Looks might not kill, but they are certainly a magnet for money. Australian academics Andrew Leigh and Jeff Borland released research earlier this week confirming what we all secretly suspected: better looking Australians get hired first, earn more, and marry richer spouses.

Tax that. Pic: AP

Holding age, education, and origin fixed, the hourly wages of attractive people are around 20 per cent higher than their appearance-challenged contemporaries, reflecting similar conclusions in umpteen overseas studies.

The effect is especially pronounced for men: those with above average looks enjoy household incomes 15 per cent above the average, while more ‘minging’ chaps, as young Brits would say, earn 24 per cent below, a whopping gulf of around $30,000 a year, based on average Australian incomes, wholly owing to nature’s arbitrary favour.

The authors also found “the strongest evidence is for females where there is a premium in spousal income from being rated as ‘above-average’”. And plain women were 13 percentage points less likely to be married too.

Looks ratings were assigned by door-knocking interviewers conducting the survey. As the authors suggest, beauty is in the eye of the beholder only at the margin. That is, if your mate believes a girl (or guy) is an ‘8’, it is statistically very unlikely you will consider her (or him) a ‘4’.

If there were one piece of distressing evidence crying out for an evidence-based policy, then this is it. Social justice demands action to level the playing field. It doesn’t matter whether the beautiful earn more because their appearance makes them more effective, or simply because employers are aesthetically inclined.

Luckily, economic theory shows how promoting fairness can boost economic growth as well. Levying a fixed, lump sum, annual tax on the beautiful, quite aside from any moral arguments in its favour, would improve the efficiency of the tax system, and ultimately leading to windfall economic gains for everyone.

Unlike normal income tax, which retards the incentive to work, a lump sum Beauty Tax would have no effect on the decision to work because the beautiful would have to pay it regardless.

The government’s own Henry taxation review lends tacit support to a beauty tax by way of reference to land tax, which is efficient because “land cannot move to escape the tax”. The same principle applies to looks. Good looking people cannot easily undermine their attractiveness, and they certainly wouldn’t want to given the massive advantages good looks bestow.

Of course, the same principle could argue for taxes on intelligent people – who can earn income with far less time and effort than their dimmer peers – but intelligence, unlike land or beauty, is easy to hide.

A $1,000 annual Beauty Tax on the best looking people of working age – which would only partly offset the financial windfall the beautiful enjoy – could easily generate over $1 billion a year. The additional revenue could be used to cut marginal income tax rates for everyone, sharpening the incentive to work for handsome and ugly alike.

Alternatively, the extra revenue could be used to subsidise beauty spas, cosmetics or even botox treatments in order to help nullify nature’s egregious and blatant discrimination, or simply help bolster the government’s bottom line. As good looking people have done nothing to deserve their physical endowment, why shouldn’t they do their bit to shore up public finances?

And a Beauty Tax would certainly be no more difficult to administer than horrendously complex capital gains tax.

Taxpayers would simply submit standardised photographs taken by the incorruptible staff at two separate Australia Post outlets every year. The Tax Office would use sophisticated image-scanning technology, incorporating the latest scientific evidence on traits that make faces attractive, to calculate a Pulchritudinous Index for every person.

The Index would be appropriately adjusted by certified Body Mass Index scores to ensure obese people with pretty faces, for instance, were not unduly penalised. The resulting number would determine the extent of the Tax.

To ensure compliance, failure to submit an approved photograph would, as it does for people who refuse to take up private health insurance, attract a surcharge far in excess of the maximum Tax. At age 50, say, by which time gravity has typically eroded any looks premium, the Tax would no longer apply.

Economists should rally around this modest proposal because it accords with a key principle of tax theory: tax factors or traits than cannot easily be adjusted or hidden. Politicians should be quick to get on board too. After all politics is, as they say, show business for ugly people.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEDST.

Most commented

91 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Louie the Good Looking (to other flies)Fly says:

      06:30am | 11/01/13

      Mmmmm, you are probably right.
      Can I donate my $1,000 to the RSPCA to look after the ugly dogs rather than give it to treasury?

    • Bruce says:

      10:43am | 11/01/13

      We already have a “success tax”, its called the “carbon tax”  !

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      06:38am | 11/01/13

      Hi Adam,

      Now that is a helpful piece of information to have at our fingertips. I was only wondering if that rule only applies to really good looking women in bikinis or normal clothes count as well?  I have found your article a little too shallow to begin with, no offence intended.  We have always known that really attractive women don’t really have to lift a finger to end up with a very rich husband. However by saying things like this, I wonder what kind of message you are sending to the young generation lacking the life experience and know how to deal with life’s little difficulties? 

      So they shouldn’t turn up for interviews and job applications and want better things from life, right?  To this day there is saying in my family which goes something like this “we may all be a piece of flesh and bones but if you study the human anatomy you may also discover a great organ called the “human brain”. Without the absence of a brain functions human beings aren’t any different to other creatures on earth.  But the actual question should be “are we all using our brains to its full capacity”?  Maybe next time we might end up with advertisements like “really ugly people shouldn’t need to apply because we don’t want and need you”? 

      Somehow I find it t is beyond a joke especially when we think about all those fights about equal opportunities for everyone and equal rights for all women regardless of their shapes and sizes.  I do have any idea though if attractive people have easier and more comfortable lives, then they should be taxed accordingly by paying a slightly higher rate.  That is surely bound to teach them a lesson about being just too attractive and stealing all those really good opportunities from the rest of the general population.  Kind regards.

    • Ben says:

      02:30pm | 11/01/13

      I’m guessing you’re one of the disadvantaged uglies? Get a life.

    • Tim says:

      06:46am | 11/01/13

      Im already taxed enough damn you.

      This is pure geneism at its worst.

    • marley says:

      08:17am | 11/01/13

      Are you saying you’d be taxed?  Personally, I think this may be my only chance of getting a rebate.

    • James1 says:

      08:54am | 11/01/13

      I’m fairly sure I’ll be okay, but what about my wife?  Does she have to pay it out of my income, considering she is not in the workforce at the moment?  Maybe I should tell her to gain heaps of weight or something…

    • Nostromo says:

      09:51am | 11/01/13

      LOL @ marley! Send us through a link to any pics of you - we’ll be the judge of that! ;-p

    • Jeremy says:

      12:03pm | 11/01/13

      I would feel bad for all the middle-of-the-road attractive people who get pushed back down to earth when they realise they are not being taxed. The negative effect of lowered self-esteem upon the un-taxed masses would far outweigh the gains.

    • Economist says:

      06:53am | 11/01/13

      Finally a tax Adam is happy to pay, that’ has to be a first! .....Wait did I just complement him?

      Though I think it should be progressive. I’ll happily pay twice as much assuming I score higher on the Pulchritudinous Index. Though personally all woman are beautiful and should not be scrutinised by said Pulchritudinous Index, so just pay up ladies.

    • bec says:

      07:26am | 11/01/13

      Sucks to be you, I am plain as all f***!

      I’m going to keep my money and use it to pay for booze, trashy magazines, and consorting with unclean men.

    • Mouse says:

      08:08am | 11/01/13

      I’m with you Bec. I will wear my Groucho Marx glasses and mo mask, maybe even add the cigar, for my mandatory yearly pic and then quite happily waste my money on the other little pleasures of life, at least until our government decides that they will ban them for our own good!  lol :o)

    • Tim says:

      08:10am | 11/01/13

      “Though personally all woman are beautiful and should not be scrutinised by said Pulchritudinous Index, so just pay up ladies. “

      Suck up.

      Ps. By your above statement you clearly haven’t driven through Queanbeyan in a while.

    • AdamC says:

      08:53am | 11/01/13

      Our Mr Creighton looks pretty good in that profile pic.

      Dare I say it, that makes two handsome Adam Cs at the Punch! (Don’t hate me because I am beautiful.)

      I must be flattering myself, though, because what I imagine to be my killer smile and boyish good looks have not resulted in stellar career success.  Maybe I am just a victim of the love yourself, self-esteem movement?

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:54am | 11/01/13

      Economist
      You and Adan have not thought through this well enough.

      If the ridiculously good-looking are taxed they’ll just try to avoid the tax by eating junk food and not exercising. That way they’ll get fat and no longer be good-looking.

      This would have disastrous consequences.

      Firstly, our health system would be further flooded with fatties. A public health system overloaded with needless fatties is not good for taxpayers.

      Secondly, good looking people would no longer bother working hard to earn that extra bit so the tax would be neutralised somewhat from reduced marginal tax earnings. Moreover our productive economic capacity would be reduced.

      Thirdly, if all the hot chicks become fat chicks then who am I to have sex with?!?! I don’t bang chicks less than an 8 unless I am paralytically blind drunk and she’s maybe a 6. Tubesteak no function well sex without!

      This tax is damaging to our economy at a fragile time. It won’t work. It has to be stopped.

    • James1 says:

      10:23am | 11/01/13

      “I don’t bang chicks less than an 8 unless I am paralytically blind drunk and she’s maybe a 6.”

      Is that a drunk 6, or a sober 6?  And if you are drunk at the time, how can you tell?

    • Economist says:

      10:44am | 11/01/13

      @Tubesteak, that would depend on whether the tax has such a disincentive on marginal utility. 

      I’d argue many people would still make the decision to look good as the benefits out way the tax.  Only those at the margins of the Pulchritudinous Index would let themselves go.

      I suspect tax evasion would be as simple as not putting on makeup for your Australia post photo. Also some people don’t photograph well. I believe that regular audits should be undertaken and I reckon you’d rejoin the Tax Office to do said audits, you dirty bugger wink

    • Economist says:

      12:10pm | 11/01/13

      AdamC not a victim. Appreciating yourself has benefits to your utility.

      Also let’s be frank. If the index was set up in such a way to tax 50% of the adult population it would still only raise around $16b a year. Not even enough to cover the cost of the NDIS.

    • Thin-Ice Skater says:

      01:58pm | 11/01/13

      “I don’t bang chicks etc”

      Dearest James1,

      I didn’t know blow-up dolls came with an out of ten rating status.

    • JoniM says:

      02:31pm | 11/01/13

      @ Tubesteak

      Dude ! Sounds like this tax is a complete rip off of the Mining Tax !
      And likely to furnish the same results !
      Offshore movement of the beautiful people, no employment for local beauty industry service and support, and sweet FA in tax receipts !
      Reckon its a monty to be adopted by our ugly “progressives” in Canberra !

    • Al says:

      06:57am | 11/01/13

      “Unlike normal income tax, which retards the incentive to work, a lump sum Beauty Tax would have no effect on the decision to work because the beautiful would have to pay it regardless.”
      So do you think this would lead to a rush on cosmetic surgery by the very rich (and already married etc) to make themselves less attractive and be exempt from the tax?
      Bring in a tax on something so arbitrary and there is a way around it.
      Cosmetic Surgeon “How can I help you today sir/madam?”
      Wealth client “Just throw some acid in my face, that should do it.”

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      07:31am | 11/01/13

      “better looking Australians get hired first, earn more, and marry richer spouses.”

      But these richer spouses must has also be better looking in order to be richer in the first place. So shouldn’t they be marrying more attractive people then them?

    • Ian1 says:

      07:36am | 11/01/13

      “better looking Australians get hired first, earn more, and marry richer spouses. “

      Physical beauty is arbitrary, fleeting, and perception based.  Hence looking better is easily achieved by all simply by presenting oneself better.  If you present well, I am not surprised you get the job first.  Earn more?  Didn’t realize the ATO kept data on attractiveness of the taxpayer, hmm.  Unless the survey was skewed by interviewer bias?  Marry richer spouses?  If you are choosing a spouse based on money, your heart is in the wrong place to start with I’d have thought.

      Considering the many years now I’ve not quite earned the average wage, I will adjust my self-esteem accordingly in light of this astonishing research.  Thanks.

    • Neil says:

      07:49am | 11/01/13

      It’s a hard life being so beautiful and feeling entitled to the big concrete rendered house in Mosman and the euro cars. There’s not that many guys that look like Brad Pitt and make $500k per year or have a big inheritance. Plus it’s very easy to let yourself go and become one of the scummy people.

      That’s misogynist.

