Patriarchy hates bachelors

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/23/bachelor-tax/

Always has done, always will.
It was a wealth tax on those who inherited from their family but refused their family’s wishes to continue the line, spitting on generations of sacrifice.

“Single, footloose, and fancy-free, the bachelor life is often portrayed as an ideal existence.”
Only in the 60s. Look how they turned out.
Historically, they were objects of pity and vice.
“For 2,000 years, bachelor taxes have periodically appeared in societies across the world, targeting single, childless men who were thought to be a useful source of revenue.”
No, they owed their family children (the purpose for their own birth) and, not being able to press the matter of family lineage, it was a useful incentive for the useless pajama boys of their age alongside tying inheritance to making a ‘good match’ and delivering at least one heir. Would you object to that too? Or should we further encourage the aptly named trust fund babies?
A single man doesn’t need a husband and father’s income. They’re spoiled brats who, if they did marry, would ‘marry their mother.’ It’s a good thing the difficult genes are seldom passed on.
They don’t even have to risk death in giving birth unlike the woman, it’s like refusing the draft. (Which bachelors often did, childish).
“In 9 AD, the Roman Emperor Augustus levied the ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’, which imposed a tax on single men and married couples who did not have children.”
Husbands who ‘prevented’ their wife’s fertility, in the latter case.
What about the Spartans?
They were successful because bachelors were considered like children. No responsibility was expected because they were incapable, too soft for it. As such, they were disrespected but at least not slaves.
“The purpose of the tax was to encourage marriage and procreation and to prevent immoral behavior.” They owe society by virtue of being in it, neglecting their duties to the nation – they’re funding, among other things, the women who cannot provide children because they refuse to marry. That’s a direct loss of population to the state.
If they didn’t like it, they could have left.
It was unpatriotic to be single for selfish reasons.
That’s bloody why.
The old wisdom is also coming back on the subject but the West can afford to drop back to its normal pre-WW populations, as long as its resources and infrastructure are not strained by immigration and foreign ‘aid’. We aren’t responsible for the world.
Look at Italy, picture how much better off they’d be now if they imposed a bachelor tax in the 50s.
I heard an old wives’ tale (untrue) that anyone who doesn’t want children, whatsoever, in an earlier era of less medical intervention, would have been destined to die as one, and that was Nature’s way of addressing the fate neatly, just one generation down. Funny how these stories explain things in the fatalistic manner. The impulse to have a healthy, happy family is connected to survival instinct and does frequently diminish in the sickly or traumatized. You could say a lot of modern men are traumatized by the modern world of globalization that forces them to financially compete with the world – so they can never afford a housewife. At minimum, they’re stressed by global concerns. I’d like to see studies on paternal instinct but the bitter segment of bachelors (and they do exist) would cry about it.
“In 1695, when the English Crown was struggling to raise capital for yet another expensive war with France, a bachelor tax was imposed to generate income. This law, known as the Marriage Duty Act, placed a fixed tax on all single men over the age of 25.”
A luxury tax, since you’d have to be rich to afford it. Taxing playboys is a national right, they’re a bad influence. Look how they ruined London. There goes the neighborhood.
Basically it was a eugenic tax on the dead-ends.
It worked.
“Bachelor taxes could also be used to regulate population growth. In South Africa, in 1919, a tax was imposed on bachelors in order to encourage white families to have children, a policy rooted in pre-apartheid racial politics and born out of fears that the white population would soon be eclipsed by the black community.”
No comment.
“In other cases, however, the bachelor tax was more about imposing moral order on society in a time of heightened panic about the hedonistic behavior of young single men.”
They were right…? The degeneracy of today is fueled by vain male demand.
Shut down the porn industry and women might listen. You can’t complain women are showing more skin without complaining about the billboards of lingerie models viewed by toddlers, sex scenes in minors’ films and free porn viewed by five-year olds online because age restrictions and checks would be a mild inconvenience to adults. They know about the brain damage of various vices, they don’t care to ban it. Why would anyone take them seriously? You must also complain about the double standards, like men walking around topless at gyms. We don’t actually want to see that. Plus it’s homoerotic. Sets a bad example.
“Many men complained that such an initiative was an intolerable form of gender discrimination, questioning why men ought to be singled out for extra taxation and not women.”

Men were bitching about muh sexism for decades first.
Broflakes. Men were the ones to propose, duh. It was a one-sided choice.
Plus the men were splashing the cash in illegal avenues difficult to trace (mobs).
Unmarried men only caused trouble to civilized society.
They still do.
Everyone complains about the marriage rate but never gets on the case of men who could marry but refuse.
It reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio and how he rails against pollution while flying a private jet.
The men bitching about low marriage and birth rates in a personal way can’t be hypocrites, either marry or shut up.
Why don’t they just…? Well, why don’t you?

It’s a valid question, you begged it.

