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 -
The position I'm responding to is that Trump cracking a few eggs of norms is worth it if that's what it takes to get the debt under control I'm pointing out that we're getting eggs cracked and the debt is not being taken under control. I'm sure we could have some debate about how best to get the debt under control, I agree some reductions in entitlements, particularly the absurd wealth transfer from the young to the old that is medicare and to a slightly less absurd degree social security come to mind. But as far as I can tell we have a bunch of cracked eggs and rather than a balanced budget omelet we have nothing to show for it. Of course the most obvious place to start would be getting rid of the literal trillions of dollars(over a decade) in tax cuts that he passed.
I would like the extra costs to be put towards paying down the debt, having a lower debt burden is in fact a way us tax payers are benefiting.
Yeah, so tying tax increases with actual entitlement spending cuts would in theory be palatable. But you're going to piss off the groups who rely on that spending, who can then vote for people who promise to restore the spending and keep the taxes high.
So the promise of "I'm raising your taxes, but don't worry I'm only using it to decrease the debt" is not intrinsically reliable.
That's the Gordian knot, as it were.
You don't have to actually cut entitlements at all. You can just raise taxes and use that money to pay down the debt(or at least close the deficit so you aren't creating more debt). The guy in the the white house can make that call. My point is we're currently breaking eggs and receiving no omelet.
I think various high-tax European countries are showing how that process doesn't really work.
Doubly so if your country's entitlements can be hijacked by racially-motivated interest groups.
Entitlements tend to be 'nonproductive' spending. Taking money out of productive investments to spend on nonproductive ends is... not going to grow GDP, which is going to hurt tax revenues over the longer term.
Europe's problem is strangulating regulation. I should note that I don't love taxes and prefer they be low. My only point is that you can't forgo tax revenue and then bemoan the national debt. You pay for the debt with taxes.
And you pay for taxes with production and you get more production if you don't tax productivity.
Round and round it goes.
And if we're being really technical, they could also pay the debt by selling off various assets, including the millions upon millions of acres of land they hold. This would have possible undesirable impacts, I grant, but its a lever they could indeed pull.
Trump could try to do that. (Oh wait.) If someone really wants to make a 'dent' in the debt crisis that should, honestly, be on the table.
So I'm really not disagreeing with the idea that its hard, and raising taxes will be part of it. I just think the political will to directly impose higher income tax doesn't exist.
So why don't we take your plan to it's obvious logical conclusion, say "who cares about the debt" and just stop collecting taxes all together?
ENDORSED.
Just inflate the debt away to virtually nothing, swap to a Gold and/or Bitcoin standard, and keep rolling.
Man, I'm basically an Anarcho-Capitalist, I will bite those bullets like candy.
And I am not joking. I live in Florida. We have no income tax. We have no estate/gift tax, we have comparatively low property taxes. And we're discussing getting rid of the property taxes altogether. Most revenue is sales tax.
And we've run a $10+ billion dollar surplus in recent years. There's just shy of $5 billion sitting in the 'rainy day fund' for emergencies. Spending is PROACTIVELY being cut just in case we get a recession in the near future.
I fucking love it. I'm actually quite tired of having to deal with the profligate spending of the Federal Government whilst living in an overall fiscally responsible state.
I expect that the U.S. economy would probably survive the FedGov defaulting on its debt. How each state would weather that storm is a bigger question, but the fact that the U.S. can so readily fall back on its constituent political units definitely makes it more flexible.
So hey, I say RETVRN to a system that apportions federal taxes amongst the states and makes said states figure out how to raise that money or, if the burden is deemed too high, acts to get the FedGov to constrain its spending.
But under the current political reality, I'm very interested in seeing how FedGov navigates the current crisis and avoids a default situation.
Ok so you want to default on the debt and then switch to a hard currency that would make doing this again impossible and thus you'd have to have higher taxes because you cannot deficit spend. This is a very silly plan.
Well yes, your state is where a tremendous amount of those social security and Medicare dollars are being funneled to from younger states to retirees. florida is the fifth oldest state
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link