site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   26059 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 29, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why TIPS? Do you ladder treasuries for deep cash? SGOV/BIL holder here.

BOXX > SGOV for tax reasons, in my opinion.

SGOV dividends are largely federal tax exempt since it's 90%+ treasuries. I don't think that's the case for BOXX?

No. SGOV dividends (as well as treasuries) are taxed as ordinary income at a rate of up to 40.8%. Add in state taxes, and you're paying nearly half of your already paltry income. It's a very bad deal.

BOXX is taxed as capital gains and only when you sell. If you hold for a year, the maximum rate is 23.8%. Note that this is a somewhat novel product so there might be ruling against it in the future, but in theory it works.

Perhaps you are confusing SGOV for a muni, which is generally not taxed at the federal level. These have other downsides, such as higher risk and lower yields.

In any case, lending money to the government is a pretty awful deal. They dilute you constantly and charge you extortive taxes for the privilege. In the end you're much better off owning a shiny rock (might write a post about this later).

No. SGOV dividends (as well as treasuries) are taxed as ordinary income at a rate of up to 40.8%. Add in state taxes, and you're paying nearly half of your already paltry income. It's a very bad deal.

No, you're definitely mistaken.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/taxes/how-government-bonds-are-taxed

Federal bonds, including treasuries, are state tax exempt (though you still pay federal tax).

In any case, lending money to the government is a pretty awful deal. They dilute you constantly and charge you extortive taxes for the privilege. In the end you're much better off owning a shiny rock (might write a post about this later).

VTSAX right now is paying more than almost any bank account and the taxes are less than you'd pay on bank interest due to the state tax exemption. It's not bad for an asset as safe as a savings account.

Comparing zero risk assets to gold doesn't really make sense.

In case anyone is reading this far down. You said: "SGOV dividends are largely federal tax exempt since it's 90%+ treasuries."

Now you posted a link that said the opposite.

I'll concede that states might not tax the dividends of SGOV. CA appears not to. https://old.reddit.com/r/tax/comments/1194lbk/treatment_of_treasury_income_in_etf_for_state/

Other states might. ChatGPT-4 thinks they do, but could be hallucinating.

In any case, in order of tax advantage, for high earnings, it's pretty clearly:

BOXX > SGOV > Bank interest

Yeah, I was mistaken about the federal taxes. But for state tax they are exempt. So the math in your original post exaggerates the tax advantage (since you are missing state cap gains tax). Depends on jurisdiction and income obviously.

That said, BOXX also carries the risk of the IRS saying that you can't actually do that, at which point it's no better than the savings account. It also might turn out to be a fraud and go to zero, which is probably less likely with things like VUSXX.

The TIPS are for my version of a liability matching portfolio. The main idea is to ensure that we have an inflation-adjusted income floor in retirement that matches current spending, so that in theory our lifestyle will not need to change for financial reasons.

In our particular case I am penciling in my retirement at 63 and wife's when I am 68 (she is younger). We'll both start drawing SS when I am 70. So I need amount A for years 63-67, amount B for years 68-69, and amount C for years 70+ (currently planned through 82). These amounts are obviously estimates but reasonably good ones, and they exclude items like college which are accounted for separately. Once these floors are established, then the majority of the rest of the portfolio will be in global stock index funds with some in Treasurys.

I have about 2/3 of this locked in already. Currently there is a gap in TIPS availability from 2035-2039 which coincides with part of my plan. The 2035s will be available next year as 10y and I will just buy them as they become available. Then for some of the other years I will fill in as money becomes available.

This strategy is not for everyone but my wife is particularly risk averse and we do not need to take any additional risks to ensure a solid retirement. My goal is to preserve our current lifestyle - I'm not trying to hit the jackpot. The overall allocation is about 33% stock, 39% TIPS, 28% T-bills at this point.

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