Should tall people pay a height tax?
Wed, 2007-12-12 15:10
#1
Should tall people pay a height tax?
Wed, 2007-12-12 15:10
#2
Greg Mankiw and a graduate student have a paper ([url=http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/Optimal_Taxation_o... pdf[/url]) that says that if you take the standard arguments for redistributive tax policy seriously, then the answer is yes. Here is the abstract:
quote:
Should the income tax system include a tax credit for short taxpayers and a tax surcharge for tall ones? This paper shows that the standard Utilitarian framework for tax policy analysis answers this question in the affirmative. Moreover, based on the empirical distribution of height and wages, the optimal height tax is substantial: a tall person earning $50,000 should pay about $4,500 more in taxes than a short person earning the same income. This result has two possible interpretations. One interpretation is that individual attributes correlated with wages, such as height, should be considered more widely for determining tax liabilities. Alternatively, if policies such as a tax on height are rejected, then the standard Utilitarian framework must in some way fail to capture our intuitive notions of distributive justice.
The reasoning goes like this. If you believe that
a) People should not benefit from unearned characteristics,
b) People should not be penalised for working hard, and that
c) Tall people earn systematically more than short people (and the evidence is pretty strong),
then you'd conclude that tall people should pay a height tax.
In case you're wondering "Why not just have a progressive income tax and leave it at that?", remember point b): you'd be unfairly taxing hard-working short people at the same rate as lazy tall people who are cruising on their innate advantages.
(Clearly, the argument can be extended to include taxes on [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125580.stm]good-looking people[/url] and on men.)
So: should we tax tall people? If not, why not?
[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Wed, 2007-12-12 17:04
#3
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
[img]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v166/30/67/624102370/n624...
[b]FOOLISH EARTH PERSON![/b]
[b]The ALMIGHTY TALLEST pay no taxes WHATSOEVER!![/b]
[b]How [i]DARE[/i] a pitiful waterbag like you [i]question[/i] the superior IRKEN way of life?[/b]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invader_Zim][b]ZIM[/url] is amused at your insolence!!![/b]
[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
Wed, 2007-12-12 17:13
#4
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]So: should we tax tall people? If not, why not?[/b]
Hmmm...Ms. Sven is only 5'3" (160cm) tall and she earns quite a bit more than I do and I'm 6'5" (196cm) tall. Maybe she's much, much handsomer than I am, to the extent that her handsomeness outweighs her relative shortness? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-12-12 17:31
#5
I think wealthy people should pay more taxes, because them and theirs will typically end up using and enjoying more public amenities and resources than the average person. And a wealth tax would be a good idea too. This country needs greater productivity through more spending on R&D not less as has been the trend. If payday for rich people every day for too long, then the country becomes a stagnant banana republic at some point. Our rich people can live off natural resource exports and corporate welfare handouts for so long before the democratic deficit begins to stand out like a sore thumb like now.
Wed, 2007-12-12 17:36
#6
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think wealthy people should pay more taxes...[/b]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002505&p=... is a person "rich"?[/url] Or "wealthy"?
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:04
#7
Wow, that's brilliant. I'm happy to see these issues are being discussed in academia. (In case anyone is wondering, no I'm not short, I'm 1.81 meters).
It's long been my opinion that we focus too much on very specific types of discrimination (i.e. racism, sexism) and not enough on discrimination itself. Left unchecked, people will carry on with the same amount of discrimination. That's what ageism, lookism, and "intellectism" are on the rise. I've had it with people in "polite company" who talk about anti-racism for example, but then do things like being rude to the waiter, or disparaging an individual they find personally annoying. It's very hypocritical.
[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:07
#8
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002505&p=... is a person "rich"?[/url] Or "wealthy"?[/b]
I think someone is rich when their net worth is a million dollars not including real estate.
In addition, I think Michael Moore's video showed , for example, that a physician in France or Britain lives pretty well on $175, 000 a year.
