<p>Prof. Zelenak of Duke Law School recently published a thought-provoking article in Duke Law Review in which he considers the possibility of taxing people on their SAT scores:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His footnote 114 then states:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The entire article is available here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?55+Duke+L.+J.+1145[/url]”>http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?55+Duke+L.+J.+1145</a></p>
<p>Why not just make the rich pay more–oh wait, they already do pay about 70-80% of the total income taxes collected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Prof. Z is proposing shifting some of the tax burden **away from the currently rich ** and onto people with high SATs and current low incomes (on the theory that their high SATs show that they COULD earn high incomes if they chose to do so.)</p>
<p>In other words, the professor proposes that high SAT people who choose to become artists/schoolteachers/clergy/stay-at-home-parents should pay higher taxes because their SAT score demonstrates that they are capable of earning more than they current do.</p>
<p>barrons, the US has not employed progressive taxation yet so consider the rich rather lucky.</p>
<p>Gee - why stop there? </p>
<p>Since certain young females with their innate looks and charm can in effect form a type of “currency” to be “spent” over their lifetimes, or at least for the next 15 to 20 years or so - current taxation for future value must be considered.</p>
<p>Why not an endowment “tax” on females having very selective physical attributes combined with good personalities - having what economists (or psychologists) would describe as near unlimited mating or marriage choices </p>
<p>One obvious class (there are of course others) to demonstrate the point would be as follows: college educated, articulate, stylish, pretty, natural blonde females, ages 21 to 25, 5-5 to 5-8 in height, weighing between 110 lbs and 125 lbs, with pretty faces, small waists, and long legs </p>
<p>Earnings projections whether via marriage, the value of co-habitation, or similar factors can then be computed - and the tax can be determined up front</p>
<p>I hate to ask how Citation proposes to figure the taxes on GUYS.</p>
<p>IN REGARDS TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX</p>
<p>The top 1% of filers pay over a third of all income taxes</p>
<p>The top 5% pay approx 54% of all income taxes </p>
<p>The top 10% pay approx 65% of all income taxes</p>
<p>The top 25% pay approx 84% </p>
<p>The top 50% pay 96.54% </p>
<p>The bottom 50% of filers pay 3.46% of all fed income taxes</p>
<p>(source IRS)</p>
<p>Right - in the United States we don’t have progressive taxation</p>
<p>How about a special tax on law professors who write idiotic articles - just to get published?</p>
<p>Surely this piece must be satire! And azsxdc, did I miss the [sarcastic] [/sarcastic] tags around your post, or the J/K smilie face? If not, I suggest you look up the definition of “progressive tax”, then head over to the IRS website and research tax brackets.</p>
<p>As proof that the piece is pure satire one need not look past the title, TAXING ENDOWMENT, if that isn’t the biggest ROFLMAO I don’t know what is!! Let’s tax men based on the size of their… whatever! :D</p>
<p>Footnote 75 (referring to footnote 14) brings up an interesting concept, many might want to consider -which is basically running and hiding in the wilderness, despite such an “exit option” being flawed</p>
<ol>
<li>“Hasen, supra note 14, at 19. Professor Hasen does not discuss the possibility of an ultimate exit option under an endowment tax-i.e., that a person who did not want to be taxed on his unused earnings potential could escape the tax by leaving the country, or perhaps by remaining in the country but living on his own in the wilderness. Presumably he would consider the protection of autonomy afforded by an exit option to be insufficient.”</li>
</ol>
<p><a href=“http://google.oit.duke.edu/search?access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&site=duke_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=law-journals-dlj&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=law-journals-dlj&q=&q=(site%3Awww.law.duke.edu%2Fjournals%2Fdlj+)&ip=205.188.117.73&proxycustom=”>http://google.oit.duke.edu/search?access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&site=duke_collection&ie=UTF-8&client=law-journals-dlj&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=law-journals-dlj&q=&q=(site%3Awww.law.duke.edu%2Fjournals%2Fdlj+)&ip=205.188.117.73&proxycustom=</a><advanced></advanced></p>
<p>Apparently this is an AUTHENTIC DUKE LAW REVIEW article - it is not a satire</p>
<p>T prove this and cross-check authenticity - simply go to the DUKE UNIVERSITY ADVANCED SEARCH ENGINE cited above and type on 2nd line exact phrase line the word “ENDOWMENT” - which will then lead you right to this DUKE LAW REVIEW article </p>
<p>It is sometimes claimed that academics (particularly in the soft sciences or similar soft subjects) - are publishing articles often of little substantive merit -just to publish - and this proves to be true here, despite the very high academic qualifications of Professor Zelenak</p>
<p><a href=“Duke Law Journal: All Issues”>Duke Law Journal: All Issues;
<p>previous cite having problems, although it works once you arrive. Use above for a direct table of contents for april 2006 Duke Law Review</p>
<p>Yes, I read (most) of it. Sadly, it is not satire, although it reads like something straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. From each according to their potential, to each according to his need. Ah! You have great ability to make money. Therefore you must use that ability to make money for me, as I sadly lack that ability. At least the author recognizes that little inconvenient issue he calls “talent slavery” </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the author’s point about the SATs really has no point at all. He is proposing that SAT scores be used as a substitute for another wacky proposal put forth by Ackerman and Alstott. A&A propose a “priviege tax” based on the income of your parents during your childhood. Well, as any experienced CCer knows, there is a very high correlation between SAT scores and family income. In fact, it has been said that the only thing SAT scores accurately measure is family income. So taxing SAT scores instead of your parents income during your childhood are simply two different ways of getting at the exact same thing, not really two different things at all.</p>
<p>
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, for the rest of the story…
The top 1% have 19% of the taxable income.
The top 5% have 33% of the taxable income.
The top 10% have 44% of the taxable income.
The top 25% have 66% of the taxable income.
The top 50% have 87% of the taxable income.
…and the bottom 50% of tax filers receive just 13% of the taxable income, divided between 65 million taxpayers, maxing out at $30,000 for the 49+ percentile taxpayers.</p>
<p>But wait - there’s more. Not all income is included in these figures, based on AGI. Unrealized capital gains, exempt bond dividends, excess depreciation, etc. all cause the reported AGI of the wealthy to fall short of their actual annual growth of wealth. And there’s more - income tax is the only progressive tax - all other taxes are regressive in relation to income. FICA, sales taxes, etc. take a much smaller share of the income of the wealthy than of others. </p>
<p>So, no, we don’t have a progressive tax structure overall. But no right wing blog is going to print anything but the selected and misleading (though accurate) numbers CITATION X has faithfully cut 'n pasted. As Disraeli (allegedly) said: There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." </p>
<p>By the way - the complete tables are available from 1986 to 2004 on the IRS.gov website. Just enter 1986 2004 in the “search” field and it’ll come right up. It’s eye opening when you see how the income has skyrocketed and tax rates plummeted at the top while both stagnate at the bottom. If you do your own research from the data and reach your own conclusions instead of just repeating the spin that Rush and his ilk put out, you will be surprised with what you come up with.</p>
<p>Those pesky facts again, Kluge, and straight from the US guvment no less.</p>
<p>If anybody would like to tax me for my SAT score, I would like to politely request that they perhaps consider paying me a little more as a graduate student, in order for me to afford such a tax.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but mollie, you are missing Prof Z’s point. The idea of his proposed tax on SATs is that smart people who might otherwise choose to do less remunerative work would have to spend at least part of their time working in a different occupation that would maximize their potential income. </p>
<p>So, Prof Z is essentially saying the opposite of “Get thee to a nunnery!” (since even nuns with high SATs take vows of poverty and earn very little.) He is saying, in essence, “Get thee to an investment bank!” (At least part-time, until you have paid off what he proposes is your “debt to society” for your high SATs.)</p>
<p>I can’t believe that Prof Z is making more than an investment banker or a first year lawyer at an NYC law firm. So is he dumb or what? What were his SAT scores?</p>
<p>
I don’t know anything about Prof. Z. but another prof on the Law School faculty is doing very well. Joel Fleishman, former special assitant to President Sanford 30 years ago now collects his Law School salary plus the income from multiple board of director positions in major corporations. One position on the Ralph Lauren board that was highlighted in a WSJ article and the book by Golden on admissions at Duke pays him “$35,000 a year as a director plus $7,500 as chairman of its compensation committee and $2,000 per meeting. He also owned or held options for 37,500 shares of Ralph Lauren stock, worth at least half a million dollars, public filings show”. Remember he is on multiple boards. That adds up.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Don’t laugh, Mollie. Keep all your financial records straight all through grad school. The year after I finished my Ph.D. I got actually audited by the IRS for the time covering my final year of grad school. I had to take my pay stubs as well as my diploma down to the IRS office to prove that I had in fact been enrolled in an accredited institution and that my assistantship was paid for duties I performed as part of my education. All this for an total income that year of $4500! (NIH research assistantships were somehwat smaller back in the mid-80s).</p>