Tax Minimisation is a Must

……for men at least. Let me explain. The overwhelming percentage of the taxation paid each year in any developed country is inevitably paid by men. As a function of earning more than women (by dent of having more relevant qualifications, working longer hours, being more productive and a host of other factors), men pay the same percentage of tax on a higher income. Factoring in income tax brackets, the average man is in a higher income tax bracket than the average woman. There is also the fact that a much higher percentage of women work part-time as opposed to men which only further increases the income (and thus, tax paid) disparity between men and women.

Given the above, men would be entitled to expect that their paying more of the taxation dollar would result in them benefiting more from government expenditure – seems logical to men. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that; if it did, there would be lots of funding for male causes such as suicide prevention, testicular cancer and prostate cancer research and treatment, male homelessness (let’s not forget that men make up the overwhelming majority of the homeless) and just about any other male cause you could think of. What actually happens is that governments take the overwhelming-majority-paid-for-by-men taxes and use them largely for the benefit of females whom by definition, contribute the decided minority of the tax pool. Effectively, by being a productive and tax paying male sheeple, a man is effectively allowing sluts to have abortions, single moms to live on a pension, women to have a whole range of health screenings/treatments that no male equivalent is funded for, police to have funds to raid the houses of men falsely accused of domestic violence (and subsequently persecute said men) and to provide women with public housing when they are too useless to earn their own way in the world. Essentially, for a man to pay his fair share of taxes does not help him in any way period.

So what is the answer? The next time your tax is due, rather than do your tax yourself (which basically guarantees you will pay the maximum tax the government can get out of you), have your tax prepared by a reputable taxation accountant. Any competent accountant will be able to show you how to arrange your monetary affairs so as to pay the least amount of tax you need to. When I first started doing this, I was amazed at the sheer number of items I had that were clearly tax deductible. Not only that, but a good accountant will show you how to set up your ongoing future affairs such that you pay the minimum tax in future years. Whereas I once never got a tax refund – and often had to pay the government extra – for the last ten years thereabouts I have had a tax refund of around $6,000 a year. Over ten years this equates to around $60,000 and that is a lot of extra money to have around. This surplus has allowed me to do many things such as top up my investment accounts which will only help me as I approach retirement.

Of course, the biggest benefit is knowing that women’s-only causes are not getting one cent more of my income than I can avoid giving them.

“Help, I’m Dating a Men’s Rights Activist” – Reddit

I just caught this post over at Mens’ Rights Reddit which links to this post over at a blog called “Captain Awkward”. Apparently, the issue is some chick is upset because he boyfriend is an unashamed MRA. Good for him. More significantly, she is concerned about his pro-male philosophy even though the MRA boyfriend is apparently fine with her being a feminist…..

He says that my opinions and views don’t change the way he feels about me. But do they change the way I feel about him? I think so. 

So much for accepting other as they are. The chick basically admits had she known he beau was an MRA at the start of the relationship she would have walked away……

If I knew he had these opinions and this hate back when we first started dating, I would have walked away in a heartbeat.”

Newsflash, Sweetheart: you’re lucky he didn’t walk away as soon as you revealed you were a feminist. After all, MRA’s just want a fair go for the male gender whilst feminists outright hate men; which of these is the more intolerable philosophies? More to the point, the dopey chick outright says she does no approve of he boyfriends right to have a mind of his own……

I’m embarrassed when we go to parties and my level headed friends (both men and women) don’t share his opinions.”


About three months into our relationship, I noticed that when I’d bring up some women-centric issue (i.e, the Steubenville rape case), his argument was “Well, she shouldn’t have been drinking so much.” Which, of course, is awful and, yes, I may have gone to bed angry that night.

Like most left-wing movements, feminism has no tolerance for opposing views. To a feminist, the idea of each to their own or agreeing to disagree is never an option. Feminists basically expect anyone who opposes their views to change or else. This woman is no different; she is writing to the blog in an effort to find a way to get her boyfriend to change (as opposed to finding a way to settle their differences or accept him as he is). Personally, I believe the MRA boyfriend needs to dump his feminist chick before it gets to serious. After all, does he want to be married to a woman who will never take his name and will never respect him as a man? He would be far better off finding a woman of a more moderate persuasion who will make a more worthwhile life partner. Better yet, he could write a blog post called, “Help, I’m Dating a Typically Intolerant Feminazi”.

A Good Example of Why Men Can’t be Bothered With Modern Women

When going about my daily affairs, I am commonly reminded just why it is that I and increasing numbers of men like me are choosing to remain single. Quite frankly, given the huge portion of women who make themselves unmarriable by way of being sluts, single moms, feminists, tattooed freaks, alcoholics, masculine, domestically incompetent and whole list of other traits that render make a woman unsuitable for marriage, men don’t have a lot to choose from. For most men, the choice is either marry a woman who offers nothing as a wife or simply don’t get married; it would seem that this is a pretty easy choice for most men to make.

The other category of women who have no hope of ever getting married are the huge numbers of women who insist on punching WAY above their weight. The latest (of many) whinges I have read from women on why they can’t find a man worthy of them can be found in this article. As one might expect, the whole article is one woman’s insipid bitching lament that she is unable to find a man suitable to marry………

When you finally do come across one of the good guys out there, why does it always turn out that he’s either taken, gay, dead, or available?

Honestly, I couldn’t tell you the last time I met a nice, intelligent guy who didn’t end up being in a long-term relationship, attracted to other men, currently deceased, or unattached and actively looking for a partner. It never fails!”

Now click to the link and have a look at the woman’s photo………I think that might be a large part of the problem. As much as no one likes a whinger (which this woman is), it is not as though she is strikingly attractive. Hell, I wouldn’t call this woman even remotely attractive. That she is not smiling in the photo doesn’t help – big hint ladies: men like women who smile – but even if she were, most men would probably rate this woman as 3-4 out of 10. But wait, there’s more……..

I can be pretty picky. When it comes to a potential partner, there are certain things I’m just not willing to compromise on. He has to be educated, polite, a good listener, and have a sense of humor.”

This is another part of the woman’s problem – she is simply too picky. Fair enough, I have no problem with top-shelf women being picky when it comes to men however, this woman is nowhere near top-shelf. If anything, she is bargain basement material yet she expects a man who is pretty much prince charming to sweep her off her feet. Sorry, Sweetheart but it ain’t gonna happen; the kind of men you are gunning for are out there dating quality attractive women because those men have WAY better options than you.

Of course, that reality is never gonna stop a woman from bitching ad nauseum…….

I can tell you from my own personal experience that there’s nothing more demoralizing than thinking you’ve hit it off with Mr. Right—a guy who’s active, confident, and actually has his priorities in order—only for him to disappear and be replaced with a flashing orange hand warning you not to cross the intersection. That’s just my luck, you know?”

Yeah, yeah – boo hoo. Welcome to reality for 90% of men. We get this all the time and no one gives a fuck either. However, we men are supposed to just suck it up and not complain about women least we get branded as evil misogynists. Only women get to publish drivel in the media about how hard they have it because the world doesn’t provide them with the man of their dreams. All this, and women think me have an entitlement ,mentality towards the opposite sex.

I guess the bottom line is that we women have to learn to accept that most of the true catches out there have some sort of sexual orientation, exist or do not exist, and may or may not just be reflections of another man in a mirror or still body of water.”

Let me correct that for you – “I guess the bottom line is that women need to accept that most men we want too good for us. If we women refuse to realistically appraise our own SMV before writing off as unsuitable the very men we should be targeting, then it will be no one’s fault but our own when we end up old and single.”

Yet, the woman in the blog will never learn……

And despite all this, I still believe deep down that there’s a wonderful guy out there for me somewhere. I just have to keep my eyes open.”

Buy a cat, Bitch.

