Last Friday, Mike Buchanan uploaded 2014/15 – the income tax gender gap increased AGAIN… to £75.5 BILLION and showed that for the year 2014/15, men as a UK demographic paid £75.5 billion more in income tax than women. He also pointed that 17.6 million men paid £121.0 billion, an average of £6,875 per person per annum, and 13.1 million women paid £45.5 billion, an average of £3,473 which is just over half (50.5 per cent) that paid by male taxpayers. While this fact is well known to us, it is little spoken of in the Mainstream Media, simply because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

We always hear feminists, lefties and anyone whose grasp of economics is limited to £5 of pocket money a week, harping on about this misogynistic pay gap, claiming “women can expect to earn significantly less than men over their entire careers as a result of differences in caring responsibilities, clustering in low skilled and low paid work, the qualifications and skills women acquire, and outright discrimination”. But, they never seem to mention that if women started to earn as much as men, then they would start paying as much tax as men. Hey, I wonder, can we make an Equal Tax Day, to run opposing their Equal Pay Day!?

It’s really simple why women earn less per annum than men (and thus, why men pay more income tax); it’s because men work more. Yes, truly shocking! Those who work more, earn more! Don’t tell the feminists, I fear the shock of the epiphany might just kill them! Let’s analyse the data a little more:

Hours Worked and Workers Working Them

Data ran for ages 16+. Data ran for period of Nov – Jan (2016/17).


Men                      623.2million (Hours); 16.9million (Workers); 36.9 (Hours a week)

Women                405.8million (Hours); 14.9million (Workers); 27.2 (Hours a week)

(The source for hours worked came from here and the source for number of workers is here. My numbers for total workers are different from Mike’s as his data is done per annum whereas the data I have used is by quarter and I have used data from Nov – Jan 16/17 and his uses all year of 2014/15.)

While there are slightly more men at work than women, the real difference is in hours per week, with men working 1.4 times as many hours – women work 73.7 per cent the number of hours that men do. Also, the Women in the Labour Market 2013 Report shows that 42 per cent of female workers work part time compared to a mere 12 per cent of male workers. If feminists really want women to earn as much as men they need to expect women to work as much as men.

But, there’s a reason so many women are opting for part-time work. It’s not because of patriarchy; it’s not systemic oppression. No, it’s because part-time work is more flexible, allows women to maintain a more equal work-life and home-life balance and, most of all, it’s what women want.

A few days ago, I wrote saying that belief in the pay gap (and patriarchy) requires an external locus of control. To couple with that, I would like to add that understanding the earnings gap requires an internal locus of control. I understand that women work less hours not because of sex-based subjugation but because that is what they choose.

As Geoff Dench comments, drawing upon data from the annual survey of British Social Attitudes, “there is a strong and reviving recognition of the value and appeal of the housewife role; and mothers who are able to spend at least part of their day looking after the home and children are more content with their lives than those who work fulltime … private realm concerns are in fact much more powerful among contemporary women than policymakers and their key advisers appear to understand”. Women, as adults, are more than willing to work but, will do limited hours so that they can spend more time at home with their family. Who would have known that, aside from all of humanity for hundreds of years!?

Feminism claims it is about giving women choice yet, it wants women to make the right choice. Feminism is always banging on about more women in the workplace, more women on corporate boards, but its cheerleaders ignore the impact this is happening. Dubbed The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, women’s happiness levels over the past four decades have decreased both absolutely and relatively to men’s. In fact, men’s happiness levels have gone up. It seems the feminist campaign is having a negative effect.

Men earn more and thus pay more tax because they spend more time at work. Women earn less and thus pay less tax because they spend more time with the family. The past half century of feminist influence combatting this has had little effect. Men still spend more time at work and women still spend more time at home. The only real impact is that women are now more miserable. Well done feminism, good job on representing women. Now, let us social conservatives clean up this mess you have left us.

(Image: Images Money)


  1. Women rearing children are bound to add to the difference in tax levels for a variety of reasons. What I struggled to comprehend was the antics of WASPI and the level of support they received from MPs. I would have thought that with 5 years more earning potential they would have been chuffed to do so. Unlike your 60 something male, a 60 something female has better employment prospects since the public sector is biased in recruiting them. Then I could factor in the life expectancy gap, not that we would hear feminists worrying themselves about that.

    • > Then I could factor in the life expectancy gap, not that we would hear feminists worrying themselves about that.

      It’s always “biology” when it favours women: life expectancy, “girls maturing faster” in school (hence better grades), prison population being mostly male (“men are more violent by nature, hence overrepresented” – well, why don’t you use this one when talking about blacks vs whites in prison?).

      It’s always “systematic oppression” when it favours men: boardrooms, income disparity, top jobs in hot sectors, sport etc.

      Because “gender equality” is just a teflon shield to protect feminists from rational critic, that’s it. It’s not even about sex supremacy (feminists don’t care about women in general – see the way they treat conservative ones), it’s about protecting their cult of molding a new gender (to replace “traditional woman”) from female sex.

      Don’t waste your time to actually listen to their arguments. There are just wrappers around a simple message: “I need your resources”.

