A New York Times article published last month questioned the need of a height tax because shorter people generally earn less than taller people. For example, a 5'5" American earns more than $5,000 less than someone who is 6' tall, even after factoring in age, sex and weight (I'm assuming they mean proportional.) I haven't read the entire study, but technically, aren't governments technically taxing on height based on general income bracket? Studies have do show that shorter people are less likely to hold higher positions, though I don't always agree with the reasons why. For example, I don't think shorter people have a lower IQ. If that's the case, then where does the "dumb jock" stereotype come from? The stereotypical "dumb jock" is a big, tall guy. I also don't agree that taller people were better nourished as children. I do, however, believe that we're less likely seen as a candidate for promotion because of heightism, which leads to shorter people earning less. But when you earn less, you could be in a different tax bracket, meaning you'd be taxed differently anyway.
Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl, the two men who circulated the working paper on tax and height, don't exactly endorse this system either. They just wanted to clarify the general public's view on tax in general.
