site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29603 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes wealthy people would be paying a larger share under this sytem and the benefits would be distributed downwards, like most other taxes.

Someone making $160k/yr in NYC or SF, while very fortunate, is likely quite far from being wealthy. The New Yorker would need a roomate to afford median rent, and neither can afford the median home.

This proposal doesn't hit people making over $160k, it hits people making over $250k, about 100 stacks more and solidly in the top 5% of the nation. I empathize with their higher cost of living, but if we have a funding shortfall, who other than the most well off should we be raising taxes on first?

but if we have a funding shortfall, who other than the most well off should we be raising taxes on first?

Its always best to tax people who can't avoid the tax. Which means things like VATs, Payroll taxes, and sales taxes. All the most efficient taxes are flat or regressive. Taxing the rich is a waste of time and resources with little actual benefit to the treasury.

Its always best to tax people who can't avoid the tax. Which means things like VATs, Payroll taxes, and sales taxes.

Yes, this is a tax on payroll.

Sure, but then its still another progressive tax. Which is also a bad type of tax. The more regressive, the less it will impact economic choices.

Because the $250,000 isn't indexed to inflation it's just a slow transition into removing the cap on taxed income while providing benefits only on the social security max income. We've already increased taxes significantly to cover these future benefits. It's high time for benefit shortfalls to match funding shortfalls.

Because the $250,000 isn't indexed to inflation it's just a slow transition into removing the cap on taxed income while providing benefits only on the social security max income.

Yeah, the title of that section was "Raise the Payroll Cap", this wasn't hidden. Unpleasant decisions will half to be made either way, a decade and a half transition from the payroll cap that fundraises a trillion in the first decade off the top 5% of earners is one of the more reasonable ones I've seen.

It's high time for benefit shortfalls to match funding shortfalls.

Should we cut benefits by over almost a quarter? That's what we're on track to do currently.

Should we cut benefits by over almost a quarter? That's what we're on track to do currently.

Yes! Or more when that's necessary. I'd much prefer very low incomes were supplemented with on-budget, means tested assistance.

In practice, what does this look like? I honestly haven’t looked too much into the impact of cutting benefits (partially cause I consider it somewhat inevitable), but what are we thinking the consequences would be?

Right now our replacement rate is about 75%, cutting benefits by our projected shortfall would bring it to about 55-60%, which seems like a pretty massive drop in living standards for the quarter of Americans receiving SS.

Means testing seems maybe unnecessary given that we already have all the income data and do use it to factor in some progressivity to the payouts. We could just change the skew to slant even more towards lower income earners and away from the better off.

I would prefer if support were separated from social security. So I'd rather see something like the EITC for seniors whose AGI is below the federal poverty line get topped up to the poverty line separately.

My ideal policy would be a defined benefit national savings program something akin to superannuation with explicit government support for anyone who has AGI from all sources below the federal poverty line. So my proposed changes are an attempt to shift to something that could eventually become that.

I prefer this as it makes support explicit and easily measurable for future decision makers, the savings in the program goes to heirs if one dies before receiving some or all of it so it's fairer to people who die earlier, and having some of the money invested in equities and internationally buffers some of the monetary effects of boom generations on asset prices.

I empathize with their higher cost of living, but if we have a funding shortfall, who other than the most well off should we be raising taxes on first?

The most numerous, who already aren't paying their share of the tax burden.

From my OP:

  1. Raise Payroll Taxes - “even a modest change, such as a gradual increase of 0.3 percentage points each for employees and employers (or less than $3 per week for an average earner), could close about one-fifth of the gap.”

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