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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Low corporate tax and low capital gains taxes are good, they're encourage people to invest in capital. Having more factories, office buildings, etc. is good. Inheritance tax is tricky imo because on one hand taxing large fortunes going to people who did nothing to earn them directly is good, but on the other hand you're double taxing it- all that wealth was already originally taxed when the person originally earned it.
Probably the best way to target the wealthy is luxury items tax, like charging them big when they actually frivously spend that wealth on stuff like yachts or $10k bottles of wine or anything else that is very expensive but adds little value to wider society. But figuring out what items are a reasonable purchase for a middle class person or a capital investment for a business vs a luxury purchase for an elite is very tricky in practice I think and every prone for loop holes
I strongly disagree with this. It is no business of the state to decide how anyone spends their money after death. What is the meaningful difference between giving your children $10M when you die versus giving that to a local animal shelter? The animal shelter didn't do anything to "earn" that money either. It's the decedent's money and the only reason the state can take any of it is because the owner isn't around to protest anymore. If you can't do it to people when they're alive and able to complain about it, you shouldn't be able to do it to them when they're dead and can't fight back.
It's good in the sense that any tax can be good. The state taking someone's money while they're alive to fund public necessary projects and services is good in a consequentialist sense. It's theft, but taxing someone's income so the government is able to pay a public school teacher their salary instead of that person buying a new car is good. And I think taxing large fortunes that are going to people who didn't earn them is even better than taxing income. Except for how it'd be double taxed, which does feel unfair.
I don't think there are any easy solutions to optimal taxation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So soon we forget the story of the ill-fated US 10% luxury tax. tl;dr took down the yacht industry, mildly annoyed the rich.
Planning out smart taxes really isn't easy stuff, I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe just limit it to tariffs on foreign made luxuries? Or what the author suggested and put the luxury tax on already made stuff like old artwork and antiques. That might help solve the tax loop hole where a rich person buys a painting for $1 million, gets a guy to appraise it as worth $2 million a couple years later, then donate it to a charity and get a huge tax write off because it looks like they donated $2 million when they really donated $1 million
That's not a tax loophole, it's fraud. A loophole is a legal, non-fraudulent way to avoid taxes and is typically the result of the state trying to use the tax code to do social engineering.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link