When Conor Clarke said: I have a strong moral intuition — even though I know it’s one I can’t justify — that height is something I deserve. But proving that my moral intuitions are an inconsistent smorgasbord doesn’t mean I’m going to give them up!
All of this presumes that some entity has a right to tax at all. Despotisms claim the right to tax and impose it by force. Democracies may also impose a tax by use of force, but in theory it is limited to enforcing tax laws that are agreed-to jointly by the body politic.
Presumably, the concept of fairness comes into play, as only a tax deemed fair would be agreed-to by the taxed. Also, when a tax is considered for imposition, it is not only the method and criteria that are considered, but the use of the proceeds as well. Democratic government does not have free reign to spend tax receipts in just any fashion deemed desirous by those holding office at the time the receipts are garnered or borrowed against. There are limits imposed by law, custom, tradition, and morality.
The same principle applies, though one step removed from the voting public in a representative republic. The tax and its use must in essence be agreed-to by the body politic. Taxes, in representative governments therefore, are generally approved for a common good, cumulative necessity, and to advance a national interest.
In a redistributive scenario, a portion of the taxes obtained are being used not for a common good, or cumulative necessity, or to advance a national interest, but rather to enrich one group or special interest at the expense of another. Where those being taxed don’t, on the whole, agree, the redistribution is tantamount to theft, plain and simple, and the government practices despotism in enforcing it. Governmental theft is still theft, and the fact that it is being carried out by the government doesn’t mitigate its moral or ethical vaccuousness…. It enhances it.
Perhaps, but I doubt they object based on a moral intuition against government policy that differentially influences people with different sweet tooth preferences. Most probably object to its inefficiency, which is not a problem with the height tax.
Grant: If the point of a tax is to contain an externatily then you want the tax to change the amount of the thing you are taxing. But here, we're talking about revenue-raising taxes. When raising revenue you want to tax things people can't change, so the tax has a minimal distortionary effect.
Taxing height doesn’t make much sense to me, because it won’t alter anyone’s height.That's precisely the point, no "dead weight loss" unlike income taxation.
Taxing height doesn't make much sense to me, because it won't alter anyone's height. The Department of Agriculture taxes sugar imports with the misguided goal of boosting domestic sugar production, but this is a goal it can actually accomplish. We can't make people's heights more similar by taxation unless we take it to such an extreme that parents malnourish their children and adults have corrective surgery. In general, people feel a system which penalizes or rewards based on factors they have no control over (e.g., their own height) is unfair. What good would come of taxing height?
My intuition is "taxing height is silly, dumb and wrong". Intuition doesn't explain itself, but that doesn't mean its incorrect.
I find it hard to believe that Clarke (or anyone else) really thinks height is something they "deserve". (How in the world?) My suspicion is that such people are simply not convinced on an intuitive level that height really does affect one's success in life to the extent claimed.
Robin, across the range of inequalities there are some that people consistently feel are fair and deserved and some they find appalling. You suggested that these intuitions about fairness are to do with allowing clear fitness signals (http://hanson.gmu.edu/fairg.... Clarke's supposed intuition seems a prime example of that, rather than status quo bias especially; height is a wonderful fitness signal.
0.) Conor Clarke says he has a strong moral intuition that height is something he deserves.
1.) Robin Hanson says that this moral intuition makes little sense in light of all the other things we tax.
2.) Robin Hanson concludes that Conor Clarke does not in fact possess any such moral intuition. Instead, what Conor Clarke thinks is a moral intuition is in fact a strong status quo bias?!
Q: How has Robin Hanson obtained more knowledge about Conor Clarke's moral intuition than Conor Clarke?
Am I missing something?
I, for one, am rather unpuzzled that different people have different moral intuitions. I may find some people's particular intuitions puzzling, but not the fact that they are different.
All of this presumes that some entity has a right to tax at all. Despotisms claim the right to tax and impose it by force. Democracies may also impose a tax by use of force, but in theory it is limited to enforcing tax laws that are agreed-to jointly by the body politic.
Presumably, the concept of fairness comes into play, as only a tax deemed fair would be agreed-to by the taxed. Also, when a tax is considered for imposition, it is not only the method and criteria that are considered, but the use of the proceeds as well. Democratic government does not have free reign to spend tax receipts in just any fashion deemed desirous by those holding office at the time the receipts are garnered or borrowed against. There are limits imposed by law, custom, tradition, and morality.
The same principle applies, though one step removed from the voting public in a representative republic. The tax and its use must in essence be agreed-to by the body politic. Taxes, in representative governments therefore, are generally approved for a common good, cumulative necessity, and to advance a national interest.
In a redistributive scenario, a portion of the taxes obtained are being used not for a common good, or cumulative necessity, or to advance a national interest, but rather to enrich one group or special interest at the expense of another. Where those being taxed don’t, on the whole, agree, the redistribution is tantamount to theft, plain and simple, and the government practices despotism in enforcing it. Governmental theft is still theft, and the fact that it is being carried out by the government doesn’t mitigate its moral or ethical vaccuousness…. It enhances it.
Perhaps, but I doubt they object based on a moral intuition against government policy that differentially influences people with different sweet tooth preferences. Most probably object to its inefficiency, which is not a problem with the height tax.
Grant: If the point of a tax is to contain an externatily then you want the tax to change the amount of the thing you are taxing. But here, we're talking about revenue-raising taxes. When raising revenue you want to tax things people can't change, so the tax has a minimal distortionary effect.
Taxing height doesn’t make much sense to me, because it won’t alter anyone’s height.That's precisely the point, no "dead weight loss" unlike income taxation.
Taxing height doesn't make much sense to me, because it won't alter anyone's height. The Department of Agriculture taxes sugar imports with the misguided goal of boosting domestic sugar production, but this is a goal it can actually accomplish. We can't make people's heights more similar by taxation unless we take it to such an extreme that parents malnourish their children and adults have corrective surgery. In general, people feel a system which penalizes or rewards based on factors they have no control over (e.g., their own height) is unfair. What good would come of taxing height?
My intuition is "taxing height is silly, dumb and wrong". Intuition doesn't explain itself, but that doesn't mean its incorrect.
I doubt most elites think our sugar policy is good.
I find it hard to believe that Clarke (or anyone else) really thinks height is something they "deserve". (How in the world?) My suspicion is that such people are simply not convinced on an intuitive level that height really does affect one's success in life to the extent claimed.
Robin, across the range of inequalities there are some that people consistently feel are fair and deserved and some they find appalling. You suggested that these intuitions about fairness are to do with allowing clear fitness signals (http://hanson.gmu.edu/fairg.... Clarke's supposed intuition seems a prime example of that, rather than status quo bias especially; height is a wonderful fitness signal.
0.) Conor Clarke says he has a strong moral intuition that height is something he deserves.
1.) Robin Hanson says that this moral intuition makes little sense in light of all the other things we tax.
2.) Robin Hanson concludes that Conor Clarke does not in fact possess any such moral intuition. Instead, what Conor Clarke thinks is a moral intuition is in fact a strong status quo bias?!
Q: How has Robin Hanson obtained more knowledge about Conor Clarke's moral intuition than Conor Clarke?
Am I missing something?
I, for one, am rather unpuzzled that different people have different moral intuitions. I may find some people's particular intuitions puzzling, but not the fact that they are different.