  2. Another thing that rubs salt in is that the majority of the taxes contributed by men gets spent on women’s wants and needs, like the horribly lop-sided spending on gendered healthcare, and much more besides. For us bloke’s it’s a double-whammy – but you never hear anything about this from feminists or any of their domesticated media.

  3. In balance, apart from the feminist rabble, I don’t hear any loud complaining voices from the majority of women in society. Certainly among my circle of friends there are no complaining voices but then again, the women are all very capable people who are successful in their own right and are happy with what they have achieved.

  4. PEOPLE who work 44 hours per week are paid DOUBLE what people who work 34 hours per week – employers rewarding committment.
    Another thing – the commute gap – men spend longer commuting than women – more prepared to do whatever it takes to earn the money – more commitment which is rewarded.

  5. There’s one thing missing from the article. Men work 60% of all hours, yet provide 75% of income tax. So it’s not about the hours alone.

    UK have a progressive taxation with personal allowance. Which means that income tax is mostly collected from high-income individuals. High-income men (but not women, as they tend not to marry down, and often divorce when start to outperform their husbands economically) can allow for traditional “breadwinner/housewife” families, hence skewing the stats in this – most important from fiscal viewpoint – strata heavily towards men.

    Surprisingly, 70/30 ratio of men’s/women’s contribution toward family welfare is very stable, and was so for centuries.

    • If women would be paid less than men for doing THE SAME job, then employers would hire just only women. That’s why the idea that women are paid less for doing THE SAME job is reality-fled.
      Women pay less taxes because much more women than men work part time, women work in less dangerous jobs (92% deaths in the workplace are men), women have maternity paid leave and use more unpaid leave, and so on.
      Don’t you think that’s weird that none link 92% deaths in the workplace being men with the earnings gap?
      Labour female MPs care about working class men who die in the workplace?

      No, they don’t: Jesse Phillips laughed about male suicides and deaths in the workplace.

  6. Yes, Part Time work is what women want. My business employs women on a part time basis because that is exactly what they want. If you look, most bank branches function on part time women. (That sounds confusing – but you know what I mean…)

  7. The more extreme forms of feminism (e.g. “liberal elite” trolling under a succession of pseudonyms) is simpy misandry dressed up as grievance and moral righteousness. Male politicians, with one or two honourable exceptions, surrender to this crap and thereby allow it to become mainstream with all its exaggerations, misrepresentations, emoting tripe and downright lies.

    Elevating rights on the basis of gender but declaring equality is a nonsense, like the ridiculously named “Women and Equalities Committee”. The double standards are at work everywhere based on the invention of an oppression that does not really exist. Too many women MPs are activists seeking special treatment and privileges for women when they should be representing ALL their constituents.

    Of course this constant warring and jealousy of identity groups feeds straight into the leftist agenda of creating division and strife in order to exploit it.

    • > Male politicians, with one or two honourable exceptions, surrender to this crap

      What did you expect from them? To publicly oppose women? That’d be an electoral suicide, both with male and female voters.

      In West, public interaction between men and women is always a one-sided contest. The only way to effectively oppose feminism by political means is through recruiting conservative women to the cause. But for some reason they’re not in a rush to do that.

        • Phillip Davies is a mirror copy of a feminist. It takes some courage, true. But really: is the only problem you have with the idea of gender equality of outcomes is that it’s not true enough equality? The “equality of outcomes” bit is fine with you? The notion of men and women being generally interchangeable?

          • Interchangeable? Don’t think so. But when politicians prattle about equality they should at least understand what the word means.

          • So you do not really want feminist-style “gender equality”, yet you do want for politicians to fight it on behalf of men?

            Are you a conservative, who dismisses the idea of sex interchangeabilty, or a progressive, who’s not happy with the current implementation?

          • I think that, when the birth rate ‘equalizes enough to make it unequal’: the theocrats and their henchmen who are of the creed of the crescent – will have something to say on that.

  8. The only way to level the playfield is men working less and supporting just only themselves.

    • Should we learn to get pregnant and bring our pregnancies to the term as well, or should women opt out from that?

      • The priority isn’t the perpetuation of native population: the priority is same average earnings for men and women. Just check newspapers, the academia, and politicians: the priority is levelling average earnings of men and woman. So talking about pregnancies is silly.

          • So is, not my choice, I’m just being realistic.
            This thing isn’t going to pass until certain numbers will be equal. Whatever might be the cost.

          • Do you really will avoid having little copies of yourself because some old geezer in Uni told you that you shouldn’t? Realistically? “It’s not fair, so I’d rather commit genetic suicide”?

            Let’s bitter and sad people be bitter and sad.

          • I’m actually almost 44 and I have 4 children from 3 different women.
            I’m just saying it as a general rule, I hope my son will never marry and will still have children: since I divorced I’m a much better father for him than when I was married.

  9. I think even this figure is wrong. Many SMEs have the wife on the payroll whilst not a lot of work actually gets done by the said female

    • I missed a trick vocationally speaking. The company secretary I know has such a hetic life. When she is not dropping off or picking the kids up from private school, she is out horse riding. When not doing that she is taking clothes to the laundrette. Not to sit and watch the machines going round in circles like an upmarket BBC production. But to drop off for full laundry wash and iron service. When not doing that she is skiing in the alps or some such thing.
      Still, hubby makes his own cash and why not. I will continue to look out for a company secretary role to match my expectations.

