site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   23731 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On a skim of Moore (see here for my earlier post based on the briefs):

  • The IRS wins 7-2 (Kav writing, but it read like a Roberts opinion), on the narrow grounds that a tax on realised income of a corporation imputed to the shareholders is an "income tax" and therefore legal under the 16th amendment. It avoids the question that people were excited about, and which the Court said it would answer when it granted cert, which is whether a tax on unrealised income can be an "income tax".
  • Thomas (who I expected to dissent) and Goresuch (who I did not) dissent. The tone of the dissent is that their real beef is that the majority punted on the big question - their writing on why the majority are wrong on the imputed realisation question they did answer is a bit half-hearted.
  • Barrett and Alito do not join the majority, but concur in the judgement, saying that there is a realisation requirement, but that imputed realisation meets it.
  • Jackson joins the majority, and writes separately that there are lots of ways the tax at issue might be indirect (and thus legal), including the possibility that a tax on Americans holding shares in foreign companies might be an indirect tax by analogy with tariffs and suchlike.

So on the question that made the case a hot-button case, you have 4 justices saying that there is a realisation requirement, 4 1/2 punting, and Jackson sort-of-saying that there isn't. This means that a wealth tax almost certainly loses if it reaches the Court.

Other comments:

  • Everyone involved (parties and all 9 justices) was very keen to say that they didn't want to blow up the Internal Revenue Code by saying that all forms of taxation based on imputed realisation are unconstitutional. There is a lot of casuistry about whether or not the tax at issue is distinguishable from the long-standing forms of imputed realisation (S-corps, LLPs and similar corp/partnership hybrids, personal service company taxation etc.)
  • Both the majority and the dissent write about the history from the perspective that the 16th amendment redefined income taxes as indirect, not that it made a specific type of direct tax legal. This seems silly to me.

One other point. The dissent actually calls out the majority for reading the law wrong because the majority was worried about reading where the law (in the dissent’s view) required it to go. So I’m not sure we can say all 9 were very keen not to blow up the IRC. It isn’t clear Thomas felt that was needed but seemed willing to do so if his understanding of the law so required.

Both the majority and the dissent write about the history from the perspective that the 16th amendment redefined income taxes as indirect, not that it made a specific type of direct tax legal. This seems silly to me.

It's apparently a popular opinion in legal circles these days that Pollock v Farmer's, the decision that necessitated the 16th amendment to legalize income taxes, was a terrible decision and that income taxes were always indirect taxes. This bit is, I think, a snipe in that direction, included because the 16th amendment means the Court will never get the chance to overrule Pollock itself.

I have never understood the hate, but it's a moot point now.

I think the majority opinion dropped a ton of tea leaves suggesting a wealth tax goes the opposite way without saying so explicitly.

As I write below, the dissent reads more like they think 965 could be unconstitutional as applied even if not facially (I know that isn’t what is said). I think the other thing that bothers them even if it is out of the scope of this petition is the issue of retroactivity. Taxing income earned 30 years prior seems wrong.

My prediction was:

With that model, I will guess that Roberts will guide a 5-4 or 6-3 majority that carves out a narrow decision that prevents expansion of taxation powers in the most egregious fashion while not rolling much back. Gorsuch may well pen a concurrence that's much more strident and Thomas may join him with a "yeah, and also we should burn all this shit down" opinion. Sotomayor or Jackson will pen a leftist screed that amounts to, "but if the conservatives are right, this would stop a lot of taxes that we like!" opinion. Kagan will dutifully concur, but decline to write an opinion because the reasoning is too sketchy.

I didn't go narrow enough and didn't give the liberal justices enough credit for being willing to join that narrow opinion. Likewise, I overstated just how far Gorsuch and Thomas would be willing to go. As with many decisions, the correct update is in the direction of the Justices just not actually being very radical.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats