site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   16183 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026

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.

Jokes about the right wing German tendency to flee to Argentina aside, I think it's entirely for economic reasons.

California has proposed a wealth tax recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if it went through.

Unless he gives up his US citizenship he's still getting taxed on his income and such. He doesn't gain any more protection from IRS taxes by moving to Argentina vs Texas or Puerto Rico.

Unless he gives up his US citizenship he's still getting taxed on his income and such. He doesn't gain any more protection from IRS taxes by moving to Argentina vs Texas or Puerto Rico.

As another poster pointed out, moving to Argentina might help with state and local taxes in the US. Although if you are leaving a high tax state like California, New York, or New Jersey, from what I understand you have to sell your house and really cut ties. And even then, you can expect an aggressive residency audit.

But I mainly responded to your post that unlike anywhere else in the world, moving to Puerto Rico does have the potential to help a US citizen avoid federal taxes. You have to jump through a lot of hoops and the stars must align, but from what I understand you can bring your tax rate from 37% all the way down to 4%.

You don't have to sell your house, but if you keep it you do have to spend less than ~180 days in the state. I think this is similar in low-tax states but they aren't as aggressive about enforcing it as New York.

You don't have to sell your house, but if you keep it you do have to spend less than ~180 days in the state.

I am pretty sure you are wrong here. From what I understand, there are two ways New Jersey can consider you a resident for purposes of taxes: (1) if you are domiciled in New Jersey; or (2) if you maintain a residence in New Jersey and spend more than 183 days. In theory, a person who spends 7 days a year in New Jersey can be considered a domiciliary if he leaves the state without intending to cut ties.

Avoiding having NJ as your domicile is easy; you just establish one somewhere else. You can do that without selling your house. What bites people is when they're domiciled somewhere else but have both residential property and business reasons to come to NJ (keeping in mind going through Newark Airport is sufficient)

Avoiding having NJ as your domicile is easy; you just establish one somewhere else.

While in theory it's just a matter of establishing a domicile somewhere else, in practice I don't think it's that easy.
Here's an article which claims that for purposes of domicile, a past domiciliary must NOT maintain a permanent home in New Jersey:

https://www.domicile365.com/Articles/New-Jersey-State-Tax-Residency.html

I'm not sure how accurate the article is, but it's important to keep in mind that in high tax jurisdictions like New York, California, and New Jersey, the authorities are very hostile to claims that a person has moved out of the state, particularly if they have gone somewhere like Florida or Texas. If there is an indication that you are trying to move "on paper," it's going to be a challenge to avoid the taxes.

No, it says that IF New Jersey is your domicile, you can avoid being a resident for tax purposes by not maintaining a permanent home in New Jersey, maintaining a permanent home somewhere else, and spending less than 30 days in New Jersey. This would apply mostly to students and military, I think, though possibly some people on temporary job assignments -- e.g. if you take a 1-year assignment in Dubai where you rent a place to live, but intend to return to New Jersey, you might be still domiciled in New Jersey, but not a resident for tax purposes.

Since you only have one domicile at a time, it's easy to satisfy the domicile test by setting up a domicile elsewhere.

Since you only have one domicile at a time, it's easy to satisfy the domicile test by setting up a domicile elsewhere.

In theory this is correct, but in practice -- as I mentioned above -- you are dealing with hostile and aggressive tax authorities. Here is an excerpt from one article:

To successfully change residency from New Jersey or New York to Florida, taxpayers should take the following steps:

Sell or rent out the property located in the former domicile. Simply owning property in a taxpayer’s former domicile does not automatically make one a resident; however, maintaining significant ties to these states can. Selling or renting out the property in an arms-length lease is perhaps the strongest evidence of a taxpayer’s intent to abandon their former domicile.

https://www.njcpa.org/article/2024/12/03/moving-to-florida--tax-considerations-and-pitfalls

Generally speaking, a taxpayer’s domicile is the place the taxpayer considers their permanent home, and those domiciled in New Jersey will be considered New Jersey residents for tax purposes. While a taxpayer cannot have two domiciles, their domicile will not be changed until the former state of residence is abandoned. Thus, a taxpayer will be considered domiciled in Florida if he or she is able to prove two elements: (1) the taxpayer must change his or her actual state of residence; and (2) the taxpayer must show an intent to abandon the former state of residence. The taxpayer bears the burden of proving each element by “clear and convincing evidence.” Because this is a subjective “facts and circumstances” test which focuses on the intent of the taxpayer, taxpayers wishing to change their domicile must carefully plan their move, and their actions should evidence a change in domicile. The following is a non-exhaustive list of factors which should be considered when changing domicile:

  1. Sell or lease any property in New Jersey, if possible.

https://summitfinancial.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/NJ-to-FL-Domicile-Change-6.20.23.pdf

And here is an article regarding the burden of proof:

Critically, the party asserting a change of domicile has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taxpayer abandoned his or her historic domicile and moved to the new location with the intent to remain there permanently.

https://www.hodgsonruss.com/assets/htmldocuments/Residency%20Audit%20Booklet%20-%201.6.23.pdf

So in practice, if you hold on to your New Jersey residence and set up a domicile somewhere like Florida or Texas, you can expect a very aggressive and hostile audit. There's a real risk that an auditor (and an administrative law judge) will simply decide not to believe you when you swear up and down that you really truly intended to leave the state and set up a domicile elsewhere.

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