COLUMN: Fight Anti-Ugly Discrimination – Tax the Beautiful

From Felix Rouse's "Still I Rise," Fall '94 At least that is what a recent study has found. The study indicates that "beautiful" people make, on the average, five percent more money, in their respective fields, than their "ugly" counterparts. This study shows, in monetary terms, how much emphasis our society places on beauty. This study has sparked an interesting debate among some political theorists. If it is proven that you stand to make at least five percent more than the average-looking person because you are "beautiful," then maybe this presents another form of discrimination in the workplace. As we all know, discrimination of any kind is not tolerated in the United States. So why should the "beautiful" be any different? One proposed solution is to tax beautiful people. Taxing them would even out the scale and would also provide some revenue for our deficit ridden country. A payroll tax would be the ideal means for this process, and added benefits could be given to the "ugly." Advocates for this sort of action only need to point to similar types of civil rights violations and discriminatory practices in the workplace to support their argument. For example, there are laws against discrimination because of race, gender, and ethnic origin. Those are the obvious ones, but you can also sue for discrimination based on height, weight, age, disability, and sexual preference. Surely, there are a host of others. So why not curtail discrimination against all those who are not considered "beautiful?" Providing a legal framework for anti-ugly discrimination cases would be good, but our courts already have enough of a backlog to deal with. A payroll tax would be a simple and effective way to attack the problem. It may sound far-fetched, but such a system can be effective for a short period of time -- say two years. The question remains: who determines who is "beautiful?" The best way to solve this problem is to allow people to decide for themselves. It could be argued that no one would admit that they were "beautiful" because they would not want to pay the additional tax. In reality, the argument works better the other way around -- people would want to pay the tax. People would be happy to pay this tax if there were a way to make it obvious to everyone who was "beautiful" and who was "ugly." Maybe it could be that when you take your mug-shot for your driver's license, you would have to turn your head to the side if you filed as an "ugly" (spare us half of your ugly face). If you are "beautiful," of course, you get to face forward. How about a large 'B' or a large "U" on your license plate? If you had a "U," you would have a plain dark grey plate, and if you had a "B" you can have pink vanity plates. The objective is not to penalize the "ugly," but we are trying to impose a tax here. If there is no incentive to be "beautiful," then everyone will claim that they are ugly. Besides, the ugly will be given other hidden benefits once they designate themselves ugly. Most people do not believe that they are "ugly." I do feel that there are some who see others as more beautiful than the average. I know that if there were a tax, I would be the first in line to pay it. Self-esteem is lacking in many people, and I think that they would pay the tax to be considered "beautiful." This tax could only last for a few years because soon there would civil rights amendments for it, and quotas against the beautiful! Soon everyone would just stop paying the tax because of its consequences. Please take this tax seriously (it was serious enough for the McLaughlin Group to discuss). We might even learn a thing or two about "beauty being only skin deep." Felix Rouse is a junior Political Science major from Newark, New Jersey. Still I Rise will normally appear alternate Thursdays.