Over summer, I’ve been disturbed with how many people shamelessly flaunt their inherited assets. These people are born with a certain privilege. They didn’t work for it, they just have it.

Yes, I know The New Zealand Initiative has previously written about how inequality has barely changed for decades. We’ve argued that many reports on inequality trends, and the likely causes and consequences are often overblown. Those conclusions remain.

But there is one aspect of inequality that frankly, I think we dropped the ball on: beauty inequality.

Visit any well-populated beach in New Zealand and you’ll see it. Those blessed with good genes frolic around with their abs and tans without a care in the world. One cannot help but feel for those less genetically-favoured, who might never enjoy the self-confidence to wear togs in public. The warm weather really does bring out the gap between the haves and have-nots.

For people like me who used to take comfort in the mantra that beauty is on the inside, think again. Studies have shown that the Beauty Premium is a real thing. Good looking people are likely to be paid more, enjoy greater social influence, and can even sway some voters at the ballot box. Pretty people are also more likely to be right-wing. These effects could end up entrenching inequality over generations.

It is time for the government to fix beauty inequality.

There will inevitably be issues in measurement and definitions. Looking at inequality at any point in time is also deceptive. Some people grow into their looks, while some peoples’ looks depreciate over time. The net present value of future assets ought to count. Some might even hide their assets or invest in other things (like education) if there are associated government benefits or tax cuts.

International comparisons of inequality are also hard. What matters more: the levels of inequality across countries, or overall levels of national attractiveness?

An obvious solution to intergenerational inequality would be to ban attractive people procreating with each other. Alternatively, unattractive people should receive some government assistance to mate with better-looking people. Shorter term solutions could include subsidising plastic surgery, and taxing harmful products like Crocs and fleecy trackpants.

Sure, there might be some who have worked hard at the gym, eaten responsibly, and invested much in beauty products to get to the level they are today. Good on them.

But since when did celebrations of success ever make it into an inequality article?