4 ms·
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here: couldn't you argue that whatever you did to win a Nobel prize is already (supposedly) a significant contribution to
by galaktor 13y ago
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here: couldn't you argue that whatever you did to win a Nobel prize is already (supposedly) a significant contribution to society, making additional contribution via taxes unnecessary (or, in fact, discouraging); as opposed to, say, winning the lottery.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoI hope I'm making a significant contribution to society with my job. Where's my tax break?
- roel_v 13y agoSure, but why isn't, e.g., being a teacher not a significant contribution? Or, for the sake of this argument, being the founder of a wildly successful company that employs thousands of people? Look, I'm against taxes as much (and probably even more) than the next guy, but making exemptions for prizes is plain irrational.
- LanceH 13y agoYea, it would be awesome to give the government another vector to pick winners and losers based on "contribution to society". I'm certainly not for more taxes, but I'm definitely not for more tax rules and exemptions.
- icebraining 13y agoThere is already a tax rule just for those prices, that "picks winners and losers"; it would be a matter of removing conditions from that rule (that the prize must be donated), not adding another.