ye

It's because men are (generally) the physically stronger sex, situations like that are treated differently because of that

Idk, if that's anti-left but it's true that men are naturally stronger. When it comes to intelligence I think women should be treated the same as men because it's an equal playing field, no natural advantage.

Yeah, and I understand the distaste for saying it but it's true. Personally, I think people should be judged on things they can control. That includes women

Woman's place is in the home, Man's place is in the workforce and the military. There can be exceptions made, but this should be the norm.

White birthrates have plummeted in these decades of sexual liberation, and many children who are born don't even have a parent around to raise them properly. Further, women and men are unhappier than ever before, as can easily be seen with the prevalence of suicide, depression, and material obsessions.

one alternative reason that can be considered for plummeting birthrates are marriage rights

getting married and having kids is a pretty bad deal for men compared to women

women can simply divorce their husband, 99% win custody rights over their children, find another spouse, collect child support from her ex

@Leo (BillNyeLand) then why have a tax rate so high if it’s only going to be 35% odd

Not 70

It had no positive impacts and will just deter foreign investment

And wealth will leave the country due to tax avoidance schemes

no point of it then

@Neco2040

That’s like asking (for something more trump-y) why we should build a wall if it doesn’t stop all illegal immigration

It doesn’t accomplish everything, but it doesn’t set out to accomplish everything, and it does accomplish a good amount (depending on your priorities)

It’ll collect more revenue from people who have more money than they could reasonably derive true benefit from

A wall stops 95% of border crossings

However an income tax like that has an effective rate of 35%

In other words you don’t change the amount of tax coming in

It’s just avoided

If anything you might deter investment

And doing these tax hikes will be accompanied with increased spending which will shift the burden into the middle class

I dunno why the democrats are against a 5.7B wall that actually helps America but are okay with 150B to Iran hoping that they don’t continue to try and develop WMD’s

It would increase revenue though

And how does spending the tax receipts from the highest income earners shift the burden to the middle class

Because you’re not getting the actual tax from 70%

You’d be getting 35% odd

So the shift of the spending would go down towards the middle class more

since the top don’t pay anymore

And raising taxes after a certain point decreases revenue

Laffer curve

Yes; the most accepted point for that critical point is 70%

And can you explain more on how the spending would “go down” toward the middle class?

No it's not

there is no "most accepted"

we don't know what the tax rate is

@Leo (BillNyeLand) Because since you increased spending on the hopes of the tax revenue rising due to the 70% tax rate. However the actual tax paid was around 35%. This is not even close to what was predicted, thus the cost goes down the middle class.

Remove tax abatements

But no one expects an *effective* tax rate of 70%