“Manslamming”? Give Me a Fucking Break

By now, the civilised world has become accustomed to idiotic additions to English language such as “mansplaining” and “manspreading’. Personally I believe that me need to own these words by redefining them in a positive light and then throwing them back into women’s faces – but I digress. A new femi-word I came across today was “manslamming’. At first I thought this has something to do with throwing men onto the sidewalks (which would no doubt appeal to most feminists) but fortunately, I was wrong. As mentioned in this link, “manslamming” can be defined as………

The sidewalk M.O. of men who remain apparently oblivious to the personal space of those around them.” It is (usually) done by men, (usually) at the expense of women.”

or at least that is how a feminist would see it and when you get down to it, most feminists know pretty much fuck-all about men. In reality, most men are acutely aware of themselves and their environment when walking on the sidewalk. When approaching each other, men will cede as much as the next guy without making the other guy cede more than he has to – it’s called treating others with respect. Men will always give way to the elderly, the handicapped, children and more often than not, ladies. Apparently, some silly bitch by the name of Beth Breslaw decided to find out what would happen if she walked around like she owned the fucking sidewalk and refused to give way to anyone period. The results were not surprising…….

She spent most of November and all of December colliding with dozens of men, on sidewalks and in train stations and outside of cafés. On one particularly eventful instance in early January, every single man who came across her path on the stretch of narrow East Village sidewalk between the N train and her sister’s apartment smacked right into her, she says. It was like that for the whole experiment, wave after wave of men knocking into her with an elbow or a shoulder or a full-on body-check.”

There are a couple of simple reasons behind this: firstly, ANYONE who acts like an asshole in public is asking to get knocked down a peg or two. Breslaw’s behaviour was certainly that of an asshole. Secondly, physically confronting someone who is physically superior to yourself (which is going to be the case in the vast majority of occasions whereby a woman physically confronts a man) is not going to end well. However, there is another reason at play which can be found at this link…..

As for Breslaw, it sounds like the men she kept purposefully colliding with saw her sashaying down the street like a jackass and decided they “would spend some time taking a more” feminist “approach to city living” — meaning, acting like an entitled nitwit who has way too much free time on her hands and a giant chip on her shoulder.”

Few men have any respect for a woman whom is a feminist and has the seemingly obligatory entitlement complex that comes with it. Not only that, but who the fuck is Breslaw to tell men they need to take a more “feminist” approach to city living? Men refusing to cede the way to an entitled feminasty like Breslaw was basically saying get some manners, you fucking feminist pig. And why would men want to act like women in public anyway? A commenter from the NY Mag article by the name of JackFrost71 sums it up nicely……

I have said this many times, women have no spatial awareness, they stagger left and right across a footpath making it a game of dodgems to pass them – usually because they are looking at their smartphone or looking at shop windows as they walk. Then if you do bump , they look at you like it’s your fault.”

Been there, seen that a million times in life. It is bad enough that women stagger about without a fucking clue when in public. If men adopted the feminist way, then the problem would be twice as bad.

“I Don’t Like to be Touched” – TPM

I just browsed through this article over at The Private Man and considered why it is that an increasing portion of society (so it seems to me, anyway) prefer not to have physical contact with other humans. As TPM points out, this can be applied to men as well as women although probably not to the same degree. Why is touching so important? TPM explains it nicely……

Human beings are social creatures. We need to be together, hermits notwithstanding. The use of touch helps to maintain the social bonds amoungst us.”

This is true. One of the signed of positive emotional connections amongst humans is an increased tendency to touch those we as closest to. Should this touching stop, then relationships fail. As an example………

Marriages end without touch.”

TPM hits on a point I have often considered……..

When a person admits he or she doesn’t like being touched, it’s a direct statement of some type of emotional problem.”

This certainly applies to many of the people I have heard mention their dislike for touching – especially women. If you ask any touch-resistant woman why she is so, the answers you will get will be along the lines of not wanting “creepy” guys getting their hands on her. This makes a couple of erroneous assumptions: firstly, that a sizable portion of men in the world are “creepy”. The reality is that creepy men exist more in the minds of paranoid women than in reality. For a woman to develop a complex over what is in her head is pretty much a sign of emotional/psychological problems. Secondly, for anyone (male or female) to believe that people in significant numbers want to get their hands on them is either paranoid or narcissistic; both of these are psychological disorders. Having said that, probably no one wants to be the object of random, unsolicited touching and I am willing to bet that few people ever are. However, I have noticed that the only women who come straight out and declare they don’t like to be touched with no provocation are the same women that most men wouldn’t want to touch; basically wishful thinking. Given all the above, I tend to treat women who declare they “Don’t like to be touched” as a red flag.

I have often wondered if the advent of men not liking physical touch is a direct result of the above. Given that most men are not alpha – and as such are not desired by most women – have become so indoctrinated with the men-are-creeps-and-rapists message of modern-day feminism preaches that they are simply retreating from any and all situations which might have them labelled as perverts and deviants simply for expressing their natural desire to be intimate with a woman. It stands to reason that if a human deprives themselves of touch for long periods or worse, never experiences it to start with, that they are likely to simply adapt to being with it.

The end result is that the “I don’t like to be touched” is just another unhelpful and damaging by-product of the cancerous philosophy that is feminism. Taken to its logical conclusion, “I don’t want to be touched” is going to lead us to a being a people why shun intimacy of any kind. Without this, we will become little better than animals in the forest. Chalk that up as another of feminism’s dubious “achievements”.

More Useless and Stupid Female Cops

You may recall this post which contains the end result of two hopelessly inadequate women pretending to be police officers. Well, here is another one. Whilst the previous vid was from the UK, this latest one is from the USA. At least the Brits can rest easy knowing they don’t have a monopoly on stupid women.

But fucking seriously, what if the dud in either vid had been violent perpetrator in serious need of incarceration? Thanks to the efforts of the useless femi-police officers, both would have gotten away. From what I can tell, they guy in the USA vid did get away. If he was not apprehended and went on to commit further crimes, those two silly cunts masquerading as police officers should be fired for incompetence.

The evidence is in – females make shit police officers.

On a lighter note, the guy in background of the USA vid laughing at the female pigs is hilarious. Way to rub it in!

A Man’s Wife MUST Take His Name

One of the worst innovations of the feminist movement was for women to avoid taking their husband’s name upon marriage. Once upon a time, it was a given that upon marriage a woman ceased to be Miss XXXXXXX and instead became Mrs YYYYYY. Given the enormous sacrifice men made towards keeping a woman, this was well and just. Given that marriage for men in the modern era contains no end of unjustifiable risk (in terms of no-fault frivorce, false paternity and the general tendency of women to get almightily fat once they have trapped a husband), it is even more well and just that a woman takes her husband’s name upon marriage. Sadly, many modern women don’t seem to see it like that. The numbers of women who retain their maiden name after marriage nowadays is staggering. What is equally staggering is the equal numbers of (obviously blue pill) men who go along with it. It was only a generation ago that women were expected to take their husband’s name as a measure of respect. Mind you, it was only a generation ago that husband’s were respected by all and sundry as opposed to being treated like the joke they are today. Just goes to show – progress is not always a good thing.

I just finished reading a brief post over at reddit/The Red Pill on this very topic. Because the post is brief, I shall copy out the post in it’s entirety below the link…..

There is a thread on Askwomen right now about the idea of a man not getting married if his fiancé refuses to take his last name. They say it is sexist and the guy is an asshole as well. I did not see a single comment there having anything but this opinion.

The fact of the matter is that if you decide to be one single family unit then it is required you take my name as agreement for our new potential family. That way me, you, and our children will have one name under one man.

Their was even one women saying that if it’s such a big deal then the man should be able to take her name without problem. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

Any man who takes his wife’s name is a weak man.

That proves that you are submissive in nature and that you look to her to lead.

If you take your wife’s name, that is the start of a very short marriage. You’ve failed the biggest shit test of the marriage. She might as well peg you now. Her attraction will go plummet as soon as she hears your new name.

I couldn’t imagine looking my father, (the man who I always relied on) in the eyes and telling him I’m leaving the name that he passed on to me for a girls fathers name instead.

I get filled with shame and embarrassment just thinking about it. It’s a betrayal to my father and a disrespect to the hard work he put into raising me.

TL;DR: Never marry a women who won’t take your name. Period.”

To my way of thinking, all men should treat any notion of a potential wife not being willing to take his name as a giant red flag. Such a woman obviously has no respect for the man she is marrying and will almost certainly have even less respect once they are married. A family is a unit united by a common name. This logic is expressed in the below quote…..

