Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 21, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 174

Taxes by IQ

:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
Should people be taxed according to their Intelligence Quotient? A lot of people believe that inheritance is inherently unfair because it puts some people at an advantage that others don't have. However, money isn't the only thing you can inherit. You can also inherit greater intelligence from your parents, giving you a greater opportunity to succeed in life and earn a higher income.

So if the purpose of government is to make sure everyone with an unfair advantage pays their fair share, shouldn't we be taxing the top 1% of smart people at a higher percentage than the 99%? It's the egalitarian thing to do, right?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconshannor:
shannor Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
The thing that shoots a hole in that idea is that you'll bring in almost nothing from the top 1%. Many don't even finish school, because they quickly get fed up with an educational system that can't even begin to comprehend them, and that sets them tasks that are neither challenging, nor particularly useful to them. School is nothing but busy work and misery when you're smarter than your educators. Unfortunately, this does hurt them later when they need to support themselves, because all businesses are interested in is a piece of paper that says you can do something. They don't care a bit that you can demonstrate your knowledge directly.
Reply
:iconoutsidelogic:
outsidelogic Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I assume you're trying to provoke here, trying to hang liberals on their own rope by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions that result when you follow their philosophy to its logical extremes. The problem is this: "...the purpose of government is to make sure everyone with an unfair advantage pays their fair share..." Huh? That's a new one...certainly not part of the liberal philosophy that I'm familiar with. Maybe you meant that people who are able to contribute more should do so. That's called progressive taxation, and it's a strictly financial concept.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
The problem is, when I debate the issue of taxation with the people on this board, the justification for all the class warfare nonsense always comes down to neutralizing unfair advantages. The way this last election was carried out, the message that ultimately won votes was, "Mitt Romney is rich and white, making him a bad person, so you should vote for Obama to keep Romney out of office." None of the policy discussions ended up mattering in the end- the exit polls showed widespread agreement with Romney's particular policy initiatives, even as he lost handily.
Reply
:iconoutsidelogic:
outsidelogic Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I don't think that was the message that ultimately won votes. Maybe the "rich and white" part, but more likely followed up by "so he doesn't really understand and is not committed to helping a large portion of the population". That message was reinforced by many of his boneheaded statements during the campaign. That, and his morphing from a MA moderate to a severe conservative, and back again. I wanted to think he was a moderate, but really I wasn't sure what he was going to do when he took office.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
government and common services cannot be funded by spare IQ points.

Your comparing apples to oranges, economic potential, with intellegence.
Reply
:iconinfinitetolerance:
infinitetolerance Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
That is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Dumber than your idea of running for president? :lol:
Reply
:iconinfinitetolerance:
infinitetolerance Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
Yes.
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow, that's REALLY dumb, then.
Reply
:iconinfinitetolerance:
infinitetolerance Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
haha

So... that makes Taxes by IQ REALLY, REALLY dumb?
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Sure..
Reply
:iconaposine:
Aposine Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah, let's reward talentless celebrities and televangelists with tax cuts.
Reply
:iconneurotype:
neurotype Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Other way around, we should tax idiots the most.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
If people were taxed by intelligence most rich people would pay no taxes:P
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
See, here's a perfect example of your problem. You have no reason to believe that the rich are less intelligent than the poor, and in fact have some reason to believe the exact opposite. Yet, you assume every character flaw for those whose wealth you envy, when really you don't know or understand any of them.

I am absolutely convinced at this point that the liberal anti-rich agenda is driven purely by a self-serving prejudice, not by any higher principle or true practical concern.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Excuse you, I envy no one's monetary status.
Plus I'm not liberal.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
[link]
"There is no relationship between IQ scores and net wealth," said economist Jay Zagorsky, who conducted the study. Furthermore, very smart people tend to get into as much financial difficulty, with maxed-out credit cards and missed car payments, as those of us who are less clever. "

Reading the news mabey?

I don't see how you could correlate IQ to wealth, no more than you could call the biggest kid at the bus stop who took everyone elses lunch money, smarter.

