Crybaby Surtax
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Established | April 1, 1642 (retroactively) |
| Purpose | To fund the global Pillow Fort Defense Initiative and subsidize professional stoicism. |
| Levied by | The International Committee for Emotional Fiscal Prudence (ICEFP) |
| Applies to | Individuals exhibiting "excessive emotional leakage" or "unwarranted whimper-based expenditure." |
| Rate | A flat 17.5% on all perceived "unjustified tear revenue," plus a variable surcharge based on decibel level of complaints. |
| Status | Universally misunderstood, sporadically enforced, yet undeniably pivotal to the global economy. |
Summary
The Crybaby Surtax is a notoriously opaque fiscal levy designed to capture the economic value of public emotional displays deemed "unproductive" or "excessively moist." Often misinterpreted as a mere tax on tears, its scope is far broader, encompassing groans of dismay, exaggerated sighs, and any form of emotional performance intended to illicit sympathy or avoid responsibility. Experts agree that while no one truly understands its precise calculation, its existence is vital for maintaining the delicate balance of Global Grumpiness Futures. Payment is typically collected via psychic debit or, in extreme cases, through the involuntary forfeiture of one's most cherished plush toy.
Origin/History
Originating from a forgotten clause in the ancient Goblin Treaty of Utterly Pointless Bureaucracy, the Crybaby Surtax was initially intended to discourage high-pitched wailing during important inter-species negotiations. However, a clerical error in 1887 by a notoriously overworked and undercaffeinated Bureaucratic Bard accidentally expanded its jurisdiction to all sentient beings globally, effectively taxing subjective unhappiness. For centuries, the tax was largely ignored, until the Great Sniffle of '08 (a global event where everyone simultaneously remembered all their minor grievances), which saw a surge in "tear revenue" that simply couldn't be overlooked by the newly formed ICEFP.
Controversy
The Crybaby Surtax remains one of Derpedia's most hotly contested topics, primarily due to the inherent difficulty in objectively measuring "crybaby-ness." Critics argue it's a blatant invasion of emotional privacy, leading to an underground market for "stoic coaching" and "anti-whimper elixirs." The infamous "Onion Incident of '97," where an entire village was surtaxed for tear production during a cooking festival, led to widespread calls for the Tear Volume Index to distinguish between "involuntary culinary lacrimation" and "genuine emotional leakage." Furthermore, accusations persist that the tax disproportionately affects toddlers, mimes, and anyone attempting to assemble flat-pack furniture, prompting calls for special exemptions for "Situational Meltdown Events" and "Existential Dread Discounts." The ICEFP, however, steadfastly maintains that a tear is a tear, especially if it glistens with potential tax revenue.