Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
  • Browse All
    The Optimal Taxation of Height: A Case Study of Utilitarian Income Redistribution
    19 Aug 2009Working Paper Summaries

    The Optimal Taxation of Height: A Case Study of Utilitarian Income Redistribution

    by N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzierl
    A tax on height follows inexorably from a well-established empirical regularity and the standard approach to the optimal design of tax policy. Many readers of this paper, however, will not so quickly embrace the idea of levying higher taxes on tall taxpayers. Indeed, when first hearing the proposal, most people either recoil from it or are amused by it. That reaction is precisely what makes tax policy so intriguing, according to N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University and Matthew Weinzierl of HBS. This paper addresses a classic problem: the optimal redistribution of income. A Utilitarian social planner would like to transfer resources from high-ability individuals to low-ability individuals, but is constrained by the fact that he cannot directly observe ability. Taxing height helps the planner achieve redistribution efficiently because height, the data show, is an indicator of income-earning ability. Although readers might take this paper in one of two ways—some seeing it as a small, quirky contribution aimed to clarify the literature on optimal income taxation, others as a broader effort to challenge the entire literature—the authors' results raise a fundamental question about the framework for optimal taxation for which William Vickrey and James Mirrlees won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Economics and which remains a centerpiece of modern public finance. Key concepts include:
    • We must either advocate a tax on height or reject, or at least significantly amend, the conventional Utilitarian approach to optimal taxation. Such choices cannot be avoided.
    • Calculations show that a Utilitarian social planner should levy a sizable tax on height. A tall person making $50,000 should pay about $4,500 more in taxes than a short person making the same income.
    • Height is, of course, only one of many possible personal characteristics that are correlated with a person's opportunities to produce income. In this paper, the authors have avoided these other variables, such as race and gender, because they are intertwined with a long history of discrimination. Any discussion of using these variables in tax policy would raise various political and philosophical issues that go beyond the scope of this paper.
    • Some might fear that a height tax would potentially become a "gateway" tax for the government, making taxes based on demographic characteristics more natural and dangerously expanding the scope for government information collection and policy personalization.
    • Yet modern tax systems already condition on much personal information, such as number of children, marital status, and personal disabilities. A height tax is qualitatively similar, so it is difficult to see why it would trigger a sudden descent down a slippery slope.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    Should the income tax include a credit for short taxpayers and a surcharge for tall ones? The standard Utilitarian framework for tax analysis answers this question in the affirmative. Moreover, a plausible parameterization using data on height and wages implies a substantial height tax: a tall person earning $50,000 should pay $4,500 more in tax than a short person. One interpretation is that personal attributes correlated with wages should be considered more widely for determining taxes. Alternatively, if policies such as a height tax are rejected, then the standard Utilitarian framework must fail to capture intuitive notions of distributive justice. 27 pages.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: June 2009
    • HBS Working Paper Number: 09-139
    • Faculty Unit(s): Business, Government and International Economy
      Trending
        • 19 Sep 2023
        • HBS Case

        How Will the Tech Titans Behind ChatGPT, Bard, and LLaMA Make Money?

        • 12 Sep 2023
        • Book

        Successful, But Still Feel Empty? A Happiness Scholar and Oprah Have Advice for You

        • 15 Aug 2023
        • Cold Call Podcast

        Ryan Serhant: How to Manage Your Time for Happiness

        • 21 Aug 2023
        • Book

        You’re More Than Your Job: 3 Tips for a Healthier Work-Life Balance

        • 05 Sep 2023
        • Research & Ideas

        Failing Well: How Your ‘Intelligent Failure’ Unlocks Your Full Potential

    Matthew C. Weinzierl
    Matthew C. Weinzierl
    Joseph and Jacqueline Elbling Professor of Business Administration
    Senior Associate Dean, Chair, MBA Program
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Find Related Articles
    • Finance
    • Theory

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Accessibility
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College