Taxes by IQ
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?
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?
Comments175
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
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.
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.
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.
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.
government and common services cannot be funded by spare IQ points.
Your comparing apples to oranges, economic potential, with intellegence.
Your comparing apples to oranges, economic potential, with intellegence.
That is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.
Dumber than your idea of running for president? 
Wow, that's REALLY dumb, then.
haha
So... that makes Taxes by IQ REALLY, REALLY dumb?
So... that makes Taxes by IQ REALLY, REALLY dumb?
Sure..
Yeah, let's reward talentless celebrities and televangelists with tax cuts.
Other way around, we should tax idiots the most.
If people were taxed by intelligence most rich people would pay no taxes
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.
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.
Excuse you, I envy no one's monetary status.
Plus I'm not liberal.
Plus I'm not liberal.
[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.
"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.
Yeah, based on what I see rich people, especially celebrities and CEOs, saying on the news all the time... this.
Indeed
how about if you're dumb and rich you pay the most, and if you're smart and poor you pay the least?
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.
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.
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.
how many people in those private schools are rich and average vs poor and brilliant.