Harvard economist Greg Mankiw and graduate student Matthew Weinzierl have proposed taxing tall people at a higher rate than short people. Their argument is twofold. First, height correlates with income, so tall people have more money, which means that a tall tax will bring in more revenue. Second, people can't change their height, so taxing tall people doesn't create economic distortions, as opposed to taxing the industrious, which discourages them from working so hard.
Do Mankiw and Weinzierl actually endorse such a system? Far from it. Rather, they argue, the proposed tax clarifies our thinking about taxation in general. They say that height is a “justly acquired endowment”: it is not unfairly wrested from anyone else, so the state has no right to seize its fruits. By the same logic, they imply (though they do not state outright) that the government has no right to force someone with the “justly acquired endowment” of entrepreneurial genius to pay a higher tax rate.
I think Mankiw and Weinzierl are missing the best argument for the tall tax, namely "What about the CHILDREN?" Children are short! Especially young children. The tall tax is good for children, and good for America. All we need is a Presidential candidate to champion the tall tax. Are you listening, Dennis Kucinich?
2 comments:
So, politicians under a certain height would have to recuse themselves from voting for new taxes.
The whole point of taxes is to hire someone else to do stuff most people don't want to or can't do themselves. Or for their perceived advantage, like the interstate highway system did for car owners. So, tall people could perhaps be persuaded to pay taxes to make all doorways taller.
As far as taxing those with some particular talent for creating cash flow being equivalent to taxing someone for being tall, taxes and wealth use the same coin. So it seems apples and oranges to me.
It also doesn't make any sense to tax people who don't have cash.
People who don't have a certain personality don't prosper because they don't have the kind of currency needed in a society defined by markets; however, they may have the kind of currency that is always currently kind.
You can't pay hired help enough to do as good a job as a volunteer will do for free. This includes parenting and most of the other essential tasks of keeping an orderly society on track.
CET
I guess taxing tall people's incomes at a higher rate is better than just cutting them down to size.
As I recall, the French tried the latter during the Terror, and found it pretty messy.
Post a Comment