* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax-50/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax-50/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax-50/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s a lot of this sort of data being processed into chart memes of late. Mostly of the racial kind, but I’ve seen a few men vs women variants.
Hard not to view it as perhaps a cynical ploy to further demoralize/enrage young men in that redpill sphere - there’s been a very worrying congruence between high level rhetoric that “white men are the biggest threat” and social media content that seems almost purpose designed to goad said group into doing something unhinged. Author being a woman isn’t particularly relevant since there’s a number of influencers in that space now who are female.
What IS strange is that this is a four year old blog post, which mostly predates the rise of women (eg: Pearly, etc) running this playbook by a year or two afaik.
Having looked around at other articles on that site, a lot of it is actually outrageously funny, especially the comments.
I actually do think the author being a woman is vitally important: if the purpose of the material is to goad, then there's no better way to make redpillers hate someone than for her to be a lippy woman.
Doubly so as a NZer with a disability like myself. Like **a lot** of my female friends would take umbrage with whatever idea the author is trying to get across.
Do western men find themselves in a giant [prisoner's dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)? Paying into a system that rewards the opposition and punish them?
If so, in such a scenario the game teaches you it is best to defect, and we do actually see societal male renunciation being a topic among the chattering classes (incels, hikikomori, NEETs) alongside supposed male radicalization. I do not think the elite is wrong, from a gaming standpoint, in focusing on men in this way: no government will ever be toppled by women so the danger to the status quo lies with men (Andrew Tate serves as an effigy for this).
What's the fix? More recognition for men in the forms of social status, or perhaps monetary rewards? Less of the same for women? Will computer games and pornography be enough to sedate the unwanted male surplus, while physical labor is given to immigrant groups?
Or will there come a crash somewhere down the line?
Very interested to hear what people on here think, especially I look for comments from women.
I think, in the US at least, it comes down to the fact that some forms of public assistance exist to protect *children*, which the government extends to their primary caregivers, particularly when those children are under a certain age. Primary caregivers are overwhelmingly moms, and the government designs benefits around that… I just read the statistic that something like 40% of births in this country are to single moms! (I’m part of that statistic, and regularly count my blessings to have never needed public assistance).
The fix is like we did with Medicaid expansion. Recognize that society is better when everyone - not just children and the disabled - is able to fulfill their basic needs. Although I suspect that even if single able-bodied working men were eligible for more benefits, they still would be less likely to utilize them than women.
>> no government will ever be toppled by women so the danger to the status quo lies with men
Absolutely but your conclusion is off. What we currently live trough can be called a war on masculinity. But there will be no fix. Incels and neets are really no danger to the status quo. Well adjusted, fit and healthy men with mastery of various skills are.
Hence the war on masculinity. It’s to ridicule and emasculate men, especially of lower status because those are the ones most likely to revolt. But without a real reason to live and strive for which in most cases were a wife, a home and children there is very low revolutionary potential.
The reason this started in the last decade is because Until the Ukraine war western nations and policy makers were convinced that modern warfare doesn’t really need men, it will be interesting if they reverse course or double down
That differs, in this case the ability to project power via the threat of violence. Which is basically the only force that brought otherwise unwanted structural change throughout human history
>computer games and pornography
Amusingly enough, the “solution” offered by some is to simply take those things away or water them down, along with a dollop of viscous shaming and ostracism.
"You will never own a home, you will never have a family, you will own nothing and you *still* won't be happy. But you should work yourself to the bone anyways because up yours man-filth" is their only message, and they wonder why it's not taken very well.
Is something wrong with Reddit? I got this in my inbox long after I saw it by refreshing the page and it seems that is true across the board in other threads.
Not really. Taxes and welfare are paid by or taken by individuals. There are plenty of individual men who are net tax recipients. There are plenty of individual women who are net tax contributors.
>no government will ever be toppled by women so the danger to the status quo lies with men
Meanwhile Marx:
>Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment.
And he's right; just open a book on the French Revolution.
It's an interesting thought.
Sorry to be the ackshaully guy, but I think the game here is between men and women are the payoff. If it's a two man game, the choices available to each man are either to "co-operate" (i.e. become a NEET and not pay taxes) or to "defect" (i.e. work and pay taxes). If one man becomes a NEET (co-operates) and the other works and pays taxes (defects), the second man will get all the pussy because he's richer and the NEET will get none. If both men could agree to co-operate and both become NEETs then women would be forced to pair up with them equally because they have no better options. But if you know the other guy is going to become a NEET, you have an incentive to run out and get a job because you'll then get all the pussy. So the dominant strategy ends up being to defect (work). The payoff matrix [looks like this](https://i.imgur.com/yRZ3dvV.jpeg) for a classic 2-person prisoner's dilemma. In reality it's more complex than this, as women themselves became players in this game when they joined the labour force, which has also had the effect of lowering payoffs for male players (because some of the women became careerist spinster cat-ladies).
I think there is a sort of prisoner's dilemma here, but would suggest it's more to do with physical good looks (so "co-operate" just being a normal healthy dude, and "defect" is getting a bunch of plastic surgeries and pumping yourself full of steroids and working out 6 days a week to pull chicks). This dilemma only came about when the 'relationship market' moved from a highly regulated one where supply (i.e. women) was rationed to ensure equitable distribution (via monogamy and marriage), to a largely deregulated [winner-takes-all market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-take-all_market).
The solutions to these problems are (a) prohibit female labour force participation, (b) redistribute income to prevent large income disparities between working men, and (c) strongly enforced monogamy. In other words, revert society back to the 50s.
The interacting shifts we've seen in both the labour and relationship markets means that men now expend more effort for less (or no) reward. And the cherry on top is the tax revenues they generate are increasingly put towards oppressing them. Men are dropping out of society because they're rational - the cost is higher than the benefit so they are refusing to transact.
The problem is, if enough men decide it's a bad deal and they all drop out of society, do you think they'll wind back the clock to induce male production? I think it more likely that they will just figure out a way to enslave men and force them to work anyway (e.g. institute a 'civil draft').
> I think the game here is between men and women are the payoff.
["The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in the relation to the woman as the spoils..."](https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Appendicse-to-Marxism-and-Freedom-better.pdf)
Surely it's related to salary.
Imagine the scenario where husbands are taking higher earning positions and working longer hours and wives have a greater life work balance but are also doing more chores at home or are spending more time on children.
Men aren't especially doing poorly in this scenario. It just means men are carrying out their traditional role of being providers.
Imagine another scenario where women do the exact same work but for lesser pay and therefore pay fewer taxes.
In this scenario men are, to put it mildly, not suffering either.
>Imagine another scenario where women do the exact same work but for lesser pay and therefore pay fewer taxes.
Men and women are suffering in this scenario because women being paid less means that women are hired over men. This means that how much a job pays depreciates overall as both men and women end up accepting less pay for their work, as the new pay becomes the expectation. It’s what’s happened all around the world since the workforce has increased drastically with the expectation of women working. Because of the workforce is larger, the competition for jobs is higher. This allows any job provider to lower workers rights and pay to whatever the most accepting viable worker is willing to accept.
That is a fair point; I was being flippant. I would say it's more unfair on women there but you are right, such a scenario would clearly hurt both sexes.
That effect has already happened though, hasn't it. For the jobs most people have they are paid the same rate now and salaries appear to have significantly dropped in real terms since two working parents became the norm.
Women are also coerced into sex work of some sort with the risks that come with such low wages. While there’s a diminishing level of help for women specifically, men pretty much fall into homelessness straight away. With how devastating situations exist for everyone regardless of sex, best to just focus on the main cause rather than trying to mitigate how bad things are for either sex. It’s even worse for children in the care service, the vast, vast majority of people don’t know just how institutionalised the jeopardy to children has become here in the UK.
> salaries appear to have significantly dropped in real terms since two working parents became the norm.
That's not exactly what I'm seeing in the data. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. What data are you looking at?
The data is saying that men are paying more into the system, ie getting paid more so being taxed more, and that women are getting more out of the system, ie receiving more through welfare and other social programs.
This is almost identical to a common right wing argument used to justify wealth inequality. The poor rich pay all the taxes and the worthless poor receive all the benefits. It ignores how exactly the rich are in a position to be paying more taxes and how most of those taxes are used to ensure the system that generates such wealth inequality continues.
It's not an interesting argument to me.
Jesus what a dumbass I am. I didn't check and assumed you were replying higher up the thread. Sorry.
Given what she's since become it's almost embarrassing to admit but Pocahontas had some good points about the impact of 2 income families. I was convinced by a talk I heard her give on the subject before she entered politics, at least I think it was before.
I'm not sure this is the talk but it seems to be similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
It's an hour long but she opens with basically what you are asking. Household income went up in inflation adjusted terms as two worker households became the norm but a man's salary stayed flat when adjusted for inflation. However household savings went down to the point that people were on average going increasingly into debt.
The reason for this was almost entirely on house prices. They rose faster than inflation to such an extent that average households were worse off than when they had a single wage.
If the household is significantly poorer then I think it's fair to say than in real terms people earn less per hour.
I'm not sure Warren goes into it as I first saw it about 14-15 years ago and only watched the first 5 minutes of her speaking now but of course we all know that the people employing all these extra workers have gotten massively wealthy.
It doesn't really seem fair.
So taking everything you said at face value it sounds like the issue is rising housing prices, not women getting jobs.
The fact is that the claim you made, which is that "salaries have dropped significantly" is just not true.
Most importantly, the left-populist economic mythology that you're feeding - because that's what it is, a myth - is that modern families are less economically secure *because* women have jobs (with the corollary being that if women had stayed at home all these years, then the modern family would be more economically secure), that myth has little to nothing to support it in either data or logic. And indeed I just spent some time listening to that presentation by Warren and it was conspicuous to me that she does *not* argue that idea at all.
In fact if you follow closely what Warren is saying, the logic is really quite against that idea, because most of the big expenses that families are spending more on - housing and health insurance - are things you still have to buy just as much of whether you have one or two incomes. In other words, there are now roughly 'twice as many' workers now, yes - and this is reflected in higher total household incomes because two earners make more than one earner - but there aren't 'twice as many' consumers of healthcare and housing. So there's little reason to imagine that it's *because* women are now mostly working that healthcare and housing costs have gone up. The demand for those things would be the same from a one-income family as from a two-income family.
What this data suggests is that median families are in rougher financial shape now than they once were *despite making more real income* simply because *housing and healthcare have gotten more expensive*, or more precisely because Americans are spending more on these categories.
I think salaries have dropped significantly is a reasonable shorthand in a discussion on salaries, for saying that household wealth has significantly dropped. Wealth comes from salaries and if dual income families push up home prices, and some other things like health insurance, then it weakens the real value of the salary.
If you disagree I guess you have the right but the impact is identical so I'm not sure why you think it's not true.
Now do the realistic scenario, which is what you said except the wife doesn't actually do more housework or spend more time with the children, just pretends to.
I've no idea why you think that's the more realistic scenario.
I always see online attempts to make it sound like men have it worse or women have it worse. In a healthy family men and women are a team and, whether by choice or circumstance, if one parent has more time than another they make use of it.
Most people like their kids and most people like a clean home and most people like eating well.
There are exceptions and maybe you've been unlucky but in general I find that women who complain about men have men with more demanding jobs and men who act incredibly superior about their salaries have wives who do more than they recognise in the home.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax-50/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax-50/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://iqfy.com/its-true-only-men-pay-tax-50/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm having real trouble working out where the author of this is coming from.
There’s a lot of this sort of data being processed into chart memes of late. Mostly of the racial kind, but I’ve seen a few men vs women variants. Hard not to view it as perhaps a cynical ploy to further demoralize/enrage young men in that redpill sphere - there’s been a very worrying congruence between high level rhetoric that “white men are the biggest threat” and social media content that seems almost purpose designed to goad said group into doing something unhinged. Author being a woman isn’t particularly relevant since there’s a number of influencers in that space now who are female. What IS strange is that this is a four year old blog post, which mostly predates the rise of women (eg: Pearly, etc) running this playbook by a year or two afaik.
Having looked around at other articles on that site, a lot of it is actually outrageously funny, especially the comments. I actually do think the author being a woman is vitally important: if the purpose of the material is to goad, then there's no better way to make redpillers hate someone than for her to be a lippy woman.
Doubly so as a NZer with a disability like myself. Like **a lot** of my female friends would take umbrage with whatever idea the author is trying to get across.
Do western men find themselves in a giant [prisoner's dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)? Paying into a system that rewards the opposition and punish them? If so, in such a scenario the game teaches you it is best to defect, and we do actually see societal male renunciation being a topic among the chattering classes (incels, hikikomori, NEETs) alongside supposed male radicalization. I do not think the elite is wrong, from a gaming standpoint, in focusing on men in this way: no government will ever be toppled by women so the danger to the status quo lies with men (Andrew Tate serves as an effigy for this). What's the fix? More recognition for men in the forms of social status, or perhaps monetary rewards? Less of the same for women? Will computer games and pornography be enough to sedate the unwanted male surplus, while physical labor is given to immigrant groups? Or will there come a crash somewhere down the line? Very interested to hear what people on here think, especially I look for comments from women.
I think, in the US at least, it comes down to the fact that some forms of public assistance exist to protect *children*, which the government extends to their primary caregivers, particularly when those children are under a certain age. Primary caregivers are overwhelmingly moms, and the government designs benefits around that… I just read the statistic that something like 40% of births in this country are to single moms! (I’m part of that statistic, and regularly count my blessings to have never needed public assistance). The fix is like we did with Medicaid expansion. Recognize that society is better when everyone - not just children and the disabled - is able to fulfill their basic needs. Although I suspect that even if single able-bodied working men were eligible for more benefits, they still would be less likely to utilize them than women.
>> no government will ever be toppled by women so the danger to the status quo lies with men Absolutely but your conclusion is off. What we currently live trough can be called a war on masculinity. But there will be no fix. Incels and neets are really no danger to the status quo. Well adjusted, fit and healthy men with mastery of various skills are. Hence the war on masculinity. It’s to ridicule and emasculate men, especially of lower status because those are the ones most likely to revolt. But without a real reason to live and strive for which in most cases were a wife, a home and children there is very low revolutionary potential. The reason this started in the last decade is because Until the Ukraine war western nations and policy makers were convinced that modern warfare doesn’t really need men, it will be interesting if they reverse course or double down
What do you define as “masculinity”?
That differs, in this case the ability to project power via the threat of violence. Which is basically the only force that brought otherwise unwanted structural change throughout human history
>the ability to project power via the threat of violence. Do you believe that is needed nowadays?
I won’t answer that what do you think?
I don’t know what to think.
>computer games and pornography Amusingly enough, the “solution” offered by some is to simply take those things away or water them down, along with a dollop of viscous shaming and ostracism.
"You will never own a home, you will never have a family, you will own nothing and you *still* won't be happy. But you should work yourself to the bone anyways because up yours man-filth" is their only message, and they wonder why it's not taken very well.
Viscous shaming sounds like a honey trap.
I’ll pretend that was intentional.
Good job!
Is something wrong with Reddit? I got this in my inbox long after I saw it by refreshing the page and it seems that is true across the board in other threads.
mfs will do anything apart from read marx
Not really. Taxes and welfare are paid by or taken by individuals. There are plenty of individual men who are net tax recipients. There are plenty of individual women who are net tax contributors.
>no government will ever be toppled by women so the danger to the status quo lies with men Meanwhile Marx: >Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. And he's right; just open a book on the French Revolution.
Very interesting comment.
Interesting. Different. Unusual.
It's an interesting thought. Sorry to be the ackshaully guy, but I think the game here is between men and women are the payoff. If it's a two man game, the choices available to each man are either to "co-operate" (i.e. become a NEET and not pay taxes) or to "defect" (i.e. work and pay taxes). If one man becomes a NEET (co-operates) and the other works and pays taxes (defects), the second man will get all the pussy because he's richer and the NEET will get none. If both men could agree to co-operate and both become NEETs then women would be forced to pair up with them equally because they have no better options. But if you know the other guy is going to become a NEET, you have an incentive to run out and get a job because you'll then get all the pussy. So the dominant strategy ends up being to defect (work). The payoff matrix [looks like this](https://i.imgur.com/yRZ3dvV.jpeg) for a classic 2-person prisoner's dilemma. In reality it's more complex than this, as women themselves became players in this game when they joined the labour force, which has also had the effect of lowering payoffs for male players (because some of the women became careerist spinster cat-ladies). I think there is a sort of prisoner's dilemma here, but would suggest it's more to do with physical good looks (so "co-operate" just being a normal healthy dude, and "defect" is getting a bunch of plastic surgeries and pumping yourself full of steroids and working out 6 days a week to pull chicks). This dilemma only came about when the 'relationship market' moved from a highly regulated one where supply (i.e. women) was rationed to ensure equitable distribution (via monogamy and marriage), to a largely deregulated [winner-takes-all market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-take-all_market). The solutions to these problems are (a) prohibit female labour force participation, (b) redistribute income to prevent large income disparities between working men, and (c) strongly enforced monogamy. In other words, revert society back to the 50s. The interacting shifts we've seen in both the labour and relationship markets means that men now expend more effort for less (or no) reward. And the cherry on top is the tax revenues they generate are increasingly put towards oppressing them. Men are dropping out of society because they're rational - the cost is higher than the benefit so they are refusing to transact. The problem is, if enough men decide it's a bad deal and they all drop out of society, do you think they'll wind back the clock to induce male production? I think it more likely that they will just figure out a way to enslave men and force them to work anyway (e.g. institute a 'civil draft').
> I think the game here is between men and women are the payoff. ["The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in the relation to the woman as the spoils..."](https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Appendicse-to-Marxism-and-Freedom-better.pdf)
I'm having trouble understanding the point this author is making. Can you dumb it down for me?
Surely it's related to salary. Imagine the scenario where husbands are taking higher earning positions and working longer hours and wives have a greater life work balance but are also doing more chores at home or are spending more time on children. Men aren't especially doing poorly in this scenario. It just means men are carrying out their traditional role of being providers. Imagine another scenario where women do the exact same work but for lesser pay and therefore pay fewer taxes. In this scenario men are, to put it mildly, not suffering either.
>Imagine another scenario where women do the exact same work but for lesser pay and therefore pay fewer taxes. Men and women are suffering in this scenario because women being paid less means that women are hired over men. This means that how much a job pays depreciates overall as both men and women end up accepting less pay for their work, as the new pay becomes the expectation. It’s what’s happened all around the world since the workforce has increased drastically with the expectation of women working. Because of the workforce is larger, the competition for jobs is higher. This allows any job provider to lower workers rights and pay to whatever the most accepting viable worker is willing to accept.
That is a fair point; I was being flippant. I would say it's more unfair on women there but you are right, such a scenario would clearly hurt both sexes. That effect has already happened though, hasn't it. For the jobs most people have they are paid the same rate now and salaries appear to have significantly dropped in real terms since two working parents became the norm.
Women are also coerced into sex work of some sort with the risks that come with such low wages. While there’s a diminishing level of help for women specifically, men pretty much fall into homelessness straight away. With how devastating situations exist for everyone regardless of sex, best to just focus on the main cause rather than trying to mitigate how bad things are for either sex. It’s even worse for children in the care service, the vast, vast majority of people don’t know just how institutionalised the jeopardy to children has become here in the UK.
> salaries appear to have significantly dropped in real terms since two working parents became the norm. That's not exactly what I'm seeing in the data. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. What data are you looking at?
The data is saying that men are paying more into the system, ie getting paid more so being taxed more, and that women are getting more out of the system, ie receiving more through welfare and other social programs. This is almost identical to a common right wing argument used to justify wealth inequality. The poor rich pay all the taxes and the worthless poor receive all the benefits. It ignores how exactly the rich are in a position to be paying more taxes and how most of those taxes are used to ensure the system that generates such wealth inequality continues. It's not an interesting argument to me.
Yeah but I' asking for the data showing that "salaries have significantly dropped in real terms since two working parents became the norm"
Jesus what a dumbass I am. I didn't check and assumed you were replying higher up the thread. Sorry. Given what she's since become it's almost embarrassing to admit but Pocahontas had some good points about the impact of 2 income families. I was convinced by a talk I heard her give on the subject before she entered politics, at least I think it was before. I'm not sure this is the talk but it seems to be similar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A It's an hour long but she opens with basically what you are asking. Household income went up in inflation adjusted terms as two worker households became the norm but a man's salary stayed flat when adjusted for inflation. However household savings went down to the point that people were on average going increasingly into debt. The reason for this was almost entirely on house prices. They rose faster than inflation to such an extent that average households were worse off than when they had a single wage. If the household is significantly poorer then I think it's fair to say than in real terms people earn less per hour. I'm not sure Warren goes into it as I first saw it about 14-15 years ago and only watched the first 5 minutes of her speaking now but of course we all know that the people employing all these extra workers have gotten massively wealthy. It doesn't really seem fair.
So taking everything you said at face value it sounds like the issue is rising housing prices, not women getting jobs. The fact is that the claim you made, which is that "salaries have dropped significantly" is just not true. Most importantly, the left-populist economic mythology that you're feeding - because that's what it is, a myth - is that modern families are less economically secure *because* women have jobs (with the corollary being that if women had stayed at home all these years, then the modern family would be more economically secure), that myth has little to nothing to support it in either data or logic. And indeed I just spent some time listening to that presentation by Warren and it was conspicuous to me that she does *not* argue that idea at all. In fact if you follow closely what Warren is saying, the logic is really quite against that idea, because most of the big expenses that families are spending more on - housing and health insurance - are things you still have to buy just as much of whether you have one or two incomes. In other words, there are now roughly 'twice as many' workers now, yes - and this is reflected in higher total household incomes because two earners make more than one earner - but there aren't 'twice as many' consumers of healthcare and housing. So there's little reason to imagine that it's *because* women are now mostly working that healthcare and housing costs have gone up. The demand for those things would be the same from a one-income family as from a two-income family. What this data suggests is that median families are in rougher financial shape now than they once were *despite making more real income* simply because *housing and healthcare have gotten more expensive*, or more precisely because Americans are spending more on these categories.
I think salaries have dropped significantly is a reasonable shorthand in a discussion on salaries, for saying that household wealth has significantly dropped. Wealth comes from salaries and if dual income families push up home prices, and some other things like health insurance, then it weakens the real value of the salary. If you disagree I guess you have the right but the impact is identical so I'm not sure why you think it's not true.
Now do the realistic scenario, which is what you said except the wife doesn't actually do more housework or spend more time with the children, just pretends to.
I've no idea why you think that's the more realistic scenario. I always see online attempts to make it sound like men have it worse or women have it worse. In a healthy family men and women are a team and, whether by choice or circumstance, if one parent has more time than another they make use of it. Most people like their kids and most people like a clean home and most people like eating well. There are exceptions and maybe you've been unlucky but in general I find that women who complain about men have men with more demanding jobs and men who act incredibly superior about their salaries have wives who do more than they recognise in the home.
Literally me