4 ms·

What if you're short? Maybe devote your political activities to pushing for a height tax... http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 http://www.nber.org/papers/w1497

by scarmig 14y ago

What if you're short? Maybe devote your political activities to pushing for a height tax... http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 But yeah, from an economically utilitarian perspective, you could solve this by differentially taxing the attractive.

bherms 14y ago
Harrison Bergeron, anyone?
- scarmig 14y ago
  Great story, everyone should read it: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
  - bherms 14y ago
    Also, film adaptation that was phenomenally well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg
- gwern 14y ago
  Er, no. An economist would be horrified by Harrison Bergeron, as demonstrating the most damaging possible form of egalitarianism and nothing like the grandparent proposal; the point of a height tax is not to make tall people shorter - whatever good or purpose is being fulfilled by tall people is still fulfilled after the tax, and the tax serves the useful function of raising revenue while also not distorting any investments or consumptions or plans.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Exactly. Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.
    - gwern 14y ago
      I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?
      - irishcoffee 14y ago
        Better idea: Lets tax everyone who gives tall people advantages. The tall person didn't choose to be tall. Their parents didn't have a say in the matter either. Shall we tax them for making a tall heir? You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.
        lutusp 14y ago
        With all respect, bad idea. The next logical step would be the ability to choose any arbitrary trait to punish for producing an unfair advantage, like being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances). Abraham Lincoln was both tall and smart -- such a program would have ruined him. :) Also, ideas like this only add to the power of governments. I think most people will argue there should be a limit to governmental power. People differ on what that limit should be, but I think most would agree that taxing height or some other trait goes too far.
        irishcoffee 14y ago
        We are in agreement, that was my whole point. =))
        gwern 14y ago
        > being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances). I disagree, the advantages of being smart appear in an astounding number of contexts, from making a lot more money than everyone else to living longer to having better teeth etc (and yes, most of the many IQ correlations survive after conditioning on the obvious stuff). The real issue here is that intelligence correlates with income to such a degree that progressive income taxation (very common) may already be playing this role.

by scarmig 14y ago

bherms 14y ago

Harrison Bergeron, anyone?

scarmig 14y ago
Great story, everyone should read it: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
- bherms 14y ago
  Also, film adaptation that was phenomenally well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg
gwern 14y ago
Er, no. An economist would be horrified by Harrison Bergeron, as demonstrating the most damaging possible form of egalitarianism and nothing like the grandparent proposal; the point of a height tax is not to make tall people shorter - whatever good or purpose is being fulfilled by tall people is still fulfilled after the tax, and the tax serves the useful function of raising revenue while also not distorting any investments or consumptions or plans.
- scarmig 14y ago
  Exactly. Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.
  - gwern 14y ago
    I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?
    - irishcoffee 14y ago
      Better idea: Lets tax everyone who gives tall people advantages. The tall person didn't choose to be tall. Their parents didn't have a say in the matter either. Shall we tax them for making a tall heir? You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        With all respect, bad idea. The next logical step would be the ability to choose any arbitrary trait to punish for producing an unfair advantage, like being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances). Abraham Lincoln was both tall and smart -- such a program would have ruined him. :) Also, ideas like this only add to the power of governments. I think most people will argue there should be a limit to governmental power. People differ on what that limit should be, but I think most would agree that taxing height or some other trait goes too far.
        irishcoffee 14y ago
        We are in agreement, that was my whole point. =))
        gwern 14y ago
        > being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances). I disagree, the advantages of being smart appear in an astounding number of contexts, from making a lot more money than everyone else to living longer to having better teeth etc (and yes, most of the many IQ correlations survive after conditioning on the obvious stuff). The real issue here is that intelligence correlates with income to such a degree that progressive income taxation (very common) may already be playing this role.