An Awesome Proposal
So, certain people are really awesome. I've addressed this previously: guys who can dance have way too big an advantage in terms of impressing women. It's not just dancing, though. Women tend to be attracted to a guy who has a good body, a handsome face, a good sense of humor, intelligence, artistic skill, or money.
What immediately jumps out about these attributes, aside from the fact that I don't possess any of them? I barely have to say it: only money is taxed. This is clearly inefficient, and once you see why, you'll understand that I get a suboptimal amount of sex.
Imagine two bridges across a river. People travel across both to get where they need to go. For the sake of the example, imagine that they are identical in all relevent respects (we can relax this assumption without changing the outcome). Each traveler will decide which bridge to use based on the expected costs and benefits. Holding benefits equal, costs are the decisive factor. Imagine that costs increase exponentially with increased traffic. Now an equilibrium will emerge in which each bridge is used equally. This is because if a bridge were used less, people would be drawn to it (lower costs). It all evens out.
Now imagine that a tax is levied on travel across one of the bridges. A new equilibrium will emerge in which the non-taxed bridge gets more traffic than the taxed bridge. Because costs rise exponentially with traffic, total costs are increased.
Finally, imagine that a similar tax is levied, except on both bridges. For the same amount of revenue, costs are lower. This is because traffic will once again be the same across both bridges, minimizing traffic costs.
The lesson is that, for a given level of tax revenue, we want to have as big a tax base as possible. We don't want to get all our tax revenue from a tax on one particular activity, because this will skew incentives in an inefficient way. Ideally our tax will be neutral among activities.
Now we come to attributes that attract women. Taxing only money is like taxing only one bridge. A more efficient solution would be to tax physical attractiveness, sense of humor, etc. at the same rate as monetary income. Sure, it's not an easy calculation, but you could do some econometrics and figure out the extent to which each attribute contributes to sexual success.
Not only does my plan provide much needed revenue to the federal government, it makes the market for sex more efficient. People will no longer be so wastefully funny, strong, or intelligent, and people like me will get laid a lot more. To my future sexual partners, driven to me by the new tax, I say this: the sex will be only somewhat worse, and you'll get that warm feeling that comes from knowing that it is socially efficient. Oh, and don't throw away your vibrator: you're going to be needing that.
What immediately jumps out about these attributes, aside from the fact that I don't possess any of them? I barely have to say it: only money is taxed. This is clearly inefficient, and once you see why, you'll understand that I get a suboptimal amount of sex.
Imagine two bridges across a river. People travel across both to get where they need to go. For the sake of the example, imagine that they are identical in all relevent respects (we can relax this assumption without changing the outcome). Each traveler will decide which bridge to use based on the expected costs and benefits. Holding benefits equal, costs are the decisive factor. Imagine that costs increase exponentially with increased traffic. Now an equilibrium will emerge in which each bridge is used equally. This is because if a bridge were used less, people would be drawn to it (lower costs). It all evens out.
Now imagine that a tax is levied on travel across one of the bridges. A new equilibrium will emerge in which the non-taxed bridge gets more traffic than the taxed bridge. Because costs rise exponentially with traffic, total costs are increased.
Finally, imagine that a similar tax is levied, except on both bridges. For the same amount of revenue, costs are lower. This is because traffic will once again be the same across both bridges, minimizing traffic costs.
The lesson is that, for a given level of tax revenue, we want to have as big a tax base as possible. We don't want to get all our tax revenue from a tax on one particular activity, because this will skew incentives in an inefficient way. Ideally our tax will be neutral among activities.
Now we come to attributes that attract women. Taxing only money is like taxing only one bridge. A more efficient solution would be to tax physical attractiveness, sense of humor, etc. at the same rate as monetary income. Sure, it's not an easy calculation, but you could do some econometrics and figure out the extent to which each attribute contributes to sexual success.
Not only does my plan provide much needed revenue to the federal government, it makes the market for sex more efficient. People will no longer be so wastefully funny, strong, or intelligent, and people like me will get laid a lot more. To my future sexual partners, driven to me by the new tax, I say this: the sex will be only somewhat worse, and you'll get that warm feeling that comes from knowing that it is socially efficient. Oh, and don't throw away your vibrator: you're going to be needing that.
posted by James | 6:32 AM
3 Comments:
This awesome proposal is indeed awesome. One of the key problems that I see with it, however, is that you will need a army of women to evaluate a man's desirability along the different axes that you describe: attractiveness, sense of humor, etc (will these women work for the IRS or could this be outsourced? As you know, I'm a fan of outsourcing). Although you touch upon a few different characteristics, there are quite a few that you are missing. For example, a key factor in getting a lot of sex is your existing sexual ability. You can probably see where I'm going with this and it's going to get nasty. It will be necessary to have a team of women that are dedicated to banging guys all day in order to evaluate their performance. This does not seem like a good job. In fact, it seems like a terrible job. Where are you going to find these women? I guess you could get around this by creating some sort of a machine that guys could go up to and bang but the quality of the evaluation will be questionable. Can you imagine banging a machine?
Interestingly, such a machine already exists for women: http://fukingmachines.org/main.html. Perhaps the technology could be adapted to the male anatomy.
Daisuke O showed me your blog; I'm an '05...
This entry gave me an intellectual orgasm...beautiful. I feel like the first commenter's concerns could be addressed by making the tax based on results, rather than subjective judgement. How many times do you go home from nightspot/party not alone? Of course that would depend on the hotness of the girl, more subjectivity. Also privacy concerns.
Also, how would this tax be levvied? It seems fair that we tax money in money; how would we tax tallness or awesome hair?
Post a Comment
<< Home