    • Joan says:

      12:00pm | 11/01/13

      Actually good looks don’t really count in the fabulously, fantastically rich stakes. Murdoch and Buffett, Gates , late Jobs- not fabulously good looking at all. The multi billion/million- dollars makes any woman or man look better in the eyes of the beholder. In the ordinary money income stakes good looks is a bonus for an extra few dollars.  I reckon its because right from childhood a good looking child gets that extra attention and praise and they carry that confidence through life. Even the not so good looking do really well if they have mentor or parent boosting their ego and confidence. Not so good looking have to go that extra yard - slick dress, sparkle, and confidence.

    • Joan says:

      12:00pm | 11/01/13

      Actually good looks don’t really count in the fabulously, fantastically rich stakes. Murdoch and Buffett, Gates , late Jobs- not fabulously good looking at all. The multi billion/million- dollars makes any woman or man look better in the eyes of the beholder. In the ordinary money income stakes good looks is a bonus for an extra few dollars.  I reckon its because right from childhood a good looking child gets that extra attention and praise and they carry that confidence through life. Even the not so good looking do really well if they have mentor or parent boosting their ego and confidence. Not so good looking have to go that extra yard - slick dress, sparkle, and confidence.

    • gof says:

      07:51am | 11/01/13

      It’s not really fair to give a 1k tax break to all of the LNP politicians whilst punishing by a repressive 1k tax to all our beautiful ALP politicians. It’s just not democratic I tell you.
      I am glad Howard never saw this article! He would have instituted a middle class welfare Family Benefit U for ugly average people disadvantaged through mediocrity.

    • Steve says:

      10:03am | 11/01/13

      Why would Howard have targeted a benefit at Labor supporters?

      And if you accept that high income people tend to vote Liberal, does this relationship between good looks and high income mean that Liberal voters tend to be better looking on average than ALP voters?

      Will the ALP’s NDIS in future stand for National Disfigurement Insurance Scheme?

    • Dash says:

      07:56am | 11/01/13

      the more you earn the more tax you pay. sounds like the system is already in place!

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      08:00am | 11/01/13

      Don’t hate me cos I’m beautiful.

    • gof says:

      08:01am | 11/01/13

      Does this mean that Gina Rinehart, James Packer and Nathan Tinkler are earning 20% less than their potential?

    • Jax says:

      08:18am | 11/01/13

      Gof - I don’t think the rule applies to Tradies (Tinkler) or people who inherit wealth..  In fact I think the rule works inversely

    • Colin says:

      08:30am | 11/01/13

      And “gof” would be entitled to a 100% refund…..

    • Dan says:

      08:37am | 11/01/13

      +1 nice work gof

      I never understand why these people don’t hire a personal trainer. Its not just about looks, its about quality of life. Its not like they can’t afford it and obviously they do not have the get up and go to exercise by themselves. Then Gina has the gall to accuse others of laziness.

    • gof says:

      09:55am | 11/01/13

      #Colin,
      As a social progressive Colin, I don’t mind donating some of my refund to your much needed labiaplasty.

    • Dman says:

      12:24pm | 11/01/13

      @Dan, have you seen James Packer recently? He actually did hire a personal trainer and has lost a heap of weight.

    • gof says:

      12:42pm | 11/01/13

      #Dman,
      “He actually did hire a personal trainer and has lost a heap of weight”
      Yeah but he is still as ugly as Colin’s butt though.

    • Ben C says:

      03:36pm | 11/01/13

      @ gof

      “Yeah but he is still as ugly as Colin’s butt though.”

      The last time I heard such an attempted insult was a good 15 years ago, when I was just starting high school.

    • Joan Bennett says:

      08:04am | 11/01/13

      Do you have to be naturally beautiful or the “hollywood ideal”?  Also, what do they mean by good looking men?  Masculine, rugged good looks or the modern metrosexual, pretty boy look?

    • Modern Primitive says:

      09:11am | 11/01/13

      Hell, just having a BMI under 25 will put you in the running these days.

    • che says:

      09:57am | 11/01/13

      That was the same question I had, who decides on who is ‘good looking’? It is a very subjective thing.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      10:32am | 11/01/13

      Beauty can be mathematically defined, its hardly subjective.

    • che says:

      11:01am | 11/01/13

      Modern Primitive, so you are attracted to exactly the same people as everyone else you know? Because that is not the case for me.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      12:28pm | 11/01/13

      Are you a woman? It’s pretty standard for men and hardly deviates. And beauty is mathematically defined, attraction isn’t, so we can still both be right on this.