The result is that most productive measures generally attributed to "corporations", and the inviduals who own/run them, come from people underneath them, who are the intellectual superior.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yeah, based on what I see rich people, especially celebrities and CEOs, saying on the news all the time... this.
Reply
:iconebolabears:
EbolaBears Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Indeed
Reply
:iconhustlerdu:
hustlerdu Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
how about if you're dumb and rich you pay the most, and if you're smart and poor you pay the least?
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Wealth inheritance is anathema to the concept of merit for ways in which intelligence cannot even compare. Even the greatest minds are nothing without an education, but a poor family will never receive the kind of education a wealthy family can on their own. If you truly cared about the concept of individual accomplishment, you would recognize that being granted wealth based solely on familiar relations is illegitimate.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
That's not true at all. I was poor growing up, and the best private schools always gave me a free ride to attend, simply because I'm intelligent and made them look good.
Reply
:icontrorbes:
Trorbes Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
I said "on their own;" people invested in your education because they believed it to be worth the price. But you and I both know that's the exception, and that for the majority of cases bright minds from poor families will have to deal with public schooling, and dull minds from wealthy families can afford the best education money can buy.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
how many people in those private schools are rich and average vs poor and brilliant.
Reply
:iconfreyv:
freyv Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Student Digital Artist
That's a good way to dumb down the country.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Nah, if all the greedy smart people try to run, we can just pass more regulations, right? Make the tax apply to them overseas. Oh wait, it already does.
Reply
:iconmondu:
mondu Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012
What's to prevent smart people from simply answering wrong in IQ tests and get 0 taxes?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Regulation, of course. Regulation can always accomplish its intended goal, right? And if it doesn't work, then it's only because people are greedy and need to be regulated harder!
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
IQ tests a fallible ( your education affects how well you do)
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
But clearly the government is wise enough to regulate IQ tests to make them infallible.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
IQ tests are all but worthless in any sort of real world applications
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Why are they still used?
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
I have no idea, but I do know they are a relic from another era.(namely the 1920s) The original idea was to measure how likely kids are to succeed in an American style system. Its failed.

I also don't know what you mean by "used" because they are still taken, but used for very little in life.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Not necessarily.

My education couldn't keep up with me, especially when I was younger. We'd take those tests that tell you how far along you are (like, third grade, fourth month; fifth grade, third month, and so on) and I'd regularly test ceiling level on them, managing to figure out some things we hadn't been taught yet. I also took some special classes for "gifted" kids, and only wasn't skipped a grade due to social issues.

I definitely remember when I was in chemistry class, the other kids would grab my test paper the second we got them back and use it as an answer key to see where they went wrong. (Yeah, that was pretty damn alienating right there.)

...and, well, before this gets more egotistical-sounding than I actually intended, point being that reasoning skills aren't necessarily tied to education, as otherwise you'd expect my IQ score to be lower than it was, since I learned less than I was capable of.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Whoops, bolding fail
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Yes, it does

Copied from my educational psychology textbook.


'Since the introduction of IQ tests, in the early 1900's, scores in 20 different industrialized countries (And in some more traditional cultures) have been rising,

In a generation, the average scores increases by about 18 points. (or 3 points every ten years) on standardised IQ tests. This is called 'The Flynn Effect, named after James Flynn, a political scientist who documented the phenomenon. [...]

Flynn suggest this may be due to school subject content being more closely aligned with IQ tests. Other factors include better health, more attention paid to children, increased parental literacy, and more and better schooling.

Guidelines for interpreting IQ scores

Remember:
IQ tests partially reflect a students past learning, experiences and schooling

Be wary of scores for minority students and ESL students. Even on 'culture free' tests, results may be warped.

Bear in mind that a students score may change over time for many reasons.'
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
So how do you explain my experiences?

I mean, that's kind of bullshit, honestly. If you're intelligent, you can easily figure out anything you haven't encountered before so long as the underlying principles are fairly clear. Actual intelligence isn't just memorizing and regurgitating what the teachers throw at you, it's understanding how to learn from context, engaging in critical thinking, experimentation, pattern recognition, creative thinking, etc. And American education is actually pretty shitty at teaching those things.

If education was the determinant, very few people would have a high IQ, as most public education is woefully inadequate to properly challenge a gifted person.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"So how do you explain my experiences?"
Again, Anecdotal Evidence
[link]

Why it cannot be used to apply to a group as a whole.

If your experience is proof to other people %100 that cannot be ignored, than what are you to us that infinitetolerance isn't.

He said the EXACT same words, asking me to explain his UFO experiences.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
"Why it cannot be used to apply to a group as a whole."

Nope. That has nothing to do with explaining how education influences IQ even when the level of education is far below the person's ability. Let's try this again:

So how do you explain my experiences?

"If your experience is proof to other people %100 that cannot be ignored,"

Until someone actually explains how my experience has already been accounted for and explained away, yes, it stands as tentative proof.

"He said the EXACT same words, asking me to explain his UFO experiences."

Did you actually explain to him the real causes of his experiences? If so, then you can do the same for me.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"Did you actually explain to him the real causes of his experiences?"
No, I just gave him the EXACT same link, about anecdotal evidence, and the same explanation.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
So you admit you couldn't explain why he was wrong, just like you can't explain how I'm wrong.

Ironically I likely could have actually explained the real causes for his experiences and thus actually explained why his anecdotes were wrong. You're not intelligent enough to do so, it seems, versus whining and making attacks and insults when someone's not fooled by your dodges.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Okay you know better than professionals :roll:
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
It always amazes me how people have difficulty understanding this. Is it so hard to believe that people 100 years ago don't think like they do today?
Here's an exerpt from Flynn writing in the WSJ. You may find it interesting:
"In 1910, scored against today's norms, our ancestors would have had an average IQ of 70 (or 50 if we tested with Raven's). By comparison, our mean IQ today is 130 to 150, depending on the test. Are we geniuses or were they just dense?
...
Modern people do so well on these tests because we are new and peculiar. We are the first of our species to live in a world dominated by categories, hypotheticals, nonverbal symbols and visual images that paint alternative realities. We have evolved to deal with a world that would have been alien to previous generations. A century ago, people mostly used their minds to manipulate the concrete world for advantage. They wore what I call "utilitarian spectacles." Our minds now tend toward logical analysis of abstract symbols—what I call "scientific spectacles." Today we tend to classify things rather than to be obsessed with their differences. We take the hypothetical seriously and easily discern symbolic relationships."


But people know better than Flynn, dontcha know.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Can't you just... answer my questions and actually address my points versus attacking me? Is that so hard to ask?

I don't know if I know better than professionals, because I don't know how the professionals explain the contradictions and factors I asked about. I would know if, you know, you answered my questions/points and explained how the professionals accounted for them.
Reply
:iconsnuffles11:
snuffles11 Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:iconthisplz:
Reply
:iconborogovelm:
BorogoveLM Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Student General Artist
Ever been to a Mensa meeting? People with high IQs aren't rich, rather the rich often have high IQs. IQ =/= productivity. If you want to have a higher tax rate for more productive people, that's a separate issue.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I have a 145 IQ. I'm not rich because other people being raging idiots limits how useful intelligence is.

Being good at figuring out the best and most efficient way to do things means jack shit if the boss wants you to just keep doing the status quo.

Being good at figuring out how to fix problems means nothing if people don't want to do what is necessary to make said fixes, or don't care about fixing the problems, or screw up doing what's necessary.

Knowing stuff means nothing if people reject them in favor of their myths, fantasies, and strawmen, and then act like you're the idiot for not following the same myths, fantasies, and strawmen.

Being able to figure out that stuff will go wrong means nothing if people forge on anyway, not listening to you.

Knowing what you're doing means nothing if nobody accepts you know what you're doing, especially if it's different than the way they know of, and thus stops you from proceeding and/or treats you like you're an idiot for doing things the "wrong" way.

And so on. I waste more time being treated like a moron by actual morons than I do actually getting to use my intelligence for anything productive. And of course my ability to land and keep a high-paying job suffers as a result. I've never once had a job that actually used my intelligence and skills to the fullest, and closest job I had I got laid off after six months due to problems caused by the housing crisis beyond my control.

Hell, witness, say, the climate change scientists. Smart as hell, seriously have actually already figured out all the solutions we need to implement to fix matters... and all that intelligence is utterly wasted because everyone's a raging moron who denies climate change and comes up with moron reasons not to implement the fixes.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012
I very much doubt you have an IQ if 145. That is the level of geniuses.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I took an IQ test when I was 16, and that was the result. Don't take it up with me; take it up with the psychologist that gave me the test.

I was a straight-A student until I dropped out (due to mental health issues, not academic issues), got IIRC a 1350 on my PSATs, always scored top-level on those grade assessment tests, was in gifted programs and AP classes, etc. When I was in chem class, the other kids would use my test papers as an answer key. I learn quickly at jobs, to the point where one place had me successfully training other folks on the register a month after I first used it. I always end up press-ganged into being the de facto IT person at every office I work at.

So I wager it's up there somewhere, regardless. Not that it matters, really, since the areas my intelligence shines in are, as listed in the post you replied to, ones nobody gives a fuck about. And trying to treat people as being of normal intelligence and able to hold a reasoned discussion just gets me beat on and insulted. Story of my life; even the things I'm good at turn out to be next to worthless, so they end up more like insult to injury. I'd actually prefer to be stupid.

P.S. Considering the woman with the highest IQ has an IQ in the 200s, and many geniuses are in the 150s and 160s, my IQ seems more like above-average, though.

...and ironically, said woman is a newspaper novelty columnist.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Trust me, 145 is much more than simply above average. Above average would be around the 115 area.

Have you gone to Uni and studied some degree? Your intelligence would be well applied there. Also there isn't the same stigma about being intelligent at Uni as there is at general education I have found.
Reply
Add a Comment: