(Original post by conquer)
I don't understand people who claim to want equality, yet they either want an extreme form of equality or want to pick and choose where they want equality. They criticise many people for endorsing some form of inequality in one area, yet they practise or fail to condemn other forms of inequality in another area.
For example, let's examine a lot of modern feminists. They claim to want equality between men and women, when in reality, they generally only want equality where it suits women. If a man says or does something that they view as sexism against women, they're quick to condemn him and label as a "CHAVANIZTIC PEEG!11!!!" Numerous feminists have time to go on a protest just because of a quote from a police officer likely taken out of context. Yet I haven't heard of any protests from feminists against: female tennis players being paid the same as men for doing less work; more money being devoted towards breast cancer than prostate cancer; the EU idiots backing quotas for women to get into company boardrooms
; all women shortlists in politics. How many protests have been made for men to have the right to abort their fatherhood by not having to pay child support? Where are the feminists insulting those tennis organizations, the EU fools and sects of the government as "chauvanistic pigs", eh? Oh no. They generally keep quiet and don't devote the same amount of effort to fight for men's equality as they di for women's equality. You see what I mean? Modern feminists generally want equality where it suits women and in some cases, support inequality against men. Yet they have to audacity to insult some men who happen to endorse the slightest of inequality against women.
Another example of the equality hypocrites are those that support progressive tax. If you ask many of these people if they support equal opportunities and treatment for human beings regardless of gender and race, they will eagerly say "Yes". Yet ask them whether human beings should be subjected to the same percentage of tax regardless of their income, all of a sudden, there's a problem. I personally don't understand how people can see it as fair for someone to have to pay a higher percentage of tax just because they earn more. Men and women have their differences. Yet not many people would dare to support men getting preferential treatment or access to certain jobs while women get the same for other jobs. Why? Because regardless of whatever differences men or women may have generally, they're still human beings and individuals. Hence they should both have equal opportunities and treatment to enter whatever career path they choose. Likewise, regardless of someone's income, they're still human beings nonetheless and should be treated equally, meaning that they pay the same percentage tax as each other. The rich will still pay more money anyway. Why should the rich get worse treatment than the "poor"? Ask yourself what makes men superior to women that they should get better treatment or opportunities? What makes poor people superior to the rich that they should get preferential treatment in terms of taxes? Just because the rich can afford to have more money taken away from them doesn't make it fair in terms of equal treatment.
So how is it feminists and progressive tax supporters? Do you only want equality where it suits you or your feelings against men or rich people? Does your hate for men or rich people permit you to endorse the very thing (inequality) you claim to be against?
But I think it's worth considering another reason why some progressive tax supporters support inequality against the rich. Like many of them will say, they support progressive tax because the rich can afford to pay more money into the system. But why is it necessary for them to have to put more money into the system? Because of the economic system that we have which has a public sector of a large and unsustainable size. They gladly support a large public sector and a smaller or non-existant private sector, not realising that they're shooting themselves in the foot because the public sector don't generate "real" wealth hence why it requires a lot of borrowing to sustain it. It also requires a lot of taxes, creating an overall high taxation system that only contributes to more suffering for the general population. And hence they're willing to punish the rich to generate as much funds as possible to keep up their unsustainable public sector.
For this reason, I think many people in this country need to reconsider their stance in economics & politics and determine whether their "good" policies end up doing more harm than good. For the UK to get their economy back on the rise, the gov't find measures of supporting the growth of the private sector, while reducing the size of the public sector. It needs to reduce unproductive/silly legislations, bureaucracies and benefits which stagnate and drain our economy overall, rather than helping it progress. Basically the UK needs to get closer to classical liberalism, except we'll still have some benefits/welfare system to support those in need. This will mean that less money will need to taken away from the general population through taxes and therefore, a flat taxation system will be sufficient to generate the money needed by the gov't.
But the main point of this thread is to expose the contradictory and hypocritical nature of many feminists and progressive tax supporters. Sorry for the long read but I hope it was worth it in the end.
Thanks for reading.