Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Disingenuous at best. Tax incentives around mortages, charitable contributions, and child health insurance are social signals: legislation saying 'this is what we value as a society, these are the things we want to help you with.' If you disagree with that kind of legislation, argue against it directly. This business about height determining earning potential is utterly irrelevant to your real complaints.

And the math is foolish to begin with: if height determines income level, and you really want to try to equalize for that factor, you should be applying credits/penalties to bring people of different height to the same level -- not taking people who are already at the same level and elevating the short one above the tall one. After all, if they make the same income despite their height difference, it stands to reason that the shorter person is more productive. Applying a credit/penalty when incomes are already equal is the wrong way to argue the (already misguided) point.

The difference between height and those other things the government determines taxes on is that height is not a choice, it's an innate characteristic of a person. People find taxing on height repulsive because it is more or less equivalent to taxing on race which everyone would immediately see as wrong and would be prohibited by the constitution.

In order for this guys argument to hold water he should have used a case other than height which involved a component of personal choice and invoked the same feeling of injustice in people.

Can you please provide an argument for why choice ought to be the principal factor for some attribute to be taxable? The justification is in no way clear to me.

Would you agree that taxes should be just? If so, would you agree that it is unjust to tax someone for something he has no choice in?

> If so, would you agree that it is unjust to tax someone for something he has no choice in?

Hmm. No one chooses their parents. Should rich kids be taxed like poor kids?

> Would you agree that taxes should be just?

I'll agree that "just" has no agreed-on definition and is used as a way to imply that the other person is bad. As such, I find it a useful signalling device in a discussion.

Nobody wins arguments on the internet, so let's agree to be unable to agree on the definitions of terms about which to disagree.

People win arguments on the web all the time. What's rare (and different) is at argument that persuades some of the participants.

Are you certain that you don't want to argue that "just", the word on which your argument and position depends, actually has a useful and good meaning?

I don't have a justification I'm just observing that choice vs. an inherit attribute is generally the stratifying line used in our society to determine wether or not it is just to apply a man made penalty or advantage to a particular state.

Because of that I think that the comparison of using height as a deciding factor in taxation is like comparing apples and oranges.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact