moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Very well spotted.veloc1ty said:You identify a major problem with your proposal just there.
The intelligence of the population is not evenly distributed with income, so even if it is weighted towards the high income side (whether by correlation or causation it doesn't matter) it will not be very fair or effective. Then you try and patch it up with these case-by-case exceptions, which would use so much tax money to process any net benefit would cease to exist.
I feel you know your idea is faulty in many aspects yet you're just arguing for the sake of it.
It was only an idea in the first place, no more. But there's no harm in discussing it, is there?
But the idea is not just from an economics viewpoint (although that does play a big part). It is also from a Darwinian viewpoint, as dysgenics or devolution is not good for humanity as a whole and it's progression.