As Americans subscribed to my channel know, it’s tax season. It’s time to visit the tax man and see if we can get back some of the money the government has taken from us over the year. At the very least we hope we don’t have to pay Uncle Sam any more than we already have. I was talking to a friend of mine who just got his tax return back. He’d had his first child this year. When I asked him how much money he received from his return, it was a few thousand dollars more than my tax return. Our incomes haven’t changed. Last year his tax return and my tax return were about the same amount. Nothing has changed, except for the fact that he has reproduced, and I have not.
Because my friend chose to reproduce, Uncle Sam has deemed it appropriate to give him a tax break to the tune of several thousand dollars. I obviously would benefit from several thousand dollars, but I do not get this tax break. Why don’t I get a tax break? Because I did the right thing. That is, I didn’t bring another human being into the world that I’m not financially ready for. Now my friend has applied for and is receiving WIC, He lives with his girlfriend. I was unaware you could get WIC benefits, if the father is cohabitating with the mother, but my friend has no reason to lie that I’m aware of. But this is beside the point. The point is that my friend and his girlfriend are receiving WIC, had a child that they are not financially ready for, and the reward they receive for this irresponsibility is tax payer dollars.
What’s more, when my wages are assessed by the government for taxable income, I and other single childless tax payers are forced to subsidize this person’s need to procreate even further by allowing him to keep more of his taxable income at my expense because he and she decided to have kids, and I did not. Essentially they are a compounding burden on childless single men. It’s like the cops who call me every year asking for donations when all they’ve ever done is write me tickets. Generally, in the manosphere, when it comes to pointing out taxpayer burdens that men face due to irresponsible procreators, we cite single mothers exclusively. But, let’s face it. In terms of the burden to a single male tax payer, single mothers are only a portion of the problem.
I looked up the difference between how much a single tax paying adult is expected to pay in comparison to a married couple with children, and this is what I found relevant quotes are given below…
There are many reasons it pays to have a family. Most of them are not financial. Except, that is, when it comes to federal income taxes.
At CNNMoney’s request, the Tax Institute of H&R Block calculated the 2013 federal income tax bill of a dual-earner married couple with two young kids — and compared it to the tax bill of a single person without kids.
It was assumed that both the couple and the single person made $100,000 in wage income. (See below for the other assumptions we made.)
H&R Block looked at what their federal income tax burden would be across three cities: Seattle, WA; Topeka, KS; and Queens, NY.
They found that the single person paid much higher taxes in all three places — between three and four times more.
In Queens, the single person’s bill came to $11,660 versus $3,076 for the married couple. In Topeka, the single person paid $13,410, and the married couple paid $4,066. And in Seattle, the tax bills came to $12,360 versus $3,286. The yawning gap held up even though each city has different state and local taxes, which influence how much federal tax people pay.
Why the huge disparity? The reason for the big differences is mostly a host of child-related tax breaks the couple can take on their federal return — such as the child tax credit and other breaks for child care and dependents.
Further down in the article it says…
The differences between the two $100,000 households would be less stark if one compared a married couple with young kids to that of a single custodial parent who files as head of household. That’s mostly because the single parent would gain the benefit of the child-related tax breaks.
So basically gentleman, if you’re a single tax payer, you have a burden to subsidize the procreative needs of single mothers, single fathers, married parents, both the men and women in those marriages, and cohabitating parents. I, for one, would like to see single men advocate in their own interests. I would like to see single men start to question the financial deference that our society extends to everyone BUT us.
I’ve got nothing against fathers. But if we’re going to talk about freedom for all men, then we can’t subsidize one group of men at the expense of another. Now I know what’s going to be said:
“But Barbarossaa, you support tax payer funded domestic violence shelters for men. Isn’t that the same thing? Isn’t that forcing men that are not victims of domestic violence to subsidize the safety of other men?”
Without any context you can make that argument and have a valid point. But you’d be leaving out the fact that my support of tax payer supported domestic violence shelters for men revolves around the fact that men are being taxed and are making no effort to enjoy a dime of that money. I’ve repeatedly said that if it were feasible to tax men so little that they could keep the lion’s share of the fruits of their labor, I’m all for it. But this would mean the collapse of western civilization, which is basically a giant organized procreation racket designed to funnel wealth and resources out of the hands of men who wish to procreate (and have no chance without bribing women), into the hands of women. Remember gentleman, we’re dealing with social ecology.
What is Capitalism? It’s a phenomenon that leverages the male desire to breed and uses it to generate wealth. Capitalism is not an economic system. It’s a reproductive system. It’s the end result of hairless apes figuring out that you can place a giant waterwheel in the stream of human reproduction. This is the reason why I believe simply saying that we should shrink the government in hopes of taxing men less, is a poorly thought out conclusion that will not come to fruition.
To tax men less is to attempt to slow down a runaway train that’s been building up momentum for centuries. The best we’re going to be able to do before we crash is to simply make the ride as comfortable as possible, and think of how to get off the train. This involves engineering an escape vessel on the train, assembling it on the train, and deploying it on the train, in order to escape the train. We’ve gained so much momentum on this train that applying the brakes, i.e. shrinking government and lessening the taxation of men, would result in the entire train careening off the rails. What this long winded analogy is attempting to explain is that our species exists on this ball of rock, locked in a delicate dance with institutions we’ve created, primarily that of the state, which for the foreseeable future we are dependent on, even though the state is largely parasitic off of its people.
We’ve developed systems of reproduction, which we incorrectly identify as systems of economics such as Capitalism, that help us squeeze the most productivity out of the human reproductive process. Capitalism milks every drop of residual benefit out of human reproduction. But it appears to have limited capacity to build wealth since it revolves around the reproductive tug of war between men and women. Ultimately, it resembles a Ponzi scheme in which women demand more and more male labor for the cost of their reproduction. Concentrate on the term social ecology here. The state, an institution that human beings naturally build and always have naturally built, from the first Neolithic tribes to the first tribal elders all the way up to institutions such as the United Nations or the European Union, which basically constitute planet-spanning tribes or states. If we could observe a group of human beings stranded on an island, regardless of the genetics or culture of the individuals in this group, the first thing you would see them do after acquiring basic shelter and sustenance is to start agreeing on codes of conduct, and to start developing methods by which they can enforce those codes of conduct. The state is what we do, people. There’s no way around that. It provides to us a sense of security and order. More on this Later.