The Male Tax
Rent and Gender in Degenerating Economies
A rent is illegitimate by its very nature. It is always a bad thing and includes a value judgment. Like the term “torture,” there is no “good” Rent. In postmodern America, most of the economy is based on Rents and usury, rendering myths of the market mere misty-eyed rhetoric. Discretionary spending in the US is gendered, irrational and at the root of the economy. This paper will deal with just one form of rent most writers are too frightened to discuss.
The ancient concept of “usury” is not only related to interest rates. High rates are an expression of usury, and one of the most visible. Usury is a form of Rent, and in this paper, the terms will be used interchangeably. Rent is the broadest conception here. A Rent is money extracted on the basis a non-economic and non-contractual source such as gender or political position. It is often ignored by economists and based on non-quantitative purposes and motivations. In short, Rent is unearned income.
An excellent definition of “economic rent” –
This refers to any return over and above what would occur if a market were perfectly competitive. One example is monopoly power that occurs naturally or that is due to government action, such as requiring occupational licenses that restrict entry into a profession and increases profit above the competitive level (Thoma, 2014).
Another example is a criminal defense attorney. A man is accused of murder. He’s terrified his life is over. He runs to the attorney and begs for assistance. The accused will pay anything and must often put up his house and get co-signers to pay the legal bills for a long, drawn out court case. He pays it gladly. At that stage, the accused will sell his kids into slavery in order to get out of that mess.
This is a rent because a large portion of the fees charged by the attorney will not be based on the normal costs of business and profit. Their services are not worth anything close to the fees they charge. The fee will be based on fear. The accused will pay anything – anything – to stay out of jail. The money in excess – the “fear premium” – is an example of both usury and Rent.
Beautiful women are the recipients of a huge transfer of wealth from men when the dating market is unregulated. Women gain immensely just by being attractive. This author has termed it the “male tax.” Men indulge in expensive luxuries for the sake of impressing women. Being minimalists, men are usually happy with mere practicalities. Luxuries are about communicating status. Status is about making oneself more desirable to women. For a beautiful woman to choose you, among all the millions she could have, is a high all normal men seek. It is almost physically irresistible. There’s a reason there are no gorgeous women in dire poverty.
“The Female Economy” was written by Michael J. Silverstein and Kate Sayre and appeared in the Harvard Business Review in 2009. It blew the lid off modern economics. Its primary message is that men are being replaced by women. Their status and income is much higher for the present, younger generation. Three-quarters of the layoffs since 2008 have been males. Women control the economy. It exists for them.
Beautiful women get what they please, when they please. Men pay a small fortune to get their attention and to keep it. Beautiful women gain status, education, luxuries, travel and high-society life merely by existing. This is especially the case between the ages of 18 to maybe 27. This, of course, works quite well at the high school level as well.
Beautiful women on the dating market get everything for free. They receive jewelry, job opportunities, access to other men, and gifts of a very varied sort. This, of course, is not factored into the mythic “wage gap.” Neither is alimony and child support.
A very upscale dinner is about $200, a more normal restaurant might be $50 or so. A normal piece of jewelry is maybe $1000. Movies and entertainments can run maybe $50 a week. Traveling for romantic occasions runs into the thousands. Being conservative, say a man pays for a meal twice a week and a movie once. He buys her three pieces of jewelry. He gives her a cash grant for various purposes maybe four times at $100 each. He helps her pay off her student loans at maybe $1000 for the year. How much has the woman gained by this?
Consider a 12 month relationship. Given the above parameters, she is given a minimum of $7800 a year in meals alone. Entertainment runs about $2500. Jewelry maybe $3000. With nothing else, the man has shelled out $13,300 a year. Add miscellaneous expenses and all the rest, we’re pushing $20,000. What work has she done to earn this? It is a rent.
A wealthy, asexual man will possess very little. There is no reason to pursue status if female attention is not the issue. This Rent goes further. Rollo Tomassi has written extensively on the “Epiphany” Rent women charge to a different sort of man once they begin to realize their looks won’t last forever.
After 15 or so years of wild sexual abandon and all the money that goes with being a beautiful woman, she notices she’s getting a little chubby. She notices the five percent of men all those women are seeking have turned their attention to the perky 19 year-olds in college. The truth will eventually become overpowering.
This is the “beta tax.” This is what happens when the five percent abandon the now-28 year old whore. She realizes she must change. She must become a “quality woman” and turn her sights lower. She now goes to the second tier man who she’s rejected for almost two decades and tells him how she’s “changed.” She speaks of all the “stupid things I did in college” and “how I should have been with you all along.” Most normal men have heard variations of this.
A second rent is charged because now this man – ecstatic that he’s finally getting access to the aging cheerleader – must now spend another fortune ensuring his new found porn-star is happy. She wants children and a home, and this lower form of man is chosen because he’s not doing too badly. She’s attracted to him but certainly not aroused by him. Thus, the beautiful woman has received a small fortune during her party years and now, the star struck beta provider is now paying through the nose for his new-found love.
A third form of this rent is charged if there is a divorce. Depending on the source, between 80 and 90% of divorces are initiated by women. There, a woman, often claiming abuse or some other unutterable sin, will extract a monstrous amount of resources from the bewildered and exhausted beta man she never really wanted in the first place. It is part of the nesting instinct all women have. These men, discovering that their “reformed stripper” treated them as a cash cow, will again strip them of assets she never earned. Even if she is independent – excellent jobs are often opened by looks and sexual tension – she still must have a child and often only goes back part time afterwards.
In general, these are different forms of wealth transfer from the productive to the non-productive elements of society. Given the above, a woman can gain hundreds of thousands over a lifetime just by being attractive and amoral. Men care little for the market. They want to impress the neighbor’s daughter with the D-cup. Pornography permits a temporary relief to all the broken promises and frustrations of the sexual revolution that only benefits a small percent of men and a larger, but still small, percent of women.
Keep in mind that all this only applies to healthy, attractive women. The men they land can afford all the above. While ugly women have tremendous power using the state and affirmative action, they nurse a seething and justified hatred of the bimbo in the Mercedes her new wealthy boyfriend bought for her. In return, she has to keep breathing and occasionally moan during sex. Looking that such a scene, she probably has visions of a 20 year marriage down the tubes for the sake of this short-lived ego boost. She’s probably right.
Regardless, this is a massive transfer of wealth granted to women each year for no other reason than they’re attractive. It remains a guarded secret. Rents are based on psychological manipulation. The “market” has nothing to do with this.
Much consumer spending is men seeking to impress women, a permanent part of the normal male psyche. It’s the cause of most luxury spending not directly controlled by females anyway. Since about 80% of all discretionary spending is controlled by women, most of the available resources are controlled by them, since consumer spending is the life blood of the American economy. Men see no use for luxuries unless the promise of ego inflation is involved. The battle for status among males is not fought for its own sake. Like in the rest of nature, it is done to attract the most genetically suitable mate. The sexual revolution promised satisfaction and freedom. It was little more than a monstrous wealth exchange from men to women based on looks and sexual promises (Silverstein and Sayer, 2009).
Attractive women need not actually do or be anything. They must merely exist. The top one to three percent of women get whatever they need without working. Merely crying in public causes a flood of “white knights” throwing money at this damsel in distress hoping for a suitable reward later. They will do it even if they’re sure they won’t receive it.
The beautiful young woman is a feudal lady. She has access to a fairly large store of wealth that she need not work to obtain. Under her, there are what are called “beta orbiters,” that is, second tier men she keeps around for favors, labor and a shoulder to cry on. They believe that if they show they care, spend money and time with them, she will reward them with sex and even a relationship. This is a functional harem behind every beautiful woman.
When the king no longer suits the interest of the lady, she can withdraw her service. This is done without the slightest repercussion, regardless of the favors the former has granted the latter. If the king gets angry, she can state to friends, the police or the media that she was “touched” or “made to feel uncomfortable” by the hapless king. Thinking his wealth insulates him, this king is a paper tiger as he’s pursued by rogue white knights seeking to please their lady. Their loyalty is fanatical and unbending. They fear neither death nor pain (Smith, 2016).
It turns out the king is a myth; its an image. There is no king; he was killed long ago. The system is purely oligarchic. Mandatory arrest laws give the contractual obligation to unseat the king at the mere accusation of wrongdoing. The manor house automatically then passes to the lady at this point, and she has not even the obligation to reveal her name. This proves, legally speaking, that women (especially attractive ones) are an aristocracy with very powerful privileges.
The goods granted by feudal service is sexuality and attention. A high a second tier man feels when receiving attention from a beauty is tremendous. Like any other drug addict, they will do anything to achieve this feeling. It’s a feeling of pure affirmation of everything they are. No narcotic is capable of this. Men chase after it with the same abandon as any other addict. They rationalize it in the same way.
The Harvard Business Review article cited above states that women control upwards of $90 trillion yearly in economic power. Harvard states: “Women make the decision in the purchases of 94% of home furnishings, 92% of vacations, 91% of homes, 60% of automobiles, and 51% of consumer electronics.” How much of this income have they earned? This means that the American consumer economy is female controlled. The same article states that about 50% of all future economic growth in the US will be directly controlled by women. Not caused by them, but controlled by them. Given the existence of female networks, government grants and social force, over half of the new businesses in the US are controlled by women (Silverstein and Sayer, 2009).
These rents are responsible for the fact that women control almost 70% of the consumer spending on the planet. Women own over 40% of America’s business. This does not tell us how much they control. Women control the majority of the wealth in American businesses today. Male earnings have not risen in 30 years. The cost of living and the number of things people are forced to spend money on means men are becoming poor, and fast. Women’s earnings have risen over 35% since 1979 (ibid).
Given the simple fact that most males fear women due to a deeply ingrained aversion to romantic rejection, most research in this field will be skewered in their favor, as most of reality is. Therefore, if wages have risen by 35%, it is more like 50%. It is also dishonest, since women financially dominate men given the Rents describes here, not just due to salaries.
Due to the massive wealth transfer from men to women given the rent structure, women rule the US economy. Fleishman-Hillard Inc. calls this the “largest transference of wealth in our country’s history.” The National Women’s Business Council maintains a database of all the tax breaks, grants and credits for female owned business. This is on top of federally mandated affirmative action programs for well of women in employment.
Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90% more money than they earn. Men are exploited as cash machines and even with spending on children accounted for women still spend more money on themselves than the combined spending for men and children. This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women’s products in most shopping centres (Kelleher and Ribble, 2016).
The male tax and its variants accounts for this. Income statistics are useless when they are gendered given the sums they are granted both as young, “party girls” and more “mature,” “epiphany” ladies. “I don’t need no man,” they’re taught to chant. Well, that’s only after you’ve exploited their wealth. In modern America, this is called “female entrepreneurship.” Divorce means that women become “entrepreneurs” by having half a man’s business handed over to her. Regular support payments increase this.
Many men, while not being able to refute the facts above and who have experienced female domination themselves, will violently respond to this. Men care about one thing: what attractive women think of them. They will chose this over food and their own children. Income and other sources of prestige do not and will not matter. The decline of arranged marriages, the rise of the birth control pill and the desire of the Regime to drive down wages for Americans is the cause for female control.
The “lipstick effect” refers to the fact that, during economic recessions, there is a spike in female cosmetics. This means that women are aware of the value of the rents they extract. The effect is normally attributed to the female desire to have well-off mates in “their back pocket” if their current career fails. What is deliberately not mentioned is that women use their attractiveness to deal with male co-workers and the few male bosses that remain (Hill, 2009).
As jobs become scarce, the promise of attention must be increased and made more vivid. In fact, not only cosmetics, but all methods of increasing female control over men are included: plastic surgery and lingerie as well, see high sales in times of economic decline. This couldn’t be true if they were incapable of charging rents.
If any further proof is needed, one might Google “Certified Women Owned” businesses. One must certify their aristocratic blood line in order to gain the endless benefits women receive in business. However, the business must prove it is indeed owned and controlled by a woman for any of this to occur. The very fact that it must be officially certified proves that women are officially an aristocratic caste.
Many of these businesses might have been started by a man, but if he was married or living with a woman, a simple request for a “restraining order” would then put the assets in her hands automatically. These are civil orders and have nothing to do with whether or not a man actually did anything. They do include the eviction of the man from the home and business (place of work) and also include an automatic “support” order the court arbitrarily adds on. Legal assistance and representation is federally mandated free for the woman.
In the state of Pennsylvania, however, “feeling uncomfortable” is sufficient to destroy a man’s life, remove him from the business and force him to begin paying the man a monthly stipend. The rule of women is most obnoxiously manifest in the fact that no proof is required for any of this. If the woman says so, the man is gone and dispossessed. How many of these female businesses are financed by men victimized by this system?
In Boykin v. Brown, 868 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2005) argues that the “abuse” earning a restraining order grant need not actually be abuse. In other words, that the act causing the petition need not be a criminal act and hence, not abusive in the legal sense. These laws were written by men voluntarily. Yet, even those victimized by them demand stricter punishments even today. Male desire to appeal to women is at the root of this. No totalitarian system has ever reached this level of power.
The HBR writes,
At nearly every major consumer company, most middle managers are women. It’s only a matter of time before they rise to more-senior positions. Already, women own 40% of the businesses in the United States, and their businesses are growing at twice the rate of U.S. firms as a whole. (Admittedly, the numbers are being skewed as small businesses position themselves for government contracts that favor female-owned companies.) Women will also continue to struggle with work/life balance, conflicting demands, and too little time (Silverstein and Sayer, 2009)
Once you add all the taxes on men, these rents, to the picture, you have an economy that is totally dominated by females.
If 60% of all marriages end in divorce, and almost everyone gets married in their 20s, this means that at least a large proportion of these “female owned” businesses have been financed involuntarily by men. Dr. Sam Vankin writes:
Divorce in modern times constitutes one of the biggest transfers of wealth in the annals of Mankind. Amounts of cash and assets, which dwarf anything OPEC used to have in its heyday, pass between spouses yearly. Most of the beneficiaries are women. Because the earning power of men is almost double that of women (depending on the country) – most of the wealth accumulated by any couple is directly traceable to the husband’s income. A divorce, therefore, constitutes a transfer of part of the husband’s wealth to his wife. Because the cumulative disparities over years of income differentials are great – the wealth transferred is enormous (Vaknin, 2012).
In the book, The Predatory Female, we read
the matriarchal system could never operate efficiently without the hordes of male drones it has created. These men, preconditioned by their mothers and suffering from a self-imposed order of chivalry, consistently front for the system and its predatory female masters (Quoted in Smith, 2013).
The result is that American society is structured to transfer wealth from men to women. The law forces corporations to hire women and even invent jobs for them. Women are not subject to the same taxes as men. This is a huge disincentive for male wealth creation. A married man has no rights to his property if they can be seized with such ease. Women rule them with an iron fist.
The Harvard Business Review states,
Despite setbacks in the economy, private wealth in the United States is expected to grow from some $14 trillion today to $22 trillion by 2020, and 50% of it will be in the hands of women. Yet women are still continually let down by the level of quality and service they get from financial companies, which presume men to be their target customers (Silverstein and Sayer, 2009).
This does not take the Male or Beta taxes into account. It does not take the divorce tax into account. These figures are hard to quantify, but no one in the universe would deny they exist and are substantial transfers of wealth. If young, educated women earn far more then men – and they do – this is radically understating the question. The male tax gives them even more, and a substantial amount more.
The Rent charged by attractive women – and divorced women of all sorts – has many parts and represents a massive shift in money. It’s behind “women owned business.” The massive explosion in female proprietorships can only be explained this way. As of today, 40% of wives are the main breadwinners in the family.
American women produce very little of real value. Sure, you have the odd female road worker or competent engineer/programmer/etc., but these are simply islands in a vast sea of mindless female consumption. However, American men seem dead set on propping up women and worshiping them as goddesses (Smith, 2013). When this situation comes to an end, the fallout will be epic.
To summarize the argument: American society is structured to transfer wealth from men to women. This transfer occurs on at least three major levels. The first refers to female-only government programs largely supported by male taxpayer money. The second is corporate-institutional level, which today is overwhelmingly female and includes HR and middle management. Finally, men must spend large amounts of money on women for attention and afterwards, divorce or false allegations brings great wealth to females. There are many variations on this scheme that are not included in female income figures. Economists are not ignorant of this, they just don’t want to sleep on the couch for the rest of their lives. Taking all three levels together, the wealth transfer involved here is immense.
The male is the ultimate victim. Female economic advancement has come at the expense of the male. Men, especially white men, watch helplessly as they lose their kids to a family court system that believes whatever the woman says without question. They see the “Cash me Outside” girl making millions while he can’t make ends meet working 12 hours. He has to deal with personal and physical attacks for even bringing these issues up.
Thousands of white males lose their jobs and self-respect to low wage replacements each week. European elites knowingly import thousands of rapists and criminals. The US forces taxpayers to bail out the same banks that foreclosed on their homes. Women emotionally torture him for decades with impunity, since even the threat of physical retaliation leads to prison.
He watches attractive women become multimillionaires merely by marrying the right man and then taking it all. He watches her promoted ahead out of fear or desire. He loses his job while she’s promoted. On a date with one of these new aristocrats, he will still have to pay for everything. It won’t take much to spark these decades of pent-up rage. Today, its partly being directed inward, as white males kill themselves in record numbers. If its ever directed outwards, the bloodbath will be a horror like nothing seen before.
Smith, Winston (2013) Modern Marriage is a Rent Seeking Hell. Return of Kings
Vaknin, S (2012) Divorce as a Re-Distributive Mechanism. From, How to Divorce a Narcissist or a Psychopath. Narcissus Publications
How Being A Certified Woman Owned Business Can Help Grow Your Company. Elevate (2017)
National Women’s Business Council. Does your State Have a Tax Incentive to Support Women Business Owners?
Hill, SE (2012) Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology
Silverstein, MJ and Kate Sayre (2009) The Female Economy. Harvard Business Review
Kelleher, K and J. Ribble (2016) American Woman: The Purchasing Powerhouse. Target Market
Buying Power of Women in the US. Catalyst (2015)
Hello Girls: Recession Hit Companies Target Female Consumers. The Economist (2009)
Women in America. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (2011).
Women in the Economy: Statistics. The Female Factor (2016)
Coulter, Ann (2014) America’s Rape Hoax Epidemic. Front Page
Thoma, M (2014) Explainer: How Economic Rents affect Inequality. CBS Money Watch