The fact of the matter is that if you decide to be one single family unit then it is required you take my name as agreement for our new potential family. That way me, you, and our children will have one name under one man.

Any woman who cannot agree to this is not fit to be any man’s wife, let alone a quality man’s wife.

Even worse is the suggestion from some women – which had never occurred to me before – is that men should take their wife’s name upon marriage. Of all the clueless ideas women have, that would have to be the worst. Women always bang on about how they want to meet a man who ticks all their boxes. Does anyone in their right mind actually think a man like this is going to take his wife’s name once they are married? No fucking way. If a woman wants a man who not only accept her not taking his name but will actually take her name, she had better get used to scraping the bottom of the barrel……

Any man who takes his wife’s name is a weak man.

That proves that you are submissive in nature and that you look to her to lead.”

Remember that one – ultimately, it is other men who judge the strength of a man, not women. What would you think of an engaged male friend if he announced he would be known as Mr <Wife’s surname>? Not much, I’ll bet. Personally, I would be embarrassed to be seen in public with such a pathetic specimen. The same would happen to you if you ever decided to become Mr <Wife’s Surname>. Any women that could seriously humiliate her husband like that is one to pass by.

The best summary for the whole married-surname debate is the final line in the post…….

TL;DR: Never marry a women who won’t take your name. Period

Words to live by. Leave lesser women for lesser men.

No Wonder We Australians Pay So Much Fucking Tax!!!

Whilst I have always known that welfare-dependant single moms (and let’s face it, a huge percentage of single moms are welfare-dependant), I never really had any idea just how lucrative it was for a single mom to stay at home all day on her fat ass. Looking at table gives me a pretty good idea. Holy fuck!! It would appear it is possible for a typical single mom to earn nearly $55,000 for pumping out bastards who – like most of the progeny on single moms – will never contribute one worthwhile thing to society in their whole miserable lives. For those of you who don’t live in Australia, $55,000 is significantly above the minimum wage in many low-end industries; the next time you see a shelf-stacker, cleaner or receptionist, it is likely they are earning well under $55,000 for actually working full-time and paying tax. Welfare-dependant ingle moms (on the other hand) do nothing for their “pay” and near as I can tell, their “entitlements” are tax-free. Now I know why I have so much tax taken out of my hard-earned once a month.

Australians have the Whitlam Labor government of decades ago to blame for this wasteful extravagance. Then prime minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam, introduced welfare benefits for single mothers and this monster has been a huge drain on the Australian economy ever since. The current Coalition treasurer, Joe Hockey is quite scathing in his criticism of the single mothers pension and the women who collect it……

Joe Hockey has condemned a “crippling” welfare culture that weighs down the federal budget, and warned that government benefits will not be treated as a right when the nation faces a $50 billion deficit.”

Damn right, too. I have no problem with the elected government of the day spending my tax dollars so long as society gets some benefit from it. By all means, build roads, construct hospitals and fund research into curing diseases; at least all these give taxpayers value for their dollar. How the fuck anyone – apart from those receiving it – can argue that paying irresponsible single moms to stay at home all fucking day when they should be out working and paying tax is beyond me. Over the years, people have tried to draw comparisons between wages workers receive and welfare benefits that single moms receive and quite frankly, that is just fucking bullshit. Apparently Treasurer Hockey agrees………..

“When I increase revenue I’m taking money out of people’s pockets — and they’ve earned that money,” he said. “Whereas when you freeze the increase in the amount the government is paying, we’re saying ‘we’re just not giving you more than what you’re getting’. That is exactly what I’m trying to do.”


The suggestion somehow that payments from government are a right is not correct.”

This man has earned my vote at the next election. This is the kind of line that needs to be drawn in the sand to get people with a welfare entitlement attitude off their asses and into the workplace where they can actually contribute to society for a change. Whilst there will always be a need for welfare to help those who genuinely need and thus deserve it – the disabled and elderly are two examples – welfare should be abolished for those people who choose to be useless and welfare-dependant single moms most certainly fit into this category.

Whilst the anti-government senate is making it hard for the elected government to get its reforms into law – which makes one wonder why we have a senate when all they do is contradict the mandate of the elected government – it is al least pleasing to see that we have a government in power who see what needs to be done and is trying to do it.

