Height Taxes and Utilitarianism

Contra Alex Tabarrok’s cute post here there’s nothing contradictory between pointing out that Greg Mankiw is wrong to imply that utilitarianism-based arguments are the only (or even the primary) arguments available for redistributive taxation and also to point out that considerations related to the declining marginal utility of money do, in fact, militate in favor of redistributive taxation.

For example “Allah forbids it” is not the only reason one might decline an offer of whiskey at breakfast. Indeed, “Allah forbids it” is, for most people, not going to be an important consideration. But of course many people are observant Muslims. And insofar as you are going to be an observant Muslim, Islam will count as a good reason to avoid whiskey at breakfast.

That said, Neil Sinhababu has persuaded me that in principle a modest “height tax” might be a good idea. As with any totally new tax there are a lot of practical questions around rates, enforcement, political feasibility, etc. standing in the way. Since in my experience there are relatively few utilitarians out there this idea probably isn’t going to take the nation by storm. Last, I continue to take the view that American liberals tend to overestimate the importance of achieving a high level of tax progressivity rather than simply acquiring a sufficient quantity of revenue to fund progressive social spending.