    • Dman says:

      12:29pm | 11/01/13

      @Che, actually beauty can be mathematically and objectively defined. It’s all to do with symmetry and proportions, and studies have shown that people tend to rate other people with symmetrical and proportionate features as being more attractive. However whether you personally find those beautiful people attractive is up to you.

    • Esteban says:

      12:44pm | 11/01/13

      Well you have a new Government department to assess who is to be taxed.

      Initially it was envisaged that only natural beauty would be taxed but unfortunately it cost more to run the new Government department than was collected so the tax base was broadened to all forms of beauty.

      All the beautiful people moved overseas where there was no beauty taxes and did very well.

      With the country full of non beaties the tax was considered to have been a great social leap forward for equality because now everyone was ugly.
      Ugly but equal.

      Of course with no beauties left to tax the budget deficit is a bit sad so an ugly tax must be levied to encourage the most ugly to become better looking which will promote even more equality and replace the missing beauty tax.

      Perhaps we should stick with carbon and mining taxes afetr all. There is no social engineering agenda there is there?

    • Trevor says:

      08:12am | 11/01/13

      Being born attractive has nothing on being born with an ability to play tennis, football or most sports for that matter.

      Hollywood is full of ‘stars’ whose only talent is to have a parent who is a movie star.

      Yet these people usually pay nothing for the thousand dollar clothes that they wear etc. I think they should be taxed even harder than those deemed attractive.

    • B Howlett, esquire says:

      08:21am | 11/01/13

      Tax people on beauty? That smacks of accommodating to the lowest common denominator which,in this incredibly PC world would make sense but does nothing to progress us as a people. I honestly wasnt if trolling or actually believed this. I’m not attractive (or don’t claim to be) but I have my dream job and a good l life. Paying unattractive people is a tad condescending as well, like saying “well you can’t be blamed for your families poor genes, let’s give you a leg up.” you’re basically implying that the unattractive are an underclass and just happen to be lucky enough to have the generosity of the rich to help them along.

    • Simon says:

      08:25am | 11/01/13

      It’s a slow news day isn’t it?

    • PJ says:

      08:27am | 11/01/13

      Well thank God I’m young, beautiful, black and always feature in naughty girls dreams

    • PW says:

      09:35am | 11/01/13

      It’s a well known fact that the bigger the dick, the less blood is available to run the brain.

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      12:38pm | 11/01/13

      @PW

      Your post make no sense as the it is a know fact that the penis is the brain. Which is why men are smarter than women because men can think with their penis.

      <:-I

    • PJ says:

      03:25pm | 11/01/13

      PW - As I used to explain to Bailey and his multiple personalities, one of which was ‘Rastus’ (not lost on me), .....  I’m the ‘future face’ of Australia.

      So you can rest assured, ultimately, Australia will be in good hands.

    • Fed Up says:

      08:44am | 11/01/13

      As long as we dont have to pay an ugly tax i don’t care.

    • Margie says:

      09:43am | 11/01/13

      gof, Do you seriously suggest that ALP pollies are better looking than the LNP ones?  Albo,  Combet, Macklin, Paul Lucas,  plus all the women I know who vote Labor are in the main as plain as the day is long with bad teeth and hairy armpits to boot!  And voices as grating as our illustrious PM.  No brains either. Take off the goggles.
      And I don’t know why I waste time typing this as as sure as eggs it will not be published!

    • gof says:

      12:48pm | 11/01/13

      #Margie ,
      Congrats on getting your post published, personally I would have thrown it in the trash.
      Let’s try not to generalise here, otherwise i could generalise that everyone who is negative against the ALP is a bogan trog which you have clearly demonstrated here today.

    • Dan says:

      01:52pm | 11/01/13

      Name one good looking Liberal politician Margie.

    • Meph says:

      03:17pm | 11/01/13

      @Dan

      “Name one good looking Liberal politician Margie.”

      Typical “If you aren’t with us, you’re against us”.

      Personally I think they all look like the proverbial hat full of monkeys arseholes, but that’s just a personal opinion mind.

    • Going straight to hell for this one says:

      09:52am | 11/01/13

      @ Adam - “ensure obese people with pretty faces, for instance, were not unduly penalised” and therein lies the reason to also impliment an obesity tax, that would truly make this a bipartisan proposal. The Beauty tax would claw in revenue from the followers of the right and the obesity tax would capture the main labor demographic. A win-win from a political point of view

    • Nostromo says:

      02:50pm | 11/01/13

      Just to make sure no ugly skinny people slip through the cracks, they should also tax intelligence & hard workers more, as those are clearly in direct opposition to cunning, unscrupulousness & ruthlessness, of which the ALP are in ample supply. smile

    • JoniM says:

      02:50pm | 11/01/13

      I’ m more for a “plain packaging” approach.
      I suggest that those designated as beauties should only be seen in public in standard olive coloured clothing and make up, with nasty warnings on their foreheads ! Its time we got serious with Big Beauties !

    • NSS says:

      09:59am | 11/01/13

      The problem with all generalisations is that they are too broad, in general. Or maybe my partner is the exception that proves the rule. He is in the top 1% of wage earners in this country and although I love him dearly, the man is no oil painting! ha! Come to think of it, neither are any of his colleagues, so maybe this is just nonsense after all, for blokes at least.

      One sincerely hopes that in the 21st C if these studies are comparing apples with apples, that educated women get hired on their qualifications too, not their looks.

    • James1 says:

      10:13am | 11/01/13

      “The problem with all generalisations is that they are too broad, in general.”

      True.  All generalisations are false, even this one (with apologies to Mark Twain).

    • che says:

      10:28am | 11/01/13

      Agreed, I work with some huge earners and trust me, the ugly tree had no branches left after that lot fell out of it.

    • NSS says:

      11:03am | 11/01/13

      I see you saw what I did. James1. Well done! LOL!

    • Nostromo says:

      02:53pm | 11/01/13

      You know why most ppl don’t like generalisations & stereotypes? Because, in general, they are true or apply, for the most part…if the shoe fits.

    • JoniM says:

      03:24pm | 11/01/13

      @NSS
      “He is in the top 1% of wage earners in this country and although I love him dearly, the man is no oil painting!”

      Yep !
      When it comes to love, even the humble $ must come into the calculations !
      Luckily my old man is an oil painting, but you must be into surrealism art to appreciate his real beauty ! In fact my grown up kids still call him Dada !

    • Dan says:

      10:14am | 11/01/13

      I think a few of you have missed the humour in the article. The author is making a satirical statement about income tax. He is not genuinely proposing a beauty tax. His point is that if you get taxed more for working harder and earning more, then you should also get taxed for looking good and having it easier than others. Ah forget it. Carry on with the outrage.

    • che says:

      11:14am | 11/01/13

      Either we are all really stupid or he didn’t make the humour obvious enough for the punch bunch.

    • Gordon says:

      12:21pm | 11/01/13

      Google Poe’s law.

    • quasimodo says:

      12:26pm | 11/01/13

      Exactly Dan,

      I don’t know how people don’t get that

    • Esteban says:

      12:29pm | 11/01/13

      The writer has made the focus of every article he has written on the punch the mantra of smaller Government and lower taxes.

      If you read this article in that context you will clearly see that he is exposing the stupidity of taxing to achieve a social engineering end.

      However even without the benefit of the writer’s previous articles I would have thought that the concept of a beauty tax was so ridiculous that it would raise a suspicion of irony.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      12:31pm | 11/01/13

      Che, please don’t tell me you took this article seriously.

    • LJ Dots says:

      10:37am | 11/01/13

      Well, if this tax actually gets up, I can envision the civil disobedience protests looking something like the Zoolander petrol fight scene.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:46am | 11/01/13

      ...but why male models?

    • Mouse says:

      12:39pm | 11/01/13

      .....because if you used female models that would be sexist!!  ;o)

    • LJ Dots says:

      04:19pm | 11/01/13

      St Michael, are you serious?

    • LJ Dots says:

      04:21pm | 11/01/13

      Mouse, gender has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to high cheekbones and really interesting hair.

    • SpiderMonkey says:

      10:50am | 11/01/13

      You are glossing over the genetic component here.

      Good looking people get their choice of the genetic crop.  They have kids with both good looking and smart people.  So of course they get better money, they have the brains to back up their looks.

    • Leonard Hofstadter says:

      12:29pm | 11/01/13

      Our children will be both beautiful and smart

    • Robinoz says:

      11:19am | 11/01/13

      I’ve always liked looking at the numerous news readers and weather girls who are a clear indicator that EEO doesn’t work in the media industry. I don’t care. It’s lovely having a date with a gorgeous woman for a half hour or so every day, even though she is in Sydney or Brisbane and I’m elsewhere. And then there’s Halle Berry ... but I’m getting distracted, she’s not a common garden variety news reader, she’s a celebrity. As a Recruitment Manager however, I always hired people for their skills and experience. That was a better prescription for workplace success than simply good looks.  PS: Where is Karina Cavello from the ABC these days?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:45am | 11/01/13

      Dude, if you’re looking for free porn, there’s this thing called the Internet…

    • JEFF says:

      11:59am | 11/01/13

      dammit - i’ll have to pay an extra 5k in tax

    • JEFF says:

      11:59am | 11/01/13

      dammit - i’ll have to pay an extra 5k in tax

    • Esteban says:

      12:14pm | 11/01/13

      Would I be getting carried away if I described this article as sublime?

      a hilarious article that might help some of the leftists amongst us to understand what they are doing to this country with their loony policies.

      If there is such a thing as an attractive ALP supporter then that sound you hear is pennies dropping from the sky.

      Adam Creighton’s many articles that logically prosecute the case for smaller Govt and lower taxes fall on deaf ears of the leftists who inhabit this web site and I suspect the wider community. Preaching to the converted.

      Let us hope that this piece of satire can enlighten a few at least.

    • Richard says:

      12:34pm | 11/01/13

      This is a funny article, but it does allude to the important issue of why THIS government in particular has been so inept at the most fundamental task facing all governments: tax reform.

      Hawke and Keating’s government made wonderful progress with tax reform with Keating’s 1985 tax summit, the Howard Costello government had an epic win with the GST tax reform, yet this government has absolutely squibbed it.

      A mining tax which doesn’t raise revenue but does chase off mining investment to Africa, a Carbon Tax which has caused the manufacturing sector to shrink each and every month since it was implemented, cheap-shot sin-tax hikes on booze and smoking, everything they’ve done has been inept and incompetent.

      They really need to be voted out at the next election, simple as that. You cannot reward poor governance with re-election, otherwise you’ll just encourage it. Punish ineptitude in the only possible way: by voting for your local Liberal candidate in the next election instead of Labor incompetents.

    • W J Craig (Mrs) says:

      12:46pm | 11/01/13

      Total, absolute garbage!
      My husband died some years ago. He always had a great body, you know the type: great pecs, flat, tum with the 6-pack, cutest tight butt but a face which was like a brick Dunny: Ugly as all get out!! He knew it & was quite proud to be Ugly!!
      That’s why I chose him & did so for a number of reasons!
      (a) No other woman would look at him! (Except when we went to the Beach & it wasn’t only the women who peeked!!)
      (b) He told me I looked even better standing next to him!!
      (c) He had a stunning job to which he got appointed over & above all the ‘pretty boys’ & mark this, though it was rare all those years ago, he had a Female Boss (No, not me!!! - at least not at work!!).
      Of course in those days the wife was expected to stay at home, mind & bring up the children - a job so-called ‘parents’, it is now reported are paying others to do, & are paying out $100 per child, per day. How stupid is that? One parent going out to work simply to pay for others to look after their $5000 trophy kids.

    • Meph says:

      03:24pm | 11/01/13

      @W J Craig (Mrs)

      They really should name their kids more appropriately. Rather than “Lahteeshar” or “Tawnee” or some other such gibberish, they should call them “Plasma TV”, “Playstation” or “fake boobs”. Since that’s the sort of thing they invariably waste the breed-for-your-country bonus on.

    • Wurpy says:

      04:10pm | 11/01/13

      I agree.

      People have gotten way too concerned with looks. People these days judge a book by its cover. It has become the norm.

    • Terence says:

      02:50pm | 11/01/13

      Adam looks like he is going to be spared paying this tax!!!

    • scumbag says:

      03:08pm | 11/01/13

      Not like me, with the six pack (in the esky), no arse, and ugly as a dead dingo’s donger.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter