Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
November 21, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 174

Taxes by IQ

:icontbschemer:
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 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 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:
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 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 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:
That is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Dumber than your idea of running for president? :lol:
Reply
:icondc4894:
DC4894 Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow, that's REALLY dumb, then.
Reply
:iconinfinitetolerance:
haha

So... that makes Taxes by IQ REALLY, REALLY dumb?
Reply
Add a Comment: