Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax Legions of feminists will ferociously type smash the patriarchy! at their Internet rallies, calling out for the end of the male supremacy in all spheres of life. Yet, few of them acknowledge the fact that one of these spheres, the government (the institution granting them rights), is entirely supported by male taxpayers. Economically, women cost more to the state than they benefit. Put another way, the government (or men) is literally paying women to be alive. Strong independent women are only that way because the state is transferring money from men to them. Feminists are not seriously against being dependent on men, they are just against men having the full control over their money. The real gender gap: the tax gap While the 77¢ for a dollar wage gap has been under the spotlight for the past years, the 200¢ for a dollar tax gap has, to my knowledge never been mentioned, at least not by our supreme feminist leaders Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau. A quick glimpse at the data reveals a massive difference in taxes paid by men and women. The first thing that comes to mind is that half of women might be at home raising kids. However, the workforce participation rate gap between men and women doesn’t seem to exceed 10% in either age group. (see figure 4 in source) The second thing that may come to mind as a confounding factor is that women spend more for children in education and health. Nope. No support for that either. Men and women spend approximately the same amount in both education and health (see figure 10 and 11 of the source). In nearly all age groups, women receive more tax than they give With the exception of the age group between 45-59 (a 15 year span) years old, women cost more to the state than the tax they provide. In contrast, men generate more tax revenue than they cost between 23 and 65 (a 43 year span). In the brief period in which women generate more or as much tax money than they consume, men outscore them by at least 3 times. By the end of her life, the average woman will have a negative fiscal impact of $150,000 By large, the cumulative tax money given to women outweighs the tax money generated by women. The short period of positive impact of women between 45 and 59 is countered by 65 other years in which their allocated tax expenditure is more than what they supply the state. Men, on the other hand, appear to have a positive cumulative net fiscal impact from approximately 40 until 80 years of age. For these particular taxes and public expenditures, the net fiscal incidence on men is approximately zero when cumulated over all ages. (p. 22) Overall, the research suggests that male taxpayers are the only ones to ever have a positive contribution in taxes. Based on Figure 17, the closest that the average woman will come to having a positive fiscal incidence is when she is at minus $50,000 around 55 years of age. While feminists are demonizing men for benefiting from all liberties and rights they have constructed, they have oddly remained silent over the fact that anonymous male tax payers are paying women to exist. Read that sentence again. The fact that feminists want a stronger government is not a coincidence. While historically, women had to choose a wealthy husband for resources, they can now stay single, be lesbians, marry a poor man, or use the sperm bank, and the state will still transfer male taxes to them. Interestingly, within 10 years of women’s suffrage, the government doubled their tax revenue and expenditure in the USA. The government has somehow become the new providing husband, by taking money from anonymous men who have no say about their money. While women are still strongly financially dependent on men, men are simply unable to use the money they make for their own interests. These findings show just how simplistic the notion of privilege is. While men make more on average, it allows women to have access to education, health, and services. The patriarchy is pretty generous after all :^) I expect liberals to jump right on this.