  10. I find that a lot of studies on the pay gap often have to acknowledge that the main reasons for it are based on child-rearing and part time work. In other words, not sexism.

    • The problem is that in feminists’ vision women’s choices aren’t real choices because the patriarchy.
      That’s why I support quota for women in corporate boards and in the parliament: with roughly an half of women in such institutions then feminists will continue allege patriarchy, it’ll be funny.

  11. It’s no surprise than men pay more tax than women.

    Due to the gender pay gap, men earn more than women for the same work and therefore have more income to pay tax on.

    It’s not difficult.

    Moreover, societal pressures such as the assumption than women are better caregivers (which is part of patriarchy) impels women rather than men to stay at home to look after their children. Thus women are forced to sacrifice our careers in favour of our male partners’.

  12. “Dubbed The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, women’s happiness levels over the past four decades have decreased both absolutely and relatively to men’s.”

    Modern feminism as a twin sister of socialism cannot help but spread poverty and unhappiness wherever it gains a foothold.

    “…the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries” – Winston Churchill

  13. Yes indeed, and here we see why all the major Parties in Parliament support the feminist line – it’s because they have their eyes on how much more tax they could squeeze out of women if only they could be tricked into working as many hours as men. Also, think of the GDP, my dears! Hmm….how do you con women into working more hours? No one wants to work more hours. Ah! I have it! Sell them the pay gap myth – tell them they are the victims of discrimination. Get their dander up. And tell them that a full time career is their best option in life and that the nasty menz have been keeping them from this ultimate fulfilling experience for centuries. That’ll do it. And how convenient that there happens to be a ready made ideology pushing that line already – and it was the wimmins themselves wot did it! What a hoot! Useful idiots? You bet.

    • State-provided childcare from first month. Was a thing in Soviet Russia. You push all women in employment – while institutionslising the kids, to make Good Taxpaying Citizens out of them. Double win for the state.

        • You can’t defeat the human nature. Determinism is a lie. People have free will. Environment is not everything. Culture developed around biology is not a social construct. Social engineering does not work in the long run. Every good intentioned change have nastiest side effects when it comes to messing with society.

          Russians learned this the hard way. NW Europeans did not – yet.

  14. Great article, shows the utter madness of the ‘pay gap’ argument.
    I could never have progressed in my career as well as I did without my wife’s support. She did 90% of the childcare and house keeping. We have always had a joint account. Everything that was done was done as a team.
    What is always missed from women’s ‘earnings’ is this scenario. My name may have been on the packet but we both earned it.
    But then society now assigns little value to my wife. (But I do great deal)

    • And of course you were being “oppressive” as you earned and “remote” from your children because you spent time at work (oddly women at work aren’t remote from children, strange that). The good thing about this article is it takes the materialist feminist argument to its logical conclusion.
      Of course in the real world society has (and is ) a more complex relationship between sexes, generations, morality and material wellbeing. A complex set of relationships denied by ideologues stock in juvenile simplicities.

      • you, me, Chairman Mao, Angela Merkl and Jean Claude Drunckard cannot homogenize human nature nor human beings, similarly it is way past impossible to make men and women ‘equal’ physiologically speaking. Um, it is, a Venus and Mars thing, always has been – post modern political idiocies will fade out, as are the femistasi, they won so they’re pulling each other’s hair out coz there’s no one else to hate and fight.

        Kinnel, you have to laugh, else you’d weep at the insanity, the forlorn, vacuous stupidity of it all.

  15. The really interesting part of this analysis is that it is almost exactly mirrored by Sweden. In theory a higher percentage of the female workforce is full time. However all the additional time off allowed for “family” means that in fact Swedish women work a similar average hours as Uk women. Unsurprisingly the “pay gap” is very similar. Italy and Poland lead the way with tiny “gaps” but have little official p/t work nor “family friendly” hours.

  16. I would like to see the figures for the burden each sex places on the Welfare State, I assume women consume more in Welfare than men.

    • Women consume about the same amount of resources (ratio) they always did – it’s just before they had to get them from committed men. Now, when this option is no longer as available as it used to be, they either have to avoid giving birth (the reason behind the need for extra resources), or have to rely on the state to replace men as the provider (hence state spending favours women).

      You can’t run from this unless most of us will stop having children, or society finds a way to automate procreational labour done by women.

        • For that to happen, there should be partners. See the marriage stats. Listen to women complaining about men being afraid of commitment.

          Men , on our part, will provide you with an endless list of all-too-valid excuses why we’re not starting families in our early 20s. But, well, we are where we are, and it doesn’t seem to change for the better until men will take the lead and will stand their (our) ground, no matter how big reputational damage is.

  17. “Feminism claims it is about giving women choice yet, it wants women to make the right choice.”

    The inference being that the only choice that is allowed is the one that is that of the more militant element. Our way or the highway…

Comments are closed.