Should tall people pay a height tax?

Of course, if vertically-challenged people of the wrong sex and skin colour don't find it difficult enough to attain post-secondary education and to get ahead in our first world countries with first and second-largest low wage, low-skilled non-unionized workforces, then that's where repressive anti-labour laws and protectionist professional associations are helpful to maintain class immobility based on old world imperialism.

[url=http://conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#2]Doctors and Dishwashers: How the Nanny State Creates Good Jobs for Those at the Top(American)[/url] Does anyone see any similarities in Canada?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]
....
These require intense hardwork.[/b]

---

None of them require anything like the effort to toss garbage.

I'd start with giving women a large tax credit for the inequality that exists. Any problems with that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]

None of them require anything like the effort to toss garbage.[/b]

---

Are you actually saying tossing garbage requires more effort than medical school or nuclear engineering?

You're assuming sweating and challenging are synonymous. They are not. I've been in labour-intensive jobs, and they definitely require a lot more sweat. You come home, tired, and you're happy it's over. But you know, serious university study was much harder. Sometimes you work 8am to midnight 15, 20 or 30 days in a row. No, most undergraduates don't do that. But among those who become nuclear engineers or neurosurgeons, the ratio is much higher.

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

I know a person who earned an advanced university degree. His mama paid for all his books, rent, tuition fees and incidentals for six years. He never broke a sweat all the while I knew him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]

I also know someone, his mother is a radiologist, and she's paying for all the rent and food and books.

And he studies like a madman all the time because he spends less time worrying about the rest. A lot of all-nighters. One time he showed up to an exam late because he hadn't had enough time to finish reading the notes. He then got an A.

No, I don't think there's much "sweating" involved.[/b]

---

There are some kids who don't have the added distraction of worring about money for sure. Jack Layton said when he was lecturing at UofT that professors could tell which kids were pulling McNight shifts and which ones were not. The kids with few options but to go to work while attending part-time and 3 credit course loads often had lower grades than students who enjoy the luxury of focussing solely on full time studies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]This would go much better if you could actually state a position.[/b]

---

I thought I had. But it was in the form of a question and this is apparently not Jeopardy.

My position is that intrinsic good fortune is more important to economic outcomes than effort.

Note: I do not think that effort is irrelevant the question at hand concerns the relative contributions to economic well being of effort and good fortune.

Good fortune includes intrinsic skills, supportive (both economically and psychically) parents, an environment with adequate opportunities, height (to connect back to the start of this thread), and probably a bunch of others (I wanted to leave out the racism and sexism stuff because getting rid of them is a different fight and this argument is germane even in a world without those issues).

On the world level I think this is incontrovertable, where you are born is a huge factor in how well off you are.

There was a list above of high paying careers, with the assertion that they all required a lot of effort to achieve. This is not true in the mathematical sense of required, the classic counterexample is Stephen Hawking, who is one of the world's best physicists and was a notoriously lazy undergraduate.

I think if you looked at that list you would see that they all require a high degree of skill. Skills are both intrinsic and developed by effort.

The question is: Which dominates? What is the evidence on the matter?

No, the question is why this attempt to obfuscate the issue of progressive taxation, Stephen?

I think you may have just hit on the reason not to have these taxes. In pure economic terms they are eminently justified. However, the cost of privacy invasion by the government is incommensurable. So, we should not impose such taxes.

Or do you have a good measure of the cost of the privacy invasion?

And BTW, Stephen, you wimped out on answering my earlier question.

[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: jrootham ]

Perhaps I haven't fully digested the argument yet, but two thoughts come to mind.

First, doesn't it make a difference that the link between height and income is not definitely causative? If it is non-causative correlation (for instance, both can result from better nutrition during childhood, which in turn has other causes such as having a large inheritance) then it is already being taxed in other ways.

So I think you would first have to establish actual causation, otherwise being tall is not an advantage in and of itself. Also, that causative correlation would have to have a certain magnitude to be practical. For instance, having a large inheritance has a very clear positive effect on outcome. Take the average income of the top 1% in height and compare it to the average income of people with the top 1% of inheritances. Do we think they will be anywhere comparable?

My second thought, which actually runs contrary to my own intuition but I'll bring it out anyway, is to ask why it is bad to tax people who have good incomes due to hard work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]

Because as income becomes disconnected from effort, you work and produce less.

[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ][/b]

---

That could explain why airport security in that country missed the box cutter guys piling on to passenger planes that fateful day. There just wasn't the pay incentive to do a better job.

approx. [i]"We don't join unions and strike for better pay in America, Lisa. We just show up for work and do a really lousy job."[/i] - Homer Simpson

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]

Because as income becomes disconnected from effort, you work and produce less.

[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ][/b]

---

At what level of taxation does this effect occur in the real world? If taxation is less than 100% more work still equals more money. In fact, if the goal is a specific level of after tax income, the higher the taxes, the greater the effort.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]

Are you actually saying tossing garbage requires more effort than medical school or nuclear engineering?

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ][/b]

---

Yes, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a classist twit.

This is so lame, right down to the silly comparison between relative height and income. The choices society has to face are simple really. Do we tax those who have the m0st income to spare or do we tax those with the least? Or do we just let those with the least go without even the basics of survival so those with the largest surplus can enjoy more?

Agreed, in fact I think that's a pretty good statement of progressive values right there.

Does this have to get derailed? I want to hear Stephen's response to the idea of an IQ tax.

It's not irrelevant to question whether people generally respond to economic incentives, but if you think they don't, then you think economics as a whole is useless and all discussions such as this are irrelevant.

LTJ points out that there are other incentives than financial ones. This is true, but they are for the most part static. When you change financial incentives, you change some people's behaviour. The fact that many people won't change their behaviour doesn't change the fact that some people will. If I am trying to sell my house, and I lower the price, other people are more likely to buy it. If wages go up for a particular profession, more people will tend to enter it. If people receive less pay for their employment labour, they will tend to do less labour and spend more time doing things of higher perceived value.

quote:

---

At what level of taxation does this effect occur in the real world? If taxation is less than 100% more work still equals more money. In fact, if the goal is a specific level of after tax income, the higher the taxes, the greater the effort.

---

I think we all know that nobody really knows the answer to that question. Certainly at a 100% tax rate most people are not going to bother working for income. People will work do work that only they themselves benefit from (growing their own food, etc), because that's the only way to get personal benefit from their labor. At 99% tax, people are doing the same thing, because its not worth the effort if you only get 1/100th of the value.

Likewise the difference between 1% and 2% is going to be quite negligible.

The goal isn't a specific level of income. It's a better quality of life. Taxes reduce the amount that my effort earns income with which I can buy goods and services. As taxes go up, it becomes more sensible for me to work less and provide those goods and services for myself. If I finish my own basement rather than hiring contractors to do it, then I avoid both the income tax and the consumption taxes associated with the cost of the labour. On the other hand if my employment income is more strongly linked to my effort, then I might be better off being productive at work and hiring someone to do my basement.

It seems obvious that the Laffer Curve does actually exist. The problem is that we have no idea of its shape.

Erik, what is being questioned seems to be whether or not higher taxes provide a disincentive to be productive. I don't disagree with you that there are a great many other factors that should be taken into consideration when setting tax rates. The disincentives created by taxation have to be weighed against the utility of government spending. I'd agree that a 0% tax rate may be just as socially destructive as a 100% tax rate.

Stephen's question concerns the possibility of reducing the productivity disincentive due to taxation [i]without reducing tax revenue[/i]. The suggestion is that we maybe can shift the tax burden in crafty ways to accomplish this. So to say that you can't divorce the negative economic effects of taxation from the benefits of government spending is not constructive; that's exactly what this thread is about.

To dispute the underlying principle -- that higher taxes on productivity, taken by themselves, discourage higher productivity -- is to suggest that people don't respond to incentives, or you can pay less for something and get more of it. I don't think there's much empirical support for that position.

Typical economic pseudo science the usual fistful of dubious unverified assumptions mixed with some superfluous equations resulting in a conclusions that re-emphasize the dubious assumptions one started with.

The first assumption seems to be that difference in income or social economic status are primarily the result of differential in some kind of innate characteristic or capabilities combined with some kind of effort. In the article height stands in place for implied inherited characteristic such as intelligence or creativity or entreprenuerial drive.

Of course the philosophic rational behind progressive taxation and the concept of distributive justice as presented in the article are highly suspect implying that the redistribution is an act of charity in which the privileged payes more taxes merely because they are financial more able.

This obscures the observable reality that differentiation in income and SES is the result in the differential of access to opportunity and resources. The system is designed and maintained in such a way that wealth in power remains concentrated within a small minority and ensures limited social mobility. The implication is that progressive taxation is inherently inequitable rather than the social system being constructed on the basis and the necessity of built in inequality and exploitation. Progressive taxation is not seen as an attempt to address inherent social inequality.

quote:

---

Because it's a puzzle. The same logic that leads me to support an inheritance tax would lead me to support a height/gender/skin colour/beauty tax.

---

Neither gender nor race are internal personal characteristics they are social defined and located with the intent to delineate relationships of power and access to resources. The construction of Gender and Race are social mechanism that ensure that wealth and power is maintained within the hands of the designated elite.

quote:

---

Learning a skill takes effort. And the link between income and skills is well-established.

---

Skills are also something that need to be given a social context. The same skills even acknowledged and recognized within different people are the intelligence and leadership abilities of a black woman acknowledged in comparison to a white male. A male be perceived as decisive where a woman would be viewed as unnecessarily pushy. Ingrained cultural assumptions create a social perception in which some peoples skills and abilities are recognized while others are rendered invisible.The extent to which certain skills are recognized and rewarded are also gendered and racialized.

The whole article seems to be a rather transparent excercise in promoting the libertarian belief that taxation represents an infringement on personal freedom rather than a method in which the utilization of collective resources in addressing collective needs.

Sorry for the delay, our connection keeps getting knocked out here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]
Stephen's question concerns the possibility of reducing the productivity disincentive due to taxation [i]without reducing tax revenue[/i]. The suggestion is that we maybe can shift the tax burden in crafty ways to accomplish this. [/b]

---

Well, that's what Stephen likes to suggest but I see reason to accept it.

quote:

---

[b]
To dispute the underlying principle -- that higher taxes on productivity, taken by themselves, discourage higher productivity -- is to suggest that people don't respond to incentives, or you can pay less for something and get more of it. I don't think there's much empirical support for that position.[/b]

---

Well, I would argue that there's lots of evidence already which suggest that all the tax decreases already given to those with disprortionate surpluses haven't exactly tricked down to the masses, and until neo-liberal ecomonists like Stephen can give one good emprical, statistical or commonsense reason why we should expect the reverse to be true in the future I won't be expecting a corporate potlatch anytime soon. Another hidden assumption being made is that we can only beg those with surplus income to invest in our working economy, rather than simply taking it off the top and allowing the most productive members of society, their "employees" mostly, to decide how and what needs to be financed now.

quote:

---

NR.Kissed: [b]

he first assumption seems to be that difference in income or social economic status are primarily the result of differential in some kind of innate characteristic or capabilities combined with some kind of effort. In the article height stands in place for implied inherited characteristic such as intelligence or creativity or entreprenuerial drive.

Of course the philosophic rational behind progressive taxation and the concept of distributive justice as presented in the article are highly suspect implying that the redistribution is an act of charity in which the privileged payes more taxes merely because they are financial more able. [/b]

---

Good points I should have touched on too. This is where social democratic liberals would be wiser to remember the old socialist insight that all wealth ultimately derives from labour (and the earth) rather than capital "investment", or capital's supposed independence from certain services we all pay for and use.

Again, it's also about a more democratically ordered balance among all economic actors, as much as any "productivity gains" promised to "trickle down" back to the masses again, through some as yet-to-be explained mechanism beyond more vague assurances about "growth". The average CEO has made gains in income and shares and expense accounts way way beyond any growth rates in our general economies (or their companies) for example, but they continue to call for more cuts to the public sector.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]

I don't believe our stoogeocrats in Ottawa would want to adopt Nordic tax policies so that Canada, too, could transform itself into an instant social democracy like Sweden, uh-uh. And they definitely wouldn't know what to do with tens of billions of dollars in surplus oil royalties, as is the case with Norway, a country that has not accepted those royalties with one hand and given them back to TNC's with the other by paring corporate tax rates to the bone. Our two old line parties don't want any extra money in government coffers that could possibly be earmarked for new social programs in Canada. Because that would run counter to the ideology. It's better to feign poverty while foreign corporations raid the ice box.[/b]

---

That I think may be the biggest difference Fidel, political will, culture and understanding. At this point though our corps are now paying less than the Nordics do again, thanks to Harper and yes, the Liberals too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[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.[/b]

---

People like you used to say that the economy should give out A's for effort. Now that it doesn't any more, you waffle and blabber on about networking and upskilling and all those other buzzwords when the cold hard truth is: CEOs and their ilk don't want everybody to get rich, contrary to their oft-stated rhetoric about "owner capitalism".

How do you measure what they contribute? The workers produce the goods? do they not. CEO's have lunches with other CEO'c and play golf. Sometimes it seems a bit like the royal family in england. They are just idle figureheads.
They are not contributers at all. More like babys or Cookoo babys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]I don't know about a maximum wage (what would it be?), but I certainly applaud shareholder-led initiatives to align CEO pay with what they actually contribute. And I also think that there's lots of room to increase income taxes on those making over $500ki/yr.[/b]

---