Man Tax

Opinions are a lot like noses. Almost everyone has at least one, and some smell a lot better than others. Since we live in a world of great diversity, and since I write a weekly humor column, which contains my opinion, I often hear from people who disagree with me. These people are wrong.

Well, I think they’re wrong, otherwise I’d agree with them. But since this is still, for the time being, America (land of the government regulated, home of the entitled), everyone is still free to voice an opinion—even if it’s wrong. You don’t have to agree with me, but bear in mind that my opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I’m right.

Which leads us to today’s topic: Thompson Chemists, a pharmacy in SoHo, New York City. Thompson Chemists has, under the authority of its esteemed owner, one Jolie Alony, decided to take the heretofore unprecedented step of taxing men. Oh, plenty have discussed it, and advocated it, and petitioned for it, but Ms. Alony, has done it. The store charges men an extra seven percent tax, while levying no tax at all on purchases made by women. It’s revolutionary! And if you’re a long-time reader of this column, you know I never use exclamation points.

Ms. Alony’s stated reasons for the Man Tax, as stated in several articles about it, are that it ‘helps level a playing field that is tilted against women.’ She also wanted to make ‘a political statement in support of women generally, and the Democratic Party in particular.’ Okey doke.

She went on to say, “We thought it’d be a great idea with all the political things going on – with Clinton being such a woman and the other guy and his womanizing.”

Now, I applaud Ms. Alony’s right to make a political statement, but I’m vague on what she meant by ‘Clinton being such a woman.’ Does that imply that some women are not as womany as Clinton? No idea. I guess so, considering the gender debates going on these days. And, no, I will not discuss those here, either.

Obviously, it would be less than convenient for me to patronize Thompson Chemists, since the store is in New York and I live in the United States, but if I did live nearby, I would certainly give her all my business. Of course, I would send my wife in, and hide around the corner because tax-free is tax-free, regardless of the reasons behind it. Saving money on my nasal spray and Band-Aids might not make America great again, but it would sure make my bank account less dismal again. Or, for the first time.

So, I’m all for the Man Tax, but I do have a few questions for Ms. Alony. These days there are people who were born one gender, but choose to identify with the other gender. If I were to go into Thompson Chemists and buy a toothbrush, I wonder if I could claim I was really a woman, and get the toothbrush tax-free. Or, if I were a woman who identified as a man, I wonder if I would be charged the extra seven percent. Plus, I’m not too good at math, so I’d never know, either way. This is all so confusing. But revolutionary!

There is also the issue of fairness from my point of view, which might not be Ms. Alony’s point of view, but it matters, anyway. From my perspective, if there should be a Man Tax for gender inequality, there should also be a Woman Tax. Equality works both ways. I think.

My plan would be for women to pay an extra tax on shoes, because of the strain women foist on the footwear industry. Women generally buy a lot more shoes than men, but I’d set the tax pretty low, say one percent.

I would also charge a Woman Tax on Bathroom Counter Space. Women use a lot more of that than men, and fair is fair. I would also charge a one percent Woman Tax for Talking During A Football Game On Television, which causes undue strain in many marriages. Commercial time would be tax-free, but bowl games and playoff games would carry an extra three percent tax for talking during regulation play. Overtime minutes would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

But my opus would be the Time Tax. On average, during a typical marriage, husbands end up waiting on their wives an average of 83.7 years, according to statistics I just made up. Time is obviously tilted in women’s favor, here. Men sitting in the car at Walmart or H-E-B would incur a one percent tax per hour, and if the husband had to spend the time in a mall or department store, it would be three percent. Inside women’s clothing stores the tax would be ten percent per hour, while helping the woman pick out clothes would bump it up to fifteen percent.

I’m sure I could come up with some more stuff to tax women for, but I’m thinking I’m already going to end up paying my wife a Meal Tax several times a day. And if she finds out I’m the one who pulled the fuse out of her hair dryer, I’ll probably end up paying a Knot-On-The-Head Tax . . .

Kendal Hemphill is an outdoor humor columnist and public speaker who knows you’re not happy with him, so you don’t have to write to him at [email protected].