I have a dream. I see a day when politics is feminised, where female values move into the public sphere in a way they haven't quite done yet."

-- Martin Amis

"Men are ridiculous. Women are far better people. Much wiser (not difficult) and with a temperament to deal with life's complexities and men's abrasiveness... So I think it's about time women took over. What they have to put up with is beyond belief. Pathetic, bullying men who throw their weight about (and there's usually a lot of it) in a vain attempt to prove they're superior when, in truth, they know they're not."

-- Michael Winner


"Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world. There isn’t love enough in the male organism to run this planet peacefully. Woman’s body contains twice as many love generating organs and endocrine mechanisms as the male."  

-- William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman)

"Western women can come to the rescue of the world." “Some people may call me a feminist....But we need more effort to promote basic human values -- human compassion, human affection. And in that respect, females have more sensitivity for others' pain and suffering.”

--  Dalai Lama

"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition."

-- Timothy Leary

"It is clear to any trained observer, and even to the sociologically untrained, that a new attitude toward sex discrimination has come over the world through the centuries, receiving an abrupt stimulus just before and after the World War.
This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior. The modern woman, who anticipates in merely superficial phenomena the advancement of her sex, is but a surface symptom of something deeper and more potent fermenting in the bosom of the race.
It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women."

--  Nikola Tesla

"Twenty-first-century man will be preoccupied almost entirely with scientific and poetical research.  Women will convert man's scientific findings into industrial production.  Women will be the undisputed managers of our 60,000-miles-an-hour speeding spaceship Earth in our ever vaster exploration of our universe."

--  Buckminster Fuller

So to all the fellas who have already joined our movement, you are certainly NOT alone in that regard.  You are indeed in very good company!  And to all the fellas who have yet to join our movement, now is the time to get with the program.  

What Should Our Movement's Flag Be?

Has anyone noticed that Matriarchal symbolism seems to turn up in some of the oddest places one could imagine?  Including, perhaps, even the flag of a Southern "red" state that was once the very seat of the Confederacy, of all places?  Take a look at the flag and seal of the state of Virginia, for example:



Not exactly the best image resolution in the official version, so let's take a look at an alternate version:





Now do you see it?  The victor is clearly a Woman, and the vanquished tyrant is clearly a man.  "Sic Semper Tyrannis" is Latin for, "Thus always to tyrants", and more colloquially translated as, "Death to all tyrants".

So why would such symbolism be present in a "red" state's flag that was first created in a much more patriarchal time in our nation's history?  Because Matriarchy is still in our DNA, that's why.  Thus Matriarchy has still persisted (albeit vestigially) in what Carl Jung calls the "collective unconscious" despite thousands of years of patriarchal terror attempting to snuff it out.  In fact, according to Wikipedia, the design of the Virginia flag was taken from Roman mythology of all places.  And despite Ancient Rome being an extremely patriarchal society, Goddess worship was still a thing, clearly taken from the preceding Matriarchal civilizations that had been supplanted.  Note that we also see similar Roman symbolism in the Statue of Liberty and the personification of Columbia as well.  And the collective unconscious is now waking up.

The modern-day Matriarchy movement needs a flag of our own, as I am not aware that any such flag exists.  And the Virginia state flag provides an excellent model for such a flag, though perhaps with a different word if you catch my drift.

Two Minutes to Midnight

World War III may or may not have begun in earnest just yet, but the risk of it occurring still looms large if the conflicts over in the Middle East region continue to accelerate.  The biggest elephant in the room is not Daesh (ISIL), Iraq, Syria, Iran or any country over in that region--it is the USA and Russia, and to a lesser extent Israel, who combined possess enough nukes to kill at least 8 billion people.  All it will take is one miscommunication and BOOM--it's game over for all of humanity.  And the two primary countries have not exactly been very friendly to each other lately.  Combine that with the threat of climate change, and the World Doomsday Clock, currently set to three minutes to midnight, might as well be set to two.  A certain Iron Maiden song comes to mind.

