site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   33107 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 9, 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.

In a nutshell, they require massive periodic selloffs of stocks to pay for, which will have tons of second order effects. That in addition to the fact that the government already pulls in enough tax money to piss down the drain/burn in a giant fire, it doesn't need more.

Why on earth would anyone believe that the way to attack a strategy that relies on a very specific step up basis policy was to invent an entirely new type of tax? This makes no sense at all. End the step up basis, I'm on board, why would you keep the strategy working and but then add another tax on top instead of actually fixing it?

Taxing unrealized gains is dumb regardless of what other actions are taken. One does not depend on the other.

If you are rich enough to use that strategy, you still are paying the full 40% on most of your estate. That more than makes up for not paying the lower capital gains tax.

Your interest rate will not be particularly favorable unless the bank is confident that even if the stock significantly devalues you will still pay them back.

There is a reason that this "strategy" is mostly just a speculative law review article and like 1 example. No one complaining about bie borrow die has ever demonstrated that its actually being used to any large extent.

I would love to learn more about this. Happy to read a link if you don't feel like explaining.

https://x.com/RyanHanley_Com/status/1826286357892784269

Tax loss harvesting isn't "avoiding" paying capital gains any more than deducting expenses "avoids" paying tax on profits.

If one of your stocks goes from $10 to $20 and the other from $20 to $10, you haven't actually made any gains for the governemt to tax

Little slips like this convince me the whole thing is an excuse for seizing all assets that aren't owned by blackrock or NGOs.

I keep saying it: somebody is going to have to pay for the black holes that are state budgets because interest on debt is reaching critical levels.

Since all the value is piling into investments to avoid inflation, now governments are trying to seize those investments. Property taxes and seizure of government backed pension schemes have both been floated already.

property taxes... have been floated already.

I have bad news for you...

I meant wealth taxes, my ESL ass keeps tripping over taxation jargon somehow.

somebody is going to have to pay for the black holes that are state budgets

State budgets, in the administration department, are generally themselves welfare schemes. People who benefit from that will never vote for a party that promises to put the brakes on that, which is why the Democrats are the interest party of those people. They have to be.

Will public employees' voting power to make sure they keep receiving those benefits outrank the voting power of the old (though young men are increasingly catching on) to not pay them? Well, stay tuned...

Usually, in cases like these, the two interest groups put their heads together to do something both stupid and evil, and this is called compromise.

This compromise is likely to be inflation.

If one of your stocks goes from $10 to $20 and the other from $20 to $10, you haven't actually made any gains for the governemt to tax

From the pro-tax perspective, if you make $10 on one stock you should be taxed on it; if you lose $10 on another stock, too bad so sad. Why would they give up the tax on the first stock just because you lost money on some unrelated stock?

Because we have an income tax; not a takings

It's already the rule that gains in certain categories can't be offset against losses in other categories. I have no doubt making it so each and every financial instrument one owned had to be treated separately is the kind of thing people who like taxes would put in place.

Yes capital losses can’t offset OI. But by and large we have a system where we look to net income.

If you wanted to target buy-borrow-die, you can just eliminate the step-up basis. Much simpler and less distortionary than unrealized gains taxes.

It would be more focused to target buy-borrow-die by expanding the definition of realization to include using the asset as collateral for a loan. Buy for $100, take out loan for $90 secured on asset, no tax liability. Notice that the asset is now more valuable. Convince lender that the increase in value is durable. Take out another $90 loan secured on the asset. Now you have realized $180 so a $80 gain becomes taxable, and you have money (the loan) to pay it without having to sell the asset.

And taxing unrealized gains has also been avoided since 1913.

It doesn’t follow that unrealized capital gains is good just because you can’t get your preferred option. But if the point is “it’s hard to remove the step up on death” presumably that’s easier compared to a whole new idea of “let’s tax unrealized gains.” The former is something that most people can grok. The latter is confiscatory.

Buy, borrow, die doesn't seem to actually be enough of a problem as to make unrealized gains taxes a reasonable alternative.

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