~mic drop~

If you’re rejecting your own gender role, that’s one potential wife you deprive of hers.
They sound like old women, traditionally the ones trying to force marriages.
With such paternalism, and that’s what it is, they must get married or get over it.
The worst are the bad husbands you see online, avoiding their family to lecture others on why they’re single.
Well… people like that. People who shouldn’t have married but wanted the status to browbeat others.
“More successful initiatives appeared at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The arguments that prevailed during these debates often centered on the behavior of single men, and the perceived need to coax men into marriage.”
All they had to do was shut the gin shops and brothels.
Make the manwhores leave the country, where they can’t be a bad influence on the native and naive.
The old-fashioned attitude was lynching for seduction.
“Opponents of the bill, however, suggested that if the bachelor tax were to stand, then a similar tax needed to be imposed on all women of marriageable age who had refused marriage proposals.”
This is hilarious. That would be fine?

Single men really don’t understand women, do they?
No woman would refuse a proposal from a man she was seriously courting.
However, to make it fair, men should be taxed according to the number of women they proposed to (including false promises and ex-wives) without a successful match.
Just punish the r-types until they move abroad, it’s very simple.
“In addition to this, in 1934, the state of California proposed a $25 bachelor tax, primarily as a strategy to boost the state’s falling birth rate. However, the proposals were not taken forward and the bill was never actually implemented.”
And look how well they’re doing!


This is like the elusive search for an atheist society that didn’t die out.
Such taxes will come back in the age of impossible unfunded pension liabilities.
Not might, must.
Why should they be entitled to live off other people’s children?
Why do you think the Boomers felt safe to abort their children? Social Security!
Then there’s the contribution to moral decay.
It’s funny how the very men who complain loudly about “degeneracy” also drink, smoke, fornicate, gamble and attend “massage parlors”.

We are not fooled.

What about a broad Hypocrite Tax?
Nobody could object.
That’d bring back the honor culture you so desire.
If you wouldn’t want an establishment opening next to a school, why is it allowed in your society at all?
At least make all of it underground and difficult to access. Don’t glamorize it.

It would make more sense to give all bachelors free vasectomies and make them sign a document that they’ll never ask the public to fund their sexual healthcare.
They won’t take you up on it though, r-types enjoy the idea of reproductive abuse.
They are the creeps who remove condoms against consent and don’t think of themselves as rapists.
Actually why aren’t there more child support cases about that? Most women are not on the Pill. Deliberate STD infection is a crime too. One very chiseled actor was in a Canadian court about that. Sometimes misogyny is obvious.

Traditionally, it was known rapists wanted to steal fertility* without the male investment of marriage. Why isn’t it assumed that producing such a child was an act of rape? Especially if the mother expressly didn’t want it? I’m sure we’ll come back to that legal position again soon, by necessity.

*or else they’d favour non-reproductive sex

I guess we could tattoo their forehead with a B for bachelor.
So they can’t lie to women about their intentions.

Tesla to JP Morgan

“We are in the clutches of a political party which caters openly and brazenly to the mob and believes that by pouring out billions of public money, still unequalled, it can remain in power indefinitely. The democratic principles are forsaken and individual liberty and incentives are made a joke. The “New Deal” is a perpetual motion scheme which can never work but is given a semblance of operativeness by unceasing supply of the peoples capital. Most of the measures adopted are a bid for votes and some are destructive to established industries and decidedly socialistic. The next step might be the distribution of wealth by excessive taxing if not conscription.”

Nikola Tesla > JP Morgan Jr. Letter, Hotel New Yorker. November 29, 1934.

Commies want to end inheritance

Not tax, actually inheritance.

Making property worthless, since it cannot be transferred.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/utopian-thinking-fund-welfare-state-inheritance-tax

Sorry, excuse me, you’d need a brain to think of that.

Why wait until they’re dead to steal their life savings? Why not make saving illegal?

After all, keeping your earnings is selfish, what are you going to do with that money?
Ban compound interest, it causes inequality.

/s

If only the State owns property, the People have nothing and will give up their labours in short order. Cattle think the grass belongs to them.

Picture the psychology of these people.

This is where ‘wealth tax’ always leads – you have more, I can steal it, because I don’t have it.

They hate nationalism but they love nationalizing on behalf of the Queen’s property portfolio – except council tax means you don’t actually own freehold. It’s a license to pay further tax (after income, VAT, state admin, legal fees, stamp duty etc).

comment

In other words, encourage people NOT to save for retirement, for the future, because anything you don’t spend will be stolen (confiscated, if you wish to be polite) by the state to subsidize those who do not save, or plan ahead.

They already do.

There’s no rationale for inheritance tax.
You’re taxed for dying.
It was a recent change and intended to be temporary.
Now the Government is a 40% stakeholder in all profits you make but no debts.

It’s fucking rigged.

Keynesians want to destroy a house to create jobs to build another.
They’re the four economic horsemen of a real Depression.

this economic illiterate should be shot, or at least laughed out of the room
Economics is by no means my main gig and I see this plain as the egg on this bitch’s face, I’m ashamed to share a sex with this vapid ditz.

best short comment

Funny how the Guardian socialist readership suddenly become all right wing when faced with the prospect of losing their inheritances. Tax the *other* rich!

This authoritarianism is why the People always killed the Communists.

Equality is evil. Behaviourism proves why Communism will never work. Hell, just the Marshmallow test! Same opportunities, differing outcomes! THE NASH EQUILIBRIUM.

Tolerant Left memes and incitement to violence

Source: Sassy Socialist Memes

Muh Fascism! Because it’s only fascism when white working class people do it!

“We just want wealth taxes and to take away your physical right to self defense!”

uhuh

But concentration camp memes are so terrible?

The plan behind mass immigration, aside from the rape and murder angle.

It’s literally incitement of sedition, treason etc.

It’s a form of Cloward-Piven too.

“Everyone who disagrees with me is a FASCIST!”

What was Nazi short for again? I mean, these people do want to reform the NATION state.

Marxists don’t have right-wing friends.

Actually, yeah, fuck him. Ban guns for his own people but sell them abroad?

They have a gigantic priggish chip on their shoulder with everyone, but they can’t throw a punch and they don’t expect people to defend themselves from physical assault?

Is the joke that nobody asks?

They’re not even denying it anymore.

Outright endorsement of murder. No wonder they like terrorists.

Has anyone seen a Marxist who was actually a worker? Like, a blue-collar one?

Marxist logic: inciting violence against anyone who disagrees with them, anyone disagreeing with them wants to incite violence if you disagree with them

Communism fails because labour isn’t equally valuable. And when they say everyone should work, what about the disabled? Where are they? And then, what about the hours worked? If a worker chooses to be more productive over the rest? Finally, how does that alter the IQ bell curve whatsoever? Men need more calories than women, but under Communism they’d only be allowed the female ration. That’s all Communist is, dressed up rations and slave labour. If getting rich were easy these people would’ve done it already.
None of them want to set up a commune, a real, actual commune that makes everything from scratch – that’s Amish. How does it change the fact that some people are totally lazy? What happens to them? What about the worker’s right to refuse the state? Morally, none of this works, and you can tell nobody involved in these theories even worked in a factory because workers refuse things all the time. Humans compete too, that’s the nature argument. It’s Darwin? So what do you do about the competitive workers? Since reducing their labour would be unlikely, stealing their labour against their will is exactly what capitalists do, according to them. What about engineers building the technology, they’d own it, as their labour! If they exchange it or merely the surplus, is that not capitalism? What if 51% of the population don’t want Communism? Don’t they have a right to revolt against their oppressors? Otherwise it’s fascist, isn’t it? Not to mention, some cultures can’t handle systems that probably rely on altruism genetics.
Imagine MENA. Picture it. Finally, how is calling someone a class traitor realistically different than calling them a race traitor?

For someone to win, another person has to lose. Welcome to adulthood.

I don’t see these college morons backing the idea of banning grades, since that’s unequal.

Labour want to ban ambition

It’s so r-selected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38568116

Tempted to say he’s mad.
He isn’t.
He wants to destroy capitalism.
Problem is, you can’t do that without destroying the hi-tech country that relies on it.
So he wants to destroy the country.

Where will the tax revenue come from for his socialist programs with an income cap? It’s insane.

They wonder why they’re cast into the outer darkness of politics, post-Rotherham.

At least Sadiq can do maths and knows not to piss off the Jews for their shekels.

The Labour leader said it was not fair some chief executives were earning more in a matter of days than many of their workers took home in an entire year.

It is easy to train someone to run the machines. C-suite are unique and take years to train. They’re worth the money or they should be sacked. The most valuable workers are the ones making sure all the others can actually work.

Video: The injustice of forced redistribution

I can’t recall who said it (probably Uncabob?) but there is a sexual marketplace advocacy for this (rape) among supposed redpills despite how they also maintain that men don’t need women (sure) and he/someone dubbed it Affirmative Action for omega males.

That’s what all this is.

The entitlement of ‘positive discrimination’ based on victimhood claims. 

Ok, let’s assume the world is against you since your very birth. In every way.

-So fucking what? We don’t owe you anything.

Do you owe ugly girls anything? No.

If all the women stayed at home in the kitchen, who would the manwhores sleep with? If all the women became state prostitutes like the Nazi brothels, who would they have children with? They don’t even know what they want or what’s good for them, it’s such r-selected delusion we can’t help but laugh.

That’s why the manosphere will fail in changing the morality scales (men are already at an advantage in the SMP historically), victim status is like a game of dodgeball with razorblades and your opponents are self-harming emo kids. Add to that the practicality, that whining about your suffering makes it worse (rumination) and further lowers your social status (if you can’t fix your own life, why should we listen to you?) Measuring your life by the metric of notches is juvenile too. Like people are baseball cards. I bet the same guys calling for ‘free pussy’, in effect, also don’t want to pay for the consequences via tax. In fact, I’d bet they all minimize their tax contributions, illegally.

Think about it – cavemen had one woman. They were happy. It has nothing to do with masculinity. It’s a marketing gimmick to get you to prove something with signalling.

Footnote: It’s a little-known fact, but every British person can do a Victorian accent, sometimes a few. We practice them at school reading Great Expectations etc. aloud. I’m secretly hoping it comes back into fashion.