What should a matchmaker charge a client who is genuinely harder to match? One dating coach and matchmaker gave an unusually blunt answer: more money short tax matchmaking.

Blaine Anderson recently drew widespread attention for openly discussing what she calls the “short tax” and “bald tax.” In simple terms, she suggested that shorter or bald men may need to pay higher fees for the same number of introductions because it takes more time and effort to find women willing to date them. The internet, especially the vertically and follicularly challenged corners of it, reacted with predictable outrage short tax matchmaking.

But underneath the clickbait labels lies a real industry question: In a highly personalized service like matchmaking, should pricing reflect how difficult a client is to match? And what actually makes someone “difficult”?

I looked at Anderson’s comments alongside insights from matchmaker Anna Morgenstern and dating expert Hunt Ethridge to separate controversy from practical reality.

What Actually Makes a Client Easy or Hard to Match?

Almost every experienced matchmaker says the same thing: the hardest clients are not necessarily the ones who are short, bald, older, or overweight. The hardest clients are those who refuse to adjust unrealistic expectations.

Hunt Ethridge noted that strong preferences around politics, weight, height, age, and lifestyle can significantly increase the work required. When a client cannot understand why their criteria make the search longer and harder, the process becomes exhausting for everyone.

Anna Morgenstern was even clearer. Being tall with a full head of hair does not automatically make a man easy to match. “Just because [a male client] is over 6 feet tall and has a great head of hair, it doesn’t mean he will be less overall work,” she said. She only accepts clients she would feel comfortable introducing to her own sister or friends — people who are a joy to work with and somewhat realistic short tax matchmaking.

Personality, self-awareness, emotional availability, and willingness to grow matter more than any single physical trait. A kind, flexible, emotionally mature shorter man is often easier (and more enjoyable) to match than a tall, handsome man with rigid checklists and poor attitude.

Do Matchmakers Already Charge Based on Difficulty?

Yes — many do, even if they don’t use provocative labels like “short tax.”

Matchmaking is not a one-size-fits-all product. Some clients need heavy dating coaching. Others require far more sourcing, more outreach, more persuasion of potential matches, or more hand-holding. Most professional matchmakers use tiered packages that reflect different levels of time, resources, and personalization.

Ethridge explained that matchmakers don’t invent numbers out of thin air. They calculate the real cost of recruiting. For harder searches, a matchmaker may need to hire recruiters in multiple cities, join exclusive clubs, run targeted outreach, incentivize their network, or spend heavily on advertising. All of that costs money and time.

Anderson’s packages reportedly range from $35,000 to over $100,000. Clients she considers more difficult to match (including those who are short or bald in markets where those traits face steeper preference penalties) tend to land toward the higher end. Ethridge noted that someone seeking a true “one-in-ten-million” match can easily become a $75,000–$100,000 client.

There is also what some privately call a “rude tax” or “attitude premium.” Demanding, disrespectful, or chronically negative clients often see their fees rise because they consume disproportionate emotional labor.

The Recruitment Reality Behind Higher Fees

The core of Anderson’s argument is logistical, not moral. Matchmakers are selling their time, expertise, database access, and sourcing power. If a particular client requires talking to significantly more people to generate the same number of quality dates, that client costs the business more.

In competitive dating markets, height and hair can affect response rates. That is uncomfortable to say out loud, but most people who have spent years in the industry quietly acknowledge it. Anderson simply chose to say it publicly — and with deliberately inflammatory branding.

Is a “Short Tax” or “Bald Tax” Unethical?

This is where the debate gets heated.

Critics argue that charging someone more because of an immutable physical characteristic feels discriminatory and wrong. A person’s value as a partner is not determined by height or hair. Morgenstern agrees with the fairness concern: she charges based on package level and the overall work required, not by applying a height or baldness surcharge. “I don’t think it’s fair to charge clients differently based on their height or lack of hair,” she said. Every client, she noted, requires careful attention short tax matchmaking.

Anderson maintains she is being pragmatic rather than judgmental. Physical traits do not reduce someone’s worth, she says, but they can increase the search time required to deliver results. In a results-oriented business, time is money.

There is also a business risk: overly harsh or publicly labeled “taxes” could shrink the client pool and damage reputation. At the same time, the extreme selectivity and honesty of high-end matchmaking is exactly why many people pay premium prices instead of using free apps.

What This Means for Clients and the Industry

For potential clients:

• The more flexible and self-aware you are, the easier (and often cheaper) you are to work with.
• Attitude and realistic expectations frequently matter more than any single physical trait.
• If a matchmaker quotes a very high fee, ask what specific extra resources that fee covers.

For matchmakers:

• Transparency about pricing factors builds more trust than secret surcharges.
• Focusing on coaching and expectation management often reduces difficulty more effectively than simply charging more.
• Provocative marketing can get attention, but it can also alienate the very people who might become excellent long-term clients.

Practical Takeaways for Anyone Dating in 2026

Whether you hire a matchmaker or date on your own, the same principles apply:

• Extreme pickiness based on secondary traits shrinks your options dramatically.
• Working on the factors you can control (fitness, style, social skills, emotional intelligence, photos, profile) usually yields better returns than resenting the factors you cannot.
• The best “matches” often happen when both people show up as pleasant, open, and growth-oriented rather than as perfect physical specimens.

Final Thoughts

The short tax matchmaking debate is uncomfortable because it forces us to confront an awkward truth: in dating, supply and demand still exist, and some traits face steeper market penalties than others. Blaine Anderson’s blunt framing lit the internet on fire, but the underlying question is legitimate.

Should matchmakers charge more when a search objectively requires more time and resources? Many already do, quietly, through tiered pricing. Whether they should openly call it a “short tax” or “bald tax” is a different, more questionable choice.

In the end, the matchmakers who thrive long-term will probably be those who combine honest assessment of difficulty with genuine respect for every client’s humanity — and who help people become easier to match by coaching them, not just by charging them extra.

What do you think — is difficulty-based pricing fair, or should matchmakers charge everyone the same regardless of how hard they are to match?
Share your honest take in the comments.

Related reading on intentional dating:

• How to Become a More “Matchable” Person
• Best Dating Apps for Serious Relationships 2026
• Red Flags and Green Flags in High-Value Dating
• How to Work With a Matchmaker Successfully
• Online Dating Safety Tips
• Free vs Paid Dating – What’s Actually Worth It

Looks matter in dating. Character, realism, and kindness usually matter more. The smartest clients (and matchmakers) optimize for both short tax matchmaking.