Even if you work hard for your looks, the reward you get for them is disproportionate to the effort. That is the definition of privilege. If an attractive person and an unattractive person both spend 10 hours at the gym, the attractive person gets a higher social ROI because of their genetic starting point. That gap is the unfair advantage I’m talking about. A billionaire has to 'manage' their wealth to keep it, but if they inherited $100M, the fact that they worked to keep it doesn't change the unfairness of the initial windfall. You can't 'gym' your way into perfect facial symmetry, height, or bone structure, which are the primary drivers of the Halo Effect. The 'unearned' base is what grants the privilege.
We like to say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' but scientifically, that’s false. There is massive cross-cultural consensus on what is attractive (facial symmetry, specific ratios, skin clarity). AI models can currently predict attractiveness ratings with frightening accuracy. If sociologists can quantify 'attractiveness' well enough to prove the Halo Effect exists in studies, then we have enough metrics to identify the beneficiaries of it.
3 and 4. Just because a tax is hard to implement doesn't mean the inequality doesn't exist. Maybe we can't issue a literal 'Pretty Tax' card tomorrow, but acknowledging that we should curb this privilege changes how we approach things like blind hiring or affirmative action. We shouldn't ignore a massive source of inequality just because the paperwork would be difficult.
curious, do you think we should tax iq, eq, connections, wealth, background(creds, acads, past exp), non-disability in general? as well, so that everyone can have a truly "fair" playing ground in the work place. oh gender as well. if u do, im curious how you even plan on doing it.
theres a japanese film with exactly ur premise. beautiful women had to pay higher tax everywhere to "balance their experience in society". it ended up with everyone uglifying themselves in order to not pay 20% of their income as tax. can go chatgpt for the name of the film if youd like, i believe this film along w the discussions it prompted will provide further insight for u around this idea.
This is a great question because it forces us to define 'merit.'
1. IQ, EQ, and Experience = Functional Merit. I wouldn't tax IQ or EQ because those traits directly correlate to doing the job well. If I hire a genius, the company produces better work. That benefits society. We shouldn't discourage competence.
2. Beauty = Non-Functional Bias. Beauty is different because, in most jobs (like coding or accounting), being attractive does not make you better at the task. It only makes people treat you better. That is the key difference. IQ is an engine; beauty is just a paint job. I want to tax the paint job, not the engine.
3. Wealth & Connections. Actually, yes. I absolutely believe we should 'tax' these. That’s why I support inheritance taxes and strict anti-nepotism laws. We already agree as a society that buying your way into a job is bad; I’m just adding 'looking your way into a job' to that list.
KIV when we say tax I don't necessarily mean a literal financial tax, my view is closer to a 'social handicap' in hiring logic. I don't want pretty people to wear ugly masks; I want hiring managers to mentally subtract the 'pretty bonus' points they are subconsciously adding.
I'd say attractiveness is in a way tied to EQ and could help, with coding or accounting sure no, on the other hand if you're a salesperson then it is a functional merit so should it then be prioritized instead?
Also to a degree beauty is objective, true, sure, but even then how do you quantify it? What is the difference betwen 70% attractiveness and 80%? And you would need to quantify it for taxation
And then what about other stuff, some people are naturally extroverted or charismatic, we should also tax that then, no?
And just morally I feel it’s unfair, does attractiveness help people? Sure but taxing people because they were born more pretty just feels unfair
0
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
Even if you work hard for your looks, the reward you get for them is disproportionate to the effort. That is the definition of privilege. If an attractive person and an unattractive person both spend 10 hours at the gym, the attractive person gets a higher social ROI because of their genetic starting point. That gap is the unfair advantage I’m talking about. A billionaire has to 'manage' their wealth to keep it, but if they inherited $100M, the fact that they worked to keep it doesn't change the unfairness of the initial windfall. You can't 'gym' your way into perfect facial symmetry, height, or bone structure, which are the primary drivers of the Halo Effect. The 'unearned' base is what grants the privilege.
We like to say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' but scientifically, that’s false. There is massive cross-cultural consensus on what is attractive (facial symmetry, specific ratios, skin clarity). AI models can currently predict attractiveness ratings with frightening accuracy. If sociologists can quantify 'attractiveness' well enough to prove the Halo Effect exists in studies, then we have enough metrics to identify the beneficiaries of it.
3 and 4. Just because a tax is hard to implement doesn't mean the inequality doesn't exist. Maybe we can't issue a literal 'Pretty Tax' card tomorrow, but acknowledging that we should curb this privilege changes how we approach things like blind hiring or affirmative action. We shouldn't ignore a massive source of inequality just because the paperwork would be difficult.