I think our market system for remuneration is out of whack when a university professor earns as much as they do, and yet there are qualified students who can't access post-secondary education. I think if free markets were the rule, then there should be stiff competition in our universities and colleges for immigrants with advanced degrees. There are some really clever and well educated people who are not allowed to teach or practice medicine in Canada.And it's because there are a lack of opportunities for Asia immigrants to Canada. If we had more universities and filled them with Asians with advanced degrees, then what used to be a basic right to access post-secondary ed in Canad would not be an issue. And if there were more hospitals for foreign trained doctors to do practicums, we could do something about the doctor shortage across Canada. Our stoogeocrats don't believe in free markets.
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:15
#9
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Wow, that's brilliant. I'm happy to see these issues are being discussed in academia. (In case anyone is wondering, no I'm not short, I'm 1.81 meters).It's long been my opinion that we focus too much on very specific types of discrimination (i.e. racism, sexism) and not enough on discrimination itself. Left unchecked, people will carry on with the same amount of discrimination. That's what ageism, lookism, and "intellectism" are on the rise. I've had it with people in "polite company" who talk about anti-racism for example, but then do things like being rude to the waiter, or disparaging an individual they find personally annoying. It's very hypocritical.[/b]
A tax based on height is absurd. You're going to argue that it makes sense to increase a tall janitor's existing tax rate because he's tall and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's short? Riiiiiiight.....
How about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?
As far as "lookism" goes, I don't doubt that relatively handsome people have an advantage over relatively ugly people. The key (practical) question is: What the hell do you do about it? In the tax context, are you going to increase a handsome janitor's existing tax rate because he's "handsome" and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's "ugly"?
Again, how about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?
As far as being snooty to waitrons, again, it happens. People are jerks. What are you going to do, fine people for being jerks?
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:17
#10
And why don't they just admit that it's women and immigrants getting the short end of the stick in Canada and North America in general?
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:24
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:A tax based on height is absurd. You're going to argue that it makes sense to increase a tall janitor's existing tax rate because he's tall and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's short? Riiiiiiight.....
How about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?
As far as "lookism" goes, I don't doubt that relatively handsome people have an advantage over relatively ugly people. The key (practical) question is: What the hell do you do about it? In the tax context, are you going to increase a handsome janitor's existing tax rate because he's "handsome" and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's "ugly"?
Again, how about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?
As far as being snooty to waitrons, again, it happens. People are jerks. What are you going to do, fine people for being jerks?
I think he, and Stephen, were being somewhat sarcastic.
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:28
#12
[Off-Topic]
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
I think our market system for remuneration is out of whack when a university professor earns as much as they do, and yet there are qualified students who can't access post-secondary education.[/b]
Are you actually saying that ~$60, 000 is too high a starting salary for an assistant professor?
Are you willing to do five years of graduate school, five years of postdoctoral training, involving changing residences three times, only then to have to move again to a fourth place for a tenure track position... thanks to the fortune of being in the top 25% of your field???
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:30
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]A tax based on height is absurd. You're going to argue that it makes sense to increase a tall janitor's existing tax rate because he's tall and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's short? Riiiiiiight.....
How about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?
As far as "lookism" goes, I don't doubt that relatively handsome people have an advantage over relatively ugly people. The key (practical) question is: What the hell do you do about it? In the tax context, are you going to increase a handsome janitor's existing tax rate because he's "handsome" and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's "ugly"?
Again, how about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?
As far as being snooty to waitrons, again, it happens. People are jerks. What are you going to do, fine people for being jerks?[/b]
Sven,
I don't think good-looking people should pay a higher tax rate.
What I meant by brilliant, is that I'm happy that academics and thinkers are now accepting the reality of these alternative discriminations.
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:38
#14
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think someone is rich when their net worth is a million dollars not including real estate.[/b]
Actually, Fidel, you're one of the few people who have even tried to answer that question. Kudos to you.
As far as a million dollars goes...well, it doesn't "go" as far as it did when being a "millionaire" used to mean something (like 1950).
Let's say you're a conservative investor (although some wouldn't want to "invest" money in even a bank account--but that's another story) and you get $70,000 a year in income (7%) off of that $1 million. There are quite a few union guys making seventy large a year. So, for starters, the income off of that money is not outrageous.
But, with even modest inflation (say, 3% per year), that $70,000 (in real-dollar terms) will only be worth about $33,000 in 25 years (or a mere $26,000 if inflation ticked up by just one more percentage point).
So, are you going to tax the hell out of that $33,000 that some retiree is living off of? Or, are you going to tax the hell out of that person's base wealth (the million dollars) so that the income is even less than $33,000?
Now, a million dollars back in 1950 really meant something. After accounting for inflation, a million dollars in 1950 (with a US CPI Index of 23.5) would be like having $8,613,446 dollars today (with a US CPI Index of 202.416). Now, $8 million is a substantial amount of money. It would throw off $560,000 in annual interest income (at 7%) and would still, after 25 years, throw off a (real-dollar value) of about $270,000 per year (assuming 3% inflation). I would agree that $8 million is "wealthy" but that $1 million is not "wealthy", with a dividing line somewhere in between.
Now, of course, for someone earning $30,000, a quarter million dollars seems to be "wealthy". But, how would you like to be a retiree living off of the income generated by $250,000? At 7%, that's an incredibly "rich" $17,500 per year.
That's why for you young'uns out there, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=001883&p... saving [b][i]now[/b][/i][/url]. When you're young, you can afford the risk of investments that might earn a little more (say, 10%) than you would when you're nearing or at retirement age (maybe closer to 6% or 7%).
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:40
#15
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]I don't think good-looking people should pay a higher tax rate.What I meant by brilliant, is that I'm happy that academics and thinkers are now accepting the reality of these alternative discriminations.[/b]
Okay. So, you don't tax them any differently. The question remains: What (practically) do you [b][i]do[/b][/i] about those discriminations?
Wed, 2007-12-12 18:57
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Okay. So, you don't tax them any differently. The question remains: What (practically) do you [b][i]do[/b][/i] about those discriminations?[/b]
I have answers to a lot of questions.
But not that one.
I'm hoping someone else does.
Wed, 2007-12-12 19:10
#17
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b][Off-Topic]
Are you actually saying that ~$60, 000 is too high a starting salary for an assistant professor?[/b]
I said nothing about TA's or their payscales. What I said was, that, there are a lot of immigrants to Canada with advanced degrees who are underemployed and even unemployed. Ryerson studies say over 650K well educated and skilled Asian emigres have returned to Asia from Canada since the late 1990's and with many citing lack of opportunities in Canada. There aren't enough university professorships or TA positions to go around. We can't afford to build new hospitals or universities across Canada, even though we've become a hewer of wood and drawer of water nation once again since about 2005 according to economist Jim Stanford.
And, we have thousands of qualified Canadian kids who are deciding not to go attend post-secondary because of the high cost and high probability they will incur a quarter century or more of student loan debt sentence. They need big paying jobs to pay off outrageous student loan debt, or they face a life of indebtedness, bad credit and underemployment. Asian emigres with undergrad and advanced degrees don't know what student debt is until they come to Canada or the U.S.[/off topic 1]
quote:
[b]thanks to the fortune of being in the top 25% of your field???[/b]
Did you know that the 25% of China's population with highest IQ's is more than the population of North America? China, India, and Russia are cranking out engineers and doctors at a frenzied pace while we experiment with highest tuition fees in the world. And with the decline in public and stagnant private sector investment in R&D in Canada, I think we're guaranteeing future generations of Canadians that Canada will not place in the top ten most competitive economies for the first time in a long a time coming. That's what I think. [/off topic 2]
Wed, 2007-12-12 19:12
#18
What's the evidence that hard work produces high incomes? Tossing garbage at $8.50 an hour tends to leave one suspicious of that correlation.
I notice that their reference to the study that showed the dependence to be on height at age 16 noted that controlling for socioeconomic status simply had the correlation remaining strong. I would assume there was some correlation with class, especially given that food quality and quantity during the growth years are significant requirements for height achievement.
Anyways, looking at their tax table and noting how far up the income ladder it stays negative, I'd take it.
Wed, 2007-12-12 19:29
#19
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]What's the evidence that hard work produces high incomes? Tossing garbage at $8.50 an hour tends to leave one suspicious of that correlation.
[/b]
Typically, the highest paying jobs such as obstetrician or judge are not easy to get into if you spent your 20s slacking.
Wed, 2007-12-12 19:35
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]So, are you going to tax the hell out of that $33,000 that some retiree is living off of? Or, are you going to tax the hell out of that person's base wealth (the million dollars) so that the income is even less than $33,000?[/b]
I'd tax the inheritance. And I'd rehire the IRS guys who USED to audit the superwealthy in America and who Bush laid off about a quarter or half of them in 2003 or so. You may remember my mentioning David Cay Johnson's interview with Forbes Magazine in 2004 or so. He mentioned one billionaire American bragging about not paying a dime in income taxes, and several instances where uber-wealthy Americans made tax deals with senators and probably around election campaign time.
And in Canada, I think we should go on a hiring spree at Revenue Canada like they were supposed to in 2000 in order to move more senior tax investigators up to corporate taxation but feds having changed their minds at the time.
Wed, 2007-12-12 19:38
#21
Pogo
I wonder if there should be a surtax on revenue from playful research.
Wed, 2007-12-12 19:44
#22
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Typically, the highest paying jobs such as obstetrician or judge are not easy to get into if you spent your 20s slacking.[/b]
Oh that's just ageism. There's a doctor in the U.S. who graduated medical school in his sixties. Clarence Nicodemus is a doctor of osteopathy today. We have so much underutilized and unused potential in North America it's not funny anymore.
Wed, 2007-12-12 20:41
#23
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]What's the evidence that hard work produces high incomes? Tossing garbage at $8.50 an hour tends to leave one suspicious of that correlation.[/b]
Hard work doesn't [b][i]guarantee[/b][/i] a high income.
But, hard work, making smart educational choices, and making smart vocational choices certainly [b][i]increases the probability[/b][/i] of a higher income than one would otherwise have.
Wed, 2007-12-12 20:45
#24
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]You may remember my mentioning David Cay Johnson's interview with Forbes Magazine in 2004 or so. He mentioned one billionaire American bragging about not paying a dime in income taxes[/b]
Well, both of us would agree that that is outrageous.
Wed, 2007-12-12 20:46
#25
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Oh that's just ageism. There's a doctor in the U.S. who graduated medical school in his sixties. Clarence Nicodemus is a doctor of osteopathy today. We have so much underutilized and unused potential in North America it's not funny anymore.[/b]
And, I know a woman who received her Ph.D. at age 75.
But, those are exceptions.
Wed, 2007-12-12 22:13
#26
Oh my god, I'm so trashed right now. And of COURSE tall people should be taxed. I mean, it's self-explanatory. And I refuse to explain my position in any other way!
Ha!
Disclaimer: I'm really trashed right now. Of course I don't think that tall people should be taxed. What a stupid idea. I think I'd better sleep this off. I blame the publisher for this. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-12-12 22:45
#27
So Michelle, exactly how tall are you? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
And for the Horatio Alger cheerleaders above, even in the examples cited, what you are working on is a MUCH bigger factor than how hard you work.
Wed, 2007-12-12 23:22
#28
I'm five foot six and a half. (Shorter than you!) And I forget the rest of what you said so I have no response to that!
Thu, 2007-12-13 04:38
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]A tax based on height is absurd. You're going to argue that it makes sense to increase a tall janitor's existing tax rate because he's tall and decrease a surgeon's existing tax rate because she's short? Riiiiiiight.....How about if you just look at what they [b][i]earn[/b][/i]?[/b]
Thank you! Good grief. All you need is a progressive tax system. If good looking people are earning more than "ugly" people then they will be taxed more because they EARN more!
