Men may feel they’re taking a boot to the groin, but it could be a great way to kick-start the economy.
In numerous scrotums across America, the juices of a crime are already percolating, while some lie placid, with the potential urge to rise when we least expect it. The exact nature of this growing menace comes into focus when we consider the archive of expert findings that detail drastic differences between the number of crimes perpetrated by those who possess balls compared to ovary owners.
According to 2010 data released by the FBI, a whopping 74.5% of arrestees are male. However, if we account for the percentage of crimes that have escaped the eye of our criminal justice system, the figure is likely higher, certainly by, at a minimum .05% more, raising the arrestee rate to 75%. Coincidentally, on the job force, women make an average of 75 cents to every male dollar.
MEN commit 75% of the crime
WOMEN earn 75% on the dollar
The stats above either indicate women need to commit more crimes, or men should pay more money for theirs. A female crime spree is clearly not the answer. However, a 25% tax hike on males could be easily implemented to cover this margin of injustice.
In addition to individual males, corporations will also receive the same across-the-board, genital-based taxation. Throughout history, an overwhelming majority of corporations have been created and run, solely by men. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to enact the 25% increase on corporations due to gonads, and based on the government’s Corporate Personhood Law. Corporations = Male People.
Corporate personhood is the status conferred upon corporations under the law, which allows corporations to have rights and responsibilities similar to those of a natural person.
Regardless of its controversial nature, a host of experts agree on the merits of revamping what they consider to be biased tax codes.
Bearer of testicles and Ph.D. from M.I.T., Andrea Ichino, has gone on the record to combat the outcry of critics claiming gender-based tax reform is nothing more than nuts. Ichino responds to the naysayers, “[…] This “crazy” idea is actually surprisingly sensible, the more so, the more one thinks about it without prejudice.”
His sentiments are seconded by fellow testosterone producer Alberto Alesina, a professor of political economy at Harvard University, who wholeheartedly supports increasing male taxation. Professor Alesina states, “There is nothing more hypocritical than to invoke equal treatment in some areas (taxation) for those who are not treated equally in many other areas.”
Meanwhile, scrotum possessor Gary North, an economist and historian sees things differently, “Socialism is simply Communism for people without the testosterone to man the barricades.”
Mr. North’s aggressiveness may indicate his adrenal glands are secreting a dangerous level of testosterone. If left untreated, his testicles could rupture.
Frankly, a civil way to battle the opposition of testicular tax reform is to simply list the major positives and minor negatives expected to come from the 25% increase:
- Corporate misconduct and the male perpetrators will finally be held financially accountable. Millions, if not billions, will be channeled back into the economy.
- Additional revenues raised will strengthen the core of our families via less tax on mothers (and all women), which in turn will be spent within the community, helping to create more local jobs.
- Fresh funding to our states will restore the education budget as well as increase the viability and functionality of currently crippled, social programs.
- You, or a very nice guy you know, will get stuck with higher taxes. But a genuinely nice guy won’t mind.
Now that you have seen the stats, and quotes, combined with both the positives and negatives of instituting a male-based tax, would you say you are for, or against, the Testosterone Tax? The ball’s in your court now.