site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 15, 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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The traditional economics is that taxing capital doesn’t raise any net tax revenue.

A short summary is all this stuff goes thru the capital markets. A country with high saved wealth has more money sitting in financial assets. A huge amount of financial assets causes money to bid up the price of financial assets. The reverse of a securities price is its yield. Hence a lot of saved assets ends up leading to things like lower real interest rates (or negative real rates). So cheap mortgages and cheap government borrowing. What the government gains in tax revenue is offset by increases in their interest expense. All sums up to 0 net government revenue.

The traditional economics is that taxing capital doesn’t raise any net tax revenue.

This doesn't seem right to me at all. Obviously there are distortionary effects, but you're effectively saying the laffer curve reaches its apex at 0%, which doesn't jive with traditional economics.

Yes, a higher capgains rate will theoretically lead to somewhat higher interest rates, but I find it exceedingly unlikely that it would perfectly cancel out especially when marginal investors decide to spend their money instead, leading to an increase in revenues through consumption taxes.

Capital gains (at least as currently taxed) are extremely sensitive to tax rate because the taxpayer can choose to sell or not sell (ie it isn’t like income). So if you have a higher capital gains tax you likely will have less gains because taxpayers obtain a better ROI leaving their pre tax investment in asset X instead of their post tax investment in asset Y.

As a practical matter, a lower CGT is one where lower taxes might actually be revenue raising.

That just kicks the can down the road a bit. They eventually sell if they want to get access to the money to do other stuff with it.

The lock in effect is studied and is real. Again, the higher the capital gains rate the higher ROI to stay invested in the same asset.

Think of it this way. You invest 100 dollars in Apple stock. It appreciates to 150. You could sell and pay 10 of tax on the gain leaving you with 140 to invest. Or you could keep 150 exposed to Apple. Provided the return on that 10 outstrips the ROI on the 140 invested in non Apple stock, I keep my money in the Apple stock.

Also there are strategies to monetize without triggering gain (eg leverage, death).

I don't deny the lock in effect is real and present to some degree, but it's not a way to avoid taxes, only to delay them a bit. Owning stocks is not an end unto itself for most people, they're a vehicle to get returns, either through dividends or appreciation. So yes, they can own the Apple stock for longer, but eventually they'll sell which triggers the full effect of the tax.

Also there are strategies to monetize without triggering gain (eg leverage, death).

The death loophole is bad and should definitely be closed. I'm not sure how leverage could be used to avoid taxes, but it should probably be closed as well.

Leverage just enables you to get the cash today and pay tax much later (or maybe never with death). Delaying taxes over a long enough time period is effectively avoiding taxes from an NPV perspective.

That's just more can-kicking then, not an actual way to avoid taxes.

At this point, I don’t know what you are even arguing. The point was that CGT are highly sensitive to the tax rate because you can easily avoid paying tax today. Also the higher the CGT rate the more the lock in effect. So a lower CGT rate easily can lead to more capital gains!

Are you arguing no?

More comments