AUSSIES PUNISHED FOR BEING SINGLE>Being single comes with a "premium" in Australia, leaving those not in a relationship thousands of dollars worse off, financial experts say.>The average Australian with a partner has savings of $50,192, whereas a single person has $30,932 — a gap of $19,260, according to Finder, a financial comparison site.>This is related to what experts describe as a type of tax, only on single people.
>>533497291Like most Australians, you're nothing more than a castrated, self-hating, ALP-voting anti-white cuck who kisses the feet of boongs, spreads his cheeks for immigrants and supported the singing of Welcome to Country on Anzac Day. Go fuck yourself asshole, then go fuck yourself more, you vile kike piece of shit.
There already is a singles tax. Everything is cheaper if you can share it with another person and pool your resources.
>>533497291America already has this it's just not called a single tax.Married filing jointly typically reduces your taxes vs single filer.Also if you have kids, you get huge tax credits.
>>533497291there were experiments like that in antiquity, where only married men over a certain age were allowed to participate in politics at all. only those who had skin in the game ie children could steer the decisions of a nation instead of those who would die & had only themselves to answer for.
would gladly pay $20k aud to not be harassed by disgusting women.
>>533497291five eyes are grasping at straws lmaogood riddance, fucking sod off
>>533497291What about the expensive GF tax?
>>533497291suck my BITCH ASS LITTLE DICK you fuckin FAGGOT NIGGER motherFUCKERS!! FUCK you.
>>533497291Fuck the yolo solos. What do they need more money for anyways? I thought they were already living their best lives.
>>533497291The decline of men approaching women functions like a political shock even when nobody frames it that way.It reshapes family formation. Fewer approaches mean fewer relationships, later marriages, lower birth rates, and accelerating demographic decline. That feeds directly into labor shortages, pension stress, immigration politics, and generational conflict. Governments can pass incentives but they cannot legislate attraction or courage.Second, it polarizes gender politics. Many women interpret non-approach as disinterest or resentment while many men experience it as rational risk avoidance shaped by social sanction, economic precarity, and fear of misreading norms. Each side builds narratives about the other and political movements harvest those grievances.Third, it weakens informal social trust. Approaching a stranger used to be a low-level civic act that trained people to tolerate rejection, ambiguity, and difference. When that disappears, people retreat into apps, algorithms, and identity-filtered spaces which harden group boundaries and reduce empathy.Fourth, it shifts power to platforms and institutions. Dating apps, HR departments, and legal frameworks mediate intimacy that used to be negotiated face to face. That concentrates cultural authority in systems optimized for liability management and profit, not human bonding.Finally, it produces downstream radicalization. Large populations of unattached men historically correlate with instability, withdrawal, or extremist politics. Most do not become violent but many disengage from civic life, work, and optimism itself which is politically corrosive.
>>533497291Australia never fails to impress me with their dog shit hypocrisy as they lecture others on morality but turn around and dive right in to the very tyranny they criticize.
Bachelor taxes as it turns out, actually contribute to fertility declinefertility is highly correlated with male wealth, the wealthier the average man is, the higher the fertility rate. We've had multiple studies all showing the same thing:If you give men and women a lot of money (for example lottery winners) then:Unmarried women put off marriage longer and have fewer children, married women get divorcesUnmarried men immediately get married and start families, nothing changes for married menThe key to increasing fertility rates is to remove women from the workforce and pay men moreEverything else, all these subsidies and so on for families that always just give women money, are total bullshit.You cannot increase fertility rates by taxing men or giving money to womenBut if you give money to men, the fertility rate goes upThis is anathema to our man-hating society.
>>533500227CityCrusher is that you?
>>533498398Same is true if you have a roommate or live with family. No need for genitals to become involved just to save money on habitat expenses.
I’M GAY AND FAT
>>533497291Having a girlfriend costs you way more money than what you save
>>533497291>>533499803>>533500754The amount of garbage you have to buy for them when you have gf/wife; product-taxing you to the hell.
>>533497306Based>>533498398This. And it's not a tax per se, this is media being clickbaity. I'd rather die than having to share a bed.
>>533497291That's very misogynist law.
>>533498496LOL!We both know that women don’t interact with you as it is
>>533498472that picrel. does that X poster not know of the end justify the means? all the damage she caused, before she dies that way
>>533497291You didnt say what the tax was you fucking retarded piece of garbage
>>533497291After divorce or common law marriage break up it's still cheaper to be single overall, and that's not accounting for the expenses of just dating in general, so I hope nobody is dumb enough to get into a relationship because they can't think long term.
>>533497291 we have discussed it in many threads, this is because men refuse to spend money on women, they rather be single, this pushes women to poligamy snd sharing menthe outcome of such action in progresive country will always be as folow:men making gay " relationship " aka pretending to avoid tax and women ending up in monogamus relationships or pretending to be lesbianseven if you tax the fags (witch we all know would not happen, instead they would be proud about new fags % statistic) men and women would "marry" or make some relationship agreement with non wealth share agreement
Why wouldn't 2 people have double the savings?
>>533498398that isn't a tax, that is a cost or premium to being single. you misunderstand what a tax is, which is very common in americans.
>>533497291A state in Australia has a minister for badly behaved men and boys, to crack down on mysogny.Imagine even proposing the equivalent for women
>>533497291Kek even government realized it untaxed luxury lifrstyle
>>533501904It's not getting tax breaks
>>533504935Tax breaks like what? If I list my gf on tax we will lose money
>>533502777This is one of the most retarded genx copes anyone has ever said.
>>533505018You (and me) pay extra taxes, we get a lot less out of what we pay in. If we had kids we'd be getting tax credits back, quite good ones, several hundred dollars a week perhaps. So in effect, not having kids means we pay an extra tax. They don't label it singles tax or whatever because they don't want people setting up gallows outside parliament, they just easily fool is instead