I Don’t See How This is Going to Help Women

I caught this post over at Alpha Game the other day. Apparently women think it is to their advantage to have an online dating app that allows them to remain “invisible” on dating sites whilst they can peruse the male members at will. Only if a woman sees a man she wishes to meet does she need to make herself visible and even then, only to that man. Whilst this sounds great for women on paper, how it will play out in reality is a whole different game. Firstly, consider that women consider something like 80 percent of men on dating sites to be unattractive. Consider also that pretty much all women are completely delusional about their own SMV. Put these two together and the end result is that huge numbers of women are going to be hitting on a small number of men. For women who desire to meet a long-term mate, this is going to be a disaster. With large numbers of women wanting to meet them, men deemed attractive are going to be able to treat dating sites like a sexual smorgasboard and run through women like there is no tomorrow. With these sort of options, why is any desirable man going to settle for just one woman when he can have many. If anything, this innovation is more likely to bring increased numbers of attractive men to dating sites who have no intention of settling down but will see dating sites as being an easy way to chuck and fuck en masse.

The second problem is that by denying lesser attractive – whilst still perfectly worthy men – the option of contacting women to begin with, there will be less incentive for most man to join up to dating sites in the first place. Think about it – most men have a pretty good idea of their own SMV. If a man knows he is not in the upper echelon of men (as least as far as women go), then why would he bother with dating sites in the first place? Given that men have any number of alternatives to getting snared by a predatory woman marrying such as hobbies, porn, prostitutes (which are not much different from a girlfriend anyway) and self-improvement, not putting himself in a position to be rejected and abused by women is a man doing himself a favour. AG sums up this reality with the following quote…..

It’s fascinating to see that the female imperative is so engrained in women that they can’t recognize the fact that a dating app, by definition, has to be useful for both sexes.”

If women want a dating app that makes the whole online dating scene non-beneficial for 80% of men, then as a function on male non-participation, the dating app will pretty soon become non-beneficial to women also. As AG states, the only people who will benefit from this app are high-status men……..

“”Dating app” is really a misnomer. This is nothing more than a harem app for high-status men.”

Another issue is what the whole mentality behind the dating app says about women. As the AG article states, the app is nothing more than yet another example of the unrestrained hypergamy of the modern female. Men have always known that women never stop looking for the bigger, better deal but it doesn’t help women’s cause when they advertise the fact. Men have little enough reason to respect modern women as it is. The fact that there is apparently a “need” for an online dating app to keep the majority of men out of the game is one less reason men have to respect women.

Probably the best outcome of this app will be that blue-pill men will have another reason to see modern women as the entitled whores that they truly are. If some of these guys take their first steps towards the Red Pill, it will be worth it.

Women Have No Idea What “Same Pay For The Same Job” Means

One of the common memes of feminists (and women in general, for that matter) is the fabled “70 cents in the dollar” line of crap. This is reference to the commonly held – yet widely disproven – claim that women are paid 70 percent of the male wage for doing the same job. Apart from the fact that this idiotic claim has been disproven time and time again, why the fuck would any employer employ a man when he can – supposedly – pay a woman 70 percent of the male wage to get the same job done? The obvious answer is, because they can’t. Sure, an employer can pay a woman probably 70 percent of the male wage for doing the same job description but employers don’t pay employees for their job descriptions. Employers pay their employees for how much return of their salary they generate and that, boys and girls, is where the difference lies. As a function of working longer hours, gaining employment on merit as opposed to affirmative action policies, not having an attitude of entitlement to a salary and God alone knows how many other reasons, men are worth more to their employers. How else can you explain the wage gap existing yet employers still employing men? Put yourself in the shoes of any employer, if you have two employees and one generates significantly more revenue than the other, wouldn’t you pay the more productive employee a higher salary. This is nothing more than common sense which probably explains why most women don’t have a fucking clue. Do women actually think we men get paid more just because we have a dick? Bitch, please.

The next time some idiotic feminist (I just gotta stop with these oxymorons) tells you you get paid more than she does because you are a man, tell her you get paid more because you are worth more.

Women are idiots. Don’t try to reason with them.