Meanwhile, rich war profiteers of the mercenary-industrial complex (MIC) are literally making a killing off of it all.  Like the song says, the golden goose is on the loose, and it's never out of season.  Major General Smedley Butler wrote an excellent book about it back in 1935, War Is A Racket, that should be required reading for everyone and would seem to apply a fortiori to our time.  The profiteers/racketeers and their sycophantic lackeys in government keep on pushing for more and more American military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and other countries, when it is clear that America's meddling essentially created Daesh in the first place.  In fact, not only did the 2003 invasion of Iraq pave the way for the current crisis by destabilizing Iraq, but the USA had also been arming various "rebel" groups in Syria in the hopes of toppling Assad.   And many of those "rebels" turned traitor and joined al-Qaeda and what would become Daesh as well.  It is exceedingly likely that the oligarchs did so deliberately in order to further their Machiavellian machinations.  The classic Hegelian dialectic (Problem, Reaction, Solution) in action, basically.  That is their modus operandi, after all.

I've said it before, and I will say it again:  There is really no military solution to this crisis, at least not from the West.  The only real solution is give every Woman over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they? 

The most important thing to understand about this crisis, like any other war in history, is that it is 100% caused by MEN.  This is the real face of the demonic patriarchy (the root of the problem) in all its ugliness.  As long as men in general remain in charge, things will only continue to get worse.  Face it fellas, like the once-mighty Romans, we bit off far more than we could ever possibly chew--something we have a rather nasty habit of doing.  And only Women can put an end to this madness for good, God willing.  VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!

The Real Reason Why (Straight) Marriage Is In Decline

For decades, many commentators and pundits (usually conservatives, but even some on the political left as well) have been bemoaning the supposed decline of the institution of marriage and rise of divorce and single motherhood.  The trend is often exaggerated, and in fact divorce rates actually peaked around 1980 and have been declining since after secularly rising for nearly a century, recently reaching a 40-year low.  But it is also true nonetheless that marriage rates have indeed been declining for about half a century while cohabitation rates have been rising dramatically during that time, and the percentage of babies born out of wedlock has increased as well.  Though the latter is basically old news, as most of the increase in the percentage of nonmarital births had already occurred before Dan Quayle got on his self-righteous soapbox about Murphy Brown in the early 1990s.

So why is this happening?  Conservatives nearly always blame feminism and/or the so-called sexual revolution, while progressives tend to blame the economy and economic inequality, but there is one huge factor that both sides tend to overlook.  We need to be brutally honest about this:  men are becoming increasingly redundant thanks to a combination of technology, globalization, outsourcing/offshoring, and oligarchy, and that trend had begun decades ago.  Our labor unions have been torpedoed, many good jobs have been outsourced or automated, and our once-great manufacturing base has been hollowed out and replaced by financialization.  The rich got richer and we all got poorer--and that was the result of MEN at the top, not Women.  Thanks a lot, Ronnie Raygun (zap)!  But honestly, that's karma, fellas.  So it is no small wonder why so many Women are now choosing to "go it alone" in that regard.  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.  So let's make the right choice.

The Drone Problem, Part Deux

Uh oh.  Looks like men are becoming redundant even more quickly than I had predicted, according to the latest predictions about technological unemployment.  According to the White House, who keep in mind would typically want to paint a rosier picture than is actually the case, if you make less than $20/hour today, there is an 83% chance that robotics/automation will eventually take your job.  And if you make between $20-40/hour, there is a roughly 31% chance that you will lose your job to technology in the future, which drops to negligible levels for those making over $40/hour.   And whether enough new jobs will be created in the meantime to offset such job losses still remains to be seen.

Of course, those figures are for people of both genders.  But there is good reason to believe that things will be significantly worse for men in that regard, since Women are leaving men in the dust in terms of educational attainment and are thus more likely to get the best jobs of the future.  That is especially true for higher-paying and higher-skilled jobs, but also true for any jobs that can't be outsourced or automated and don't require much brute muscle power.  And as the general pace of life continues to accelerate, more and more multitasking (which men aren't exactly known for) and speed will be required in nearly all jobs.  Thus if technology doesn't take your job, Women eventually will, fellas.  And when the next big economic crash happens, it will likely be you who needs to be rescued by the better half of humanity.

So how does knowing that make you feel, fellas?  If your answer is "like I want to worship Women even more, and help them take over", you're basically golden.  Otherwise, now is the time to do some serious soul-searching, because in the not-too-distant future (sooner than you think) there will be "no country for burly men".  And remember, as the saying goes, "don't be a fool, stay in school"--even if that is no longer a guarantee of anything anymore.  Failing that, I suppose you can always go join the circus, lol.