Tax Height?
Two Harvard economists are suggesting that taxes be adjusted based on your height.
In a new paper, N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, while not expressly advocating a new tax system, argue forcefully for different tax rates based on height.
Weinzierl (he’s 6’1”) and Mankiw (6’2”) acknowledge their newly published paper might be seen as “quirky” — but Weinzierl noted it was written for academics to examine the various ways to think about a tax system, one of the goals of which is to “maximize the level of happiness through a redistribution of income.”
“What we’re asking people to do,” Weinzierl said in an interview, “is to think about tax policies. Does government have the right to ask those who have the ability to earn more to pay more?”
According to Weinzierl, taller people already pay higher taxes because they earn more than their shorter friends.
“The idea,” he said, “is that the main framework most economists use is taxes should be based on the ability to pay, but you can’t see who has the ability to pay more.” A proxy would be “to look for the ability to earn” and that’s where height comes in, a physical trait which you can’t change which correlates with earnings.
“If you tax height,” he said, “you can take from those who are more able to pay and give it (through lower taxes or through spending programs) to those who are less able to pay.”
The paper discusses creating a policy which applies principles set forth by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto.“Pareto efficiency” holds that “it is impossible to increase the welfare of one person without decreasing the welfare of another.” That would argue for a redistribution of income along, perhaps, non-traditional lines.
“The job of academics,” Weinzierl said, “is to raise questions that may not be comfortable.”
Over at TheAtlantic.com Business blog, Conor Clarke ponders the question about taxing tall people.
The answer, of course, is that a tax on tall people seems like a pretty horrible thing to have. (Kurt Vonngeut’s “Harrison Bergeron” handled this back in 1961.) And, indeed, the point of the paper is to tease out that moral intuition. As Mankiw and Weinzierl write: “This paper can be interpreted in two ways. Some readers can take it as a small, quirky contribution aimed to clarify the literature on optimal income taxation. Others can take it as a broader effort to challenge that entire literature.” Yeah, right. It’s very kind of them to offer a choice, but I have the funny feeling they’re hoping for something more than a “small, quirky” interpretation of their work.
There is no worse time to suggest new ways to increase taxes than right now…not because of the state of the economy, but because the Democrats have control over Washington, and for us in the Commonwealth, well, you know what’s going on here.
Why not tax based on shoe size? You know what they say about big feet…
Maybe they should tax bra size? You know well endowed women get more opportunity than those who aren’t.
How about hair color? Eye color? Skin color? Sound a little silly–that’s because it is.
I hope Governor Patrick doesn’t get wind of this cockamamie idea.
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
Aaron Margolis is a life long resident of the Bay State, and works at an architectural firm north of Boston. Aaron has a Master of Architecture Degree from Boston Architectural College and is currently in the process of becoming of a Registered Architect.
This is freaking hilarious. At 6′1″, I would pay slightly more than the average man. Which makes me wonder: since men are generally taller than women, is this just some backhanded ploy to tax males more than members of the fair sex?
quots of health care on line goldenrule medical in boulder co…
rationalized.Packard thus.straiten ordinarily fountains …