Thu, 2007-12-13 04:55
#30
That's missing the point, as I noted in the OP. Having the good fortune of being blessed with certain innate/unearned characteristics gives you a better chance of having high-paying jobs in the first place. If all you tax is income, then you're taxing a combination of effort (something we don't want to tax) and things like height, rich parentage and good looks (things we do want to tax).
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Thu, 2007-12-13 05:09
#31
What if you're a guy born with a big unit? You wanna tax that too? If so, I'll need to know the new mill rate. I haven't been assessed in a long time.
Thu, 2007-12-13 05:31
#32
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I think he, and Stephen, were being somewhat sarcastic.
Actually, no. I support an inheritance tax, and the reason why I do is the same logic that would lead me to support a tax on height: I can't see any logical reason for accepting one and rejecting the other. So I'm kinda stumped here. At this point, I'm more inclined to accept the tax on height than to reject the inheritance tax.
This is more of a philosophical question: just what sort of ethical framework do we want to use when designing tax policy? And how would it exclude taxing height and not exclude taxing inheritences?
Thu, 2007-12-13 06:07
#33
So if my gross height is 6' 1', what will my net height be after the tax? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-12-13 06:23
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
If all you tax is income, then you're taxing a combination of effort (something we don't want to tax) and things like height, rich parentage and good looks (things we do want to tax).
I guess if we find that the amount of motivation or effort that someone puts out is in part contributable to genetics then we better tax that too. It would be unfair otherwise. And intelligence, don't even get me started, I know for sure that there were kids in my highschool that got better grades then me with the same or less effort. I better get a rebate.
There is a big difference, in my opinion anyways, in between an inheritence tax and a height tax: Is it unfair that someone who is 6'3 vs someone who is 5'7? Maybe, but what if the shorter person has inherited more intelligence, has a better fashion sense, is more charismatic, has more energy and drive? What if the tall person is ugly and the short person is good looking? Many of those traits are genetic. Would it not now be unfair to tax the taller person a higher amount and give the shorter person a tax break.
If the choice is inbetween measuring and taxing everything that might confer a genetic or inherited advantage or getting rid of the estate tax then I would get rid of the estate tax.
Thu, 2007-12-13 06:28
#35
Catchfire
Isn't there a price of admission for this kind of logic? Is the advantage height confers so significant as to warrant an equalizing effort? I mean, compared to good looks, fitness, etc.? What about charisma in general (on a scale of 3-18, natch)? Adding a height tax but not a knobby knee tax credit could be a problem, couldn't it?
I'm 6'4", so I'm understandably worried about this. (Of course, I don't make any money, so it's kind of a moot point.)
Thu, 2007-12-13 06:56
#36
Should men pay a gender tax? That seems a more obvious advantage to me than height.
Thu, 2007-12-13 07:08
#37
As I noted in the OP, the same logic applies.
Thu, 2007-12-13 07:26
#38
And as the tax rules get even more complicated and the tax forms even longer, I can see the real winners being the people who prepare tax returns for money. Or Intuit (publishers of income tax software).
Thu, 2007-12-13 07:27
#39
Catchfire
My point is, Stephen, at what point do you cut-off certain advantages from tax benefit? And if being tall confers the equal advantage as being handsome (woefully guilty, both counts, I'm afraid) you cannot justify taxing one attribute and not the other, can you? The point in the OP is well taken, but you can't just accept a height tax and be done with it. What's the threshold advantage (percentage?) for such a system?
Thu, 2007-12-13 07:52
#40
That's sort of my point: I don't have an answer. I haven't yet seen an argument that explains how or why a line should be drawn between income-increasing observable innate characteristics that should be taxed, and those that should not.
Thu, 2007-12-13 10:01
#41
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Bullshit, pure and simple.
The very best indicator of success is social class. Despite the relentless propaganda about the classless society, or myth of class mobility, the fact is that capitalist societies are rather rigidly class-based (and none more so than our U.S. neighbours).
Money is the best indicator of one's placement in class-based capitalism. Taxing wealth is a means of redistribution, and the best way to break down the barriers of class and provide some degree of equality of opportunity.
Thu, 2007-12-13 10:46
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]That's missing the point, as I noted in the OP. Having the good fortune of being blessed with certain innate/unearned characteristics gives you a better chance of having high-paying jobs in the first place. If all you tax is income, then you're taxing a combination of effort (something we don't want to tax) and things like height, rich parentage and good looks (things we do want to tax).[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ][/b]
Where is your evidence that effort is significant in terms of income distribution?
I am not being facetious. My personal experience is that you can spend large amounts of effort on doing things that don't pay well, and very little effort on things that pay very well indeed.
Given that is anecdote, do you have a citation for evidence?
Thu, 2007-12-13 11:12
#43
Learning a skill takes effort. And the link between income and skills is well-established.
Thu, 2007-12-13 11:21
#44
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Learning a skill takes effort. And the link between income and skills is well-established.[/b]
Learning does, indeed, require effort.
But, to play the devil's advocate, perhaps the desire to expend the necessary effort to learn is, itself, based on the chemical and genetic makeup of a particular individual and the specific environment that that individual was lucky enough to be born into? So, even the "willpower" (assuming we have free will) to "work hard" may be happenstance? Thus, nothing is "earned"...
Thu, 2007-12-13 12:00
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Learning a skill takes effort. And the link between income and skills is well-established.[/b]
You are still not responding to my point, and you are not providing any evidence.
Are you really making the claim that anyone without financially valued skills doesn't have them only because they did not make the effort to acquire them?
And, further, are you making the claim that anyone who is not being financially well rewarded is not working hard?
Thu, 2007-12-13 12:05
#46
All you need to make the argument work is that at least some part of your income depends on your decisions/effort/free will/what-have-you.
Thu, 2007-12-13 12:26
#47
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Learning does, indeed, require effort.[/b]
I think learning is hard work for anybody, rich or poor. But it's more than hard work nowadays for less well off kids in Canada who have to plow through a gauntlet of red tape bureaucracy just so they borrow an almost barely adequate amount of money to go to attend school. And not every qualified kid is approved for a loan of some staggering amount of money every year. And then paying back what amounts to a mortgage without a house to show for it in the end is made more difficult with highest in the world interest rates on student loans. Since the start of the 1990's, just getting near a post-secondary school of learning is considerably more expensive than when it was somewhat affordable in the 60's and 70's, and especially for kids from poorer families, and especially those poorer families living in rural Canada. The military knows how to entice would-be college students from poorer families in Canada now, too. Subsidized education in the military is a little more inviting than it used to be. On the Canadian DND site, that enticement is right there on the first page and right next to the heading "Hot Jobs" in the military paying anywhere above the median earned income in Canada. It's not quite the same as British-style press ganging kids into serving the imperialist agenda on the seven seas, but it's too close for comfort as far as I'm concerned. If subsidized education and living wages are good enough for the military, then it should be good enough for the rest of Canada, too.
Thu, 2007-12-13 12:51
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]All you need to make the argument work is that at least some part of your income depends on your decisions/effort/free will/what-have-you.[/b]
Kids in:
[LIST][*] Sweden [*] Norway [*] Finland [*] Denmark [*] Germany [*] France [*] Turkey [*] Russia [*] Spain [*] Portugal [*] Ireland [*]Scotland and [*] Cuba[/LIST]
... just go to school and get down to business with the hard work end of it.
[url=http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2006/11/30/asu_expands_free_tuitio... State U expands free tuition program(2006)[/url] for students from families with less than $18,850 incomes.
And I see most [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/09/25/students... in Newfoundland and Labrador[/url] support free tuition.
Alberta is toying with the idea of free tuition.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/11/15/throne-speech.html]Ma...'s NDP government[/url] tax rebate on tuition fees is even more generous than a similar scheme in New Brunswick.
PSE funding, with it's inefficient gauntlet of red tape and bureaucracy resulting in over $10 billion dollars in outstanding student loan debt, has been broken for a long time.
[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Thu, 2007-12-13 13:29
#49
Only width.
I await the "ism".
