Reading Yahoo a couple of days ago I noticed an article about a proposal being put forward in the Swedish Parliment that a tax be imposed on men to cover the social and financial costs of domestic abuse by men against women. This immediately started alarm bells ringing and I can see it openeing a whole new can of worms - some of the choicest wrigliest worms being:

1. Numerous police and independant inquiries have concluded that spousal abuse against men is actually more prevelent then spousal abuse by men.

2. If you are going to start taxing a gender for their financial costs are you going to tax women to pay for (for example) breast cancer screening or the cost of obstetrics and gynaecology wards?

3. Possibly most concerning is it going to foster the idea that 'I've already paid for this so its not a crime / not serious'?

What about the guys who get beat up by the women?

Moon

Men are already unfairly taxed more than women. If you add up the tax on pints of beer, running a car, betting, etc it amounts to much more than the tax on a bottle of washing up liquid!:help:

Why is there an abstain option in the poll?

Surely if a person wishes to abstain, he does so by not voting at all.

Just a bit confused here neil ...

Originally posted by Patchy
Men are already unfairly taxed more than women. If you add up the tax on pints of beer, running a car, betting, etc it amounts to much more than the tax on a bottle of washing up liquid!:help:

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Yes TAX is even more rude than that last comment :hihi:

Originally posted by Jamie
Why is there an abstain option in the poll?

Surely if a person wishes to abstain, he does so by not voting at all.

Just a bit confused here neil ...

Consider it a don't care option!

Oh come on.... Are you serious..? Is this actually being considered for real?!

I could rant about something like this for hours but one rather telling point...

Will they also be considering a similar tax for women who emotionally and physically abuse their children?


{deity} give me strength...



Edit: so as to avoid the obvious "women hater" snap judgements on my comments... I'd just like to point out that surely the smartest thing is to sort out the law so that any individual person who abuses is prosecuted and made liable.. Since when did we assume all men were guilty and prosecute on that basis...

Car insurance I can live with, just... at least my good driving gets rewarded in the end... but being lumped in with scum I'd rather see in bodybags... You can shove that notion thank-you kindly.

How about taxing people on items they buy, sell after being taxed on the money that they receive through working...

Now that would be reeeeeeeaally silly ?

If it was serious, wouldn't it fall foul of sex discrimantion laws?

Originally posted by Martin_s
Oh come on.... Are you serious..? Is this actually being considered for real?!

I could rant about something like this for hours but one rather telling point...

Will they also be considering a similar tax for women who emotionally and physically abuse their children?


{deity} give me strength...



Edit: so as to avoid the obvious "women hater" snap judgements on my comments... I'd just like to point out that surely the smartest thing is to sort out the law so that any individual person who abuses is prosecuted and made liable.. Since when did we assume all men were guilty and prosecute on that basis...

Car insurance I can live with, just... at least my good driving gets rewarded in the end... but being lumped in with scum I'd rather see in bodybags... You can shove that notion thank-you kindly.

Very well said, the fact that it is being considered it ridiculous. What next, all dog owners must be taxed and punished because of the few savage ones in society?

:loopy:

Edit: Who voted yes? Your mind's are probably emptier than a nun's womb (Yes, I do realise this line will raise eyebrows)

That's Scandinavian PCness for you....;)

Seriously, the laws must already be in place to make the perpetrators pay - this sounds like someone looking for some cheap media coverage.

Sweden has always had very collective solutions for social problems. Sounds like another one.

The Car Insurance difference that was mentioned is under examination to be banned, I believe, on sex discrimination grounds.

Of course, our Car Tax law is equally daft in a way - everyone pays the same amount irrespective of how often they use the car. Our TV license has an assumption that we all watch broadcast TV on a TV set, rather than using it to watch videos, etc. We all have an element of Council Tax that pays for schooling, even if we have no kids. In some cases these sorts of laws are necessary for teh social contract to work, in other places they're bloody useless.

The trick is determining which....but this one is fatuous.

Joe

Slightly off topic, but on the car tax point.
People often complain it is unfair because it doesn't discriminate on how much you use your car.
The tax that does that is fuel tax. But can you see people being happy with fuel tax being put up even higher and Road Tax abolished?

Originally posted by Yodameister
Slightly off topic, but on the car tax point.
People often complain it is unfair because it doesn't discriminate on how much you use your car.
The tax that does that is fuel tax. But can you see people being happy with fuel tax being put up even higher and Road Tax abolished?

There was a thread a while ago about that.. and I said on that thread that I would rather pay higher fuel tax instead of Road Tax. It would make the system fairer.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Slightly off topic, but on the car tax point.
People often complain it is unfair because it doesn't discriminate on how much you use your car.
The tax that does that is fuel tax. But can you see people being happy with fuel tax being put up even higher and Road Tax abolished?

I would agree with that.

I have a 2 litre car and so will soon be paying the higher rate, I believe - or am I wrong in thinking that there's a thought about grading car tax to suit the car engine size / age?

I think a little joined up thinking would be good - there's a significant disconnect at the moment between Tax, MOT and insurance and I'd be happier to see a system whereby the car Tax and MOT are combined and you get a combined docket / badge when you pass the MOT or buy a new car. You then take that along to get your insurance renewed. Then significantly reduce or abolish the Car Tax and reduce the insurance premium that you pay. Then increase the petrol duty to include an element for Car Tax AND an element for insurance. I know it sounds messy but it would allow a move to a more accurate pricing of car journeys. At the moment there's such a loaded cost to pay without driving anywhere that drivers are encouraged to make use of their cars on journeys that might be otherwise better done with public transport.

I think that's sort of clear....:)

Joe

i know we've drifted so far off topic that we can't even see it anymore, but re:car tax... You'll find that the amount you use your car makes a big difference, you are asked for the mileage that you expect to cover in a year, try getting two quotes otherwise identical and putting 2k or 20k for that distance.