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-12-13 14:40
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]All you need to make the argument work is that at least some part of your income depends on your decisions/effort/free will/what-have-you.[/b]
And it doesn't matter at all how big that proportion is? I have tossed garbage at $8.50 an hour, and I'm currently working on a project I fully expect to make me tens of millions of dollars. My life is outside the normal bounds of instability [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] but even so, I don't think effort is the crucial determinate of outcome, certainly not to the point where you want to try to design a tax system that doesn't tax effort.
I understand that you have a bunch of self esteem wrapped up in the idea that hard work got you where you are, and I have every appreciation of the fact that you have worked hard, however, accidents of birth and upbringing got you to the point of that hard work paying off, it's not intrinsic to the level of effort.
Thu, 2007-12-13 14:52
#51
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]And it doesn't matter at all how big that proportion is? I have tossed garbage at $8.50 an hour, and I'm currently working on a project I fully expect to make me tens of millions of dollars. My life is outside the normal bounds of instability [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] but even so, I don't think effort is the crucial determinate of outcome, certainly not to the point where you want to try to design a tax system that doesn't tax effort.
I understand that you have a bunch of self esteem wrapped up in the idea that hard work got you where you are, and I have every appreciation of the fact that you have worked hard, however, accidents of birth and upbringing got you to the point of that hard work paying off, it's not intrinsic to the level of effort.[/b]
Your comments sound very strange. Some counterarguments:
quote:
The top nine slots of the list of highest paid professions worldwide are medical professions, starting with anesthesiologists, who in 2006 earned a median of $145,600 US Dollars (USD) per year. Further down the list can be found General Internists, Obstetricians/Gynecologists, Oral and Maxillofacial surgeons, Orthodontists, Prosthodondists, Psychiatrists, Surgeons, and Physicians. The 10th slot goes to Chief Executives, with a median income of $142,000 US Dollars (USD) yearly.
[url=http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-highest-paid-professions-worldwide....
Medical school requires hard work. You need excellent grades to get in... and then residency.
Correlation between GPA and salary:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/33pwex]http://tinyurl.com/33pwex[/url]
The issue, jroothman, is you're using anecdotal examples. But anecdotes are not scientific. What you need is mass data, and mass data indeed finds a correlation between effort and performance.
This, by the way, is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that effort and performance are independent variables.
Wikianswers has a lot of the top 23 highest paying jobs as well:
1. Mutual-Fund Manager: $500,000-$1,000,000/yr
Surgeons: $65.89/hr; $137,050/yr
2. Investment Banker: $64.42/hr; $134,000/yr (entry level)
3. Obstetricians and gynecologists: $64.15/hr; $133,430/yr
4. Anesthesiologists: $63.31/hr; $131,680/yr
5. Internists, general: $61.03/hr; $126,940/yr
6. Actuaries, certified: $57.52/hr; $119,680 (base salary only)
7. Pediatricians, general: $56.03/hr; $116,550/yr
8. Psychiatrists: $54.60/hr; $113,570/yr
9. Family and general practitioners: $52.89/hr; $110,020/yr
10. Dentists: $53.28/hr; $110,820/yr
11. Pharmacists: $53.00/hr; $110,240/yr
12. Chief Executives: $51.77/hr; $107,670/yr
13. Airline pilots, copilots and flight engineers: (N/A); $99,400/yr
14. Podiatrists: $45.43/hr; $94,500/yr
15. Lawyers: $44.19/hr; $91,920/yr
16. Optometrists: $42.35/hr; $88,100/yr
17. Computer and information systems managers: $40.33/hr; $83,890/yr
18. Physicists: $40.26/hr; $83,750/yr
19. Air traffic controllers: $40.07/hr; $83,350/yr
20. Petroleum Engineers: $39.33/hr; $81,800/yr
21. Nuclear Engineers: $38.56/hr; $80,200/yr
22. Judges, magistrate judges, and magistrates: $38.24/hr; $79,540/yr
23. Marketing Managers: $37.70/hr; $78,410/yr
[url=http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_highest_paying_jobs]http://wiki.a